The 1.5 C goal is absolutely unachievable. 'The global temperature pushed past the internationally agreed warming threshold for a 12-month period, with February 2023 to January 2024 running 1.52C hotter than pre-industrial levels, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service of the European Space Agency.' These organisations that over the decades continue to suppress and obfuscate our predicament keep moving the goalposts for this almost arbitrary 1.5C limit. The trick they've pulled to achieve this is to keep altering the averages, so instead of a 12 month average, they make it a 30 or 50 year average lol. I understand 12 month's doesn't tell the full picture due to fluctuations such as El Nino and La Nina, but after the coming la nina I can't ever see it dropping below 1.5C again. Either way, our demise is set in stone. The time to act was decades ago. Even if we miraculously achieved net zero tomorrow, it won't suddenly make the current GHGs in the atmosphere disappear (there is a lag effect so the planet would carry on heating up). So keeping that in mind, we're still pumping out inordinate amounts of CO2 into the air without any serious signs of reducing it meaningfully. Approx 520 private jets were used to transport people home after the Superbowl the other day lmao
Sure, the 1.5°c is nonsense but more for the fact that it is a global average and that is in itself a fiction. The concentration of GHGs is a better measure. It doesn't help too much while emissions are rising and things are getting worse but at least it makes more sense!
I agree the concentration of GHGs is an important metric, however I disagree that global average temperature is nonsense. The average sea surface temperature and 2m above ground average temperatures are both great imo. I'd be interested to know why you think otherwise?
@@SamWilkinsonnPolar Gradient in paleo-climatology more usually Polar Amplification Arctic can heat 10c but diluted on global avg by only subtle avg changes in equatorial belt
@@DrSmooth2000 I mean great, but what are you implying? The reason global average temps are useful indicators is to see how much net energy/heat is being transferred into the atmosphere and oceans. Polar amplification is accounted for in the global average temperatures. I may have misinterpreted your intentions with the comment, it might be worth explaining the point you're trying to make in future.
@@SamWilkinsonn suppose impossible to gauge the perceptive inference ability of one's co-communicators with on Internet. Especially with non-native speakers in the mix. You asked why the host might find issue with global average as a metric. I chipped in example of one notable 'issue' Guess shouldn't have hazarded a speculation as to his concerns. Studying the Pliocene last night and fresh in my head remarkable fact Arctic was like +10 and global average was only up +2 to 3 (and at 400ppm to begin with and falling -- but theirs was a world coming from a Hothouse state into ice age and we are doing something rather opposite) In short to medium run the increased planetary average is less relevant the lower latitude you are. Global Avg is a useful shorthand. PPM might be just as good -- but of course there is increasing appreciation of methane lately -- although that's harder to account for in paleo record so we can't 'translate' back and forth from historical to paleo (afaik) while using "CO2e" No doubt I confused you further. Hopefully some readers understand me.
Pardon me if I missed it but I believe that in this sort of presentation it is important to mention that there are clear indicators in the geologic record for the AMOC shutting down.
Yes there is record that it has shut down in the past, the fact we have it today also shows it can come back if the right conditions come into effect. It would be interesting to see a model(s) of what could bring it back in case it does fail at some point.
When it happened last, it resulted in a climate temperature spike due to rapidly melting methane clathrate. This is a major tipping point if / when it happens again.
Thanks again for the interviews. Regarding the discussion of what actions policymakers would take based on evidence provided through scientific research like the research presented here I think what is missing from the discussion is a sociological framework. I especially like the former French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his ideas around habitus and the different forms of capital (economic, social, and cultural) as a way of explaining the subjective state of society and social structures as reproduced by people given their class associations/identifications. It really parallels metaphysical ideas in that there is a deep unconsciousness to how people reproduce their social reality. To have the ability to understand physical reality is actually a privileged position in society as the great majority of peoples simply absorb social structures passively and reproduce them without conscious effort so it is always a backward looking process (I call it a historical and subjective dialectic). So that is why we have Trump. To state things metaphysically is to say that in order for society to begin to face these multiple crises there has to come about a fundamental change in human consciousness where it is no longer about social identification which is deeply subjective and backward looking. If you follow people like Andrew Glikson, the paleo-climatologist, the paleo record would show systematic failure in multiple systems given increasingly higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Of course it is our society's historical point of view that our society prospered by "conquering nature" and all that and is individualistic. To come out of these delusions requires a broader view of what a human being is so we can relieve ourselves of class distinctions and begin to face our physical reality.
I too miss the social-psychological/philosophical/metaphysical element in the debate. Many people believe that technology will be the saviour of this predicament, but I'm convinced that this alone won't do. It's, as you say, human consciousness that needs to change. When you say that it "requires a broader view of what a human being is", I would even go one step further and propose that it's needed to - at least to some extent - overcome the "human condition", explore the metaphysical nature of one's true self without the blinders that humanity and human society impose. It is to let go of human superiority and exceptionalism, and to accept a new understanding of wholeness with nature beyond the physical. However, we classic environmentalists know this since at least 30 years, and I for my part have been greatly disappointed by human society. I don't see willingness to change, and I've let go of any illusion that that which didn't happen for over three decades will still happen in time. The "window of opportunity" has been open for long, but I call it naive to believe that it will be used. I believe this species will be driven to the edge of extinction before true change is made. But that is eventually all right for me, for I've mentally let go of humanity years ago. The damage done to biodiversity is what concerns me more.
@@amberazurescale5617 if I may interject with what little insight I have left. There is a gradual, however slow in speed and size, shift in human understanding of their essence in the grand scheme of it all. The works of Ian McGhilchrist and John Vervaeke influence a drastic shift in re-understanding nature in a new, more alive way - moving away from compartmentalized abstractness. I have delved extensively into phenomenology, and the more I read the more confused I have become; not due to reasons of not being able to understand the epistemology that phenomenology deals with but that this very branch of philosophy implicitly illuminates how absurd human thought can be once it detaches from reality and retreats into a solipsistic chamber. To entertain the notion of "the others," as Emmanuel Levinas writes in "Totality and Infinity," and as Husserl/Heidegger's supposition that "others do exist too" argue, is to illuminate how abstract philosophy and reductive materialistic science have become. As a final reflection, I too find myself under existential doubt in regards to loosening the grip of faith on humanity. It is a tough battle for empathy, as at times, becomes a costly matter to well-being.
@@amberazurescale5617 thank you for your comment- but I do think that human beings have the capacity to self reflect and to fully express consciousness and in that full expression will naturally take actions which would support the well being of themselves, the community, and nature. I hypothesize that it is how we think that disables our ability to act and that our thinking is backward looking.
The great majority of people lack the depth of thought to appreciate such insights. They are locked into the immediacy of satisfying their creature comforts & believe food will always be on store shelves, that chaos & destruction will only happen to others, & that aliens or a mythical god will save them from the consequences of their actions.
What was the story with "80 times"? That wasn't really clear. He seems to say that in their model it would need 80 times the melt rate of Greenland and thus 80 times the influx of sweet water? Doesn't that mean the model is at maximum only relevant in showing the principal possibility of flipping AMOC by too much melt water, but nothing about the actual likelihood of this happening in the next hundreds of years. He doesn't seem to be arguing that we're very close to a potential flip of AMOC. This should be better clarified since now all kinds of news articles are written that talk about an imminent ice age in Europe in the very near future, and they do it in a tone of confidence that will frighten the heck out of many. The Economic Times has an article titled "Melting glaciers threaten Gulf Stream collapse by 2025". This is most likely BS, and that's no good: Because when the reality is properly presented, the hype gets quickly refuted, and then the "evil climate deniers" have a hay day. So, please don't push climate panic, especially if it's just for fame. It makes climate science untrustworthy, and it can backfire badly.
If I understand part of the article correctly (probably not but giving it a shot), predicting an AMOC tipping is done by checking the 'minimum of the AMOC-induced freshwater transport at 34degrees S in the Atlantic (Fovs)" as a measure of AMOC stability. Current models, however, have a freshwater bias, resulting in positive values for Fovs whereas in reality its value and trend are already negative. So the current model is flawed and not really suitable to show the tipping point because it doesn't easily let you get to negative. In the current model, zero would be reached by 2075. But again, it is currently already negative. To compensate for that, they are inputting massive amounts of influx just to check if theoretically, a tipping point would happen in the current model. And it does. So I would think after that the model has to be 'fixed' and so we can see how much influx would be really needed to get the tipping point; once the bias is gone, it will be a lot less that 80 times the current amount to trigger it. How much, they don't know, but the trend is already in the wrong direction. The 2025 date IS bullsh*t, the researcher said, as they simply cannot say, only that we are heading towards it, the AMOC is not stable. Hope this helps a bit and is in at least some respects what is actually being said in the article and show.
Yet shorter - scientists check their models by "overloading" with freshwater input 80 times - freshwater input being the one factor to trigger AMOC breakdown. He found he needed so much extra freshwater loaded into the model, they reckoned the results weren't realistic. They think the trigger point is at a far lower input of freshwater, or, the model is insufficiently sensitive to changing climate factors like freshwater. I would make a safe bet and declare most official models are far too insensitive to extra carbon emissions, and fail to timely recognize tipping points . IPCC models are way behind actual measured climate change events, and we will likely be caught out be surprise by weather extremes which models expect only by 2050 or later. One of the climate shocks I expect sooner is simultanuos crop failures around the globe due to stagnant weather patterns, causing droughts in one place, flooding elsewhere. We getting a pretast in Europe, heatwaves in the North and South, flooding in the middle. Farmers here complain about soggy soil which will lead to a bad year with low yields. Prices will go up. Climate inflation, the new phenomenon, but only a presage of things to come.
Most policy makers and representatives from industry that I have met with will not listen to anything related to the AMOC. I was in forum a few weeks ago and the arguments against were this: -Risk is very low of a collapse, probably just a variation in strength If a tipping point does occur it will take at least 1000 years to reach it. Nothing related to the AMOC will affect human activity for at least 1000 years, in any way. ...and the issue died right there. Selectivity of information tends many policymakers and industry to choose the outcomes that are in favour of development status quo; in my experience. I see a significant risk here. However I don't think there is really anything we can do now to mitigate it effectively. Instead, we must begin to focus on socioecolocical climate resilience and make our infrastructure climate durable.
I did a lot of modelling in my telecomm days, and a fundamental problem with models is they don't react well to positive feedbacks. Unless artificially damped, these feedbacks tend to quickly drive the model into bizarre states.
Feedback cycles are not discussed here. Modelling limitations and unexpected outcomes have to be lived with [better explanations would help] - as doing physical experiments on the scale of AMOC are not feasible.
@@eddygrunge4749 Models are discussed here, and issues with modelling are relevant to the discussion. And yeah "unexpected outcomes" have to be "lived with", as at this point homo stupidus has no choice but to ride down the path it created to extinction.
I can help you. you need superposition principle. But the AMOC has already collapsed in March 2023 . check SST of Atlantic ocean. Apply superposition principle (like in electronics circuts) Q= m x c x deltaT ,but now for heat transported /s >> Q/s = m /s x c x deltaT. If water mass transported / second decrease and power of sun (Q/s ) stay the same delta T will increase by this simple formula. , The lack of sea ice, there is less convection in Arctic. Fresh water from greenland is a result of the heating not the cause of the collapse. Northern hemisphere will heat, not cool down.
Remember an interview on Nate Hagens "Great Simplification" channel, with a UK modelling specialist, Erica Thompson. She coined the term Hawkmoth effect, after the famous Butterfly effect in Chaos mathematics, in which a single butterfly flapping wings in the Caribbean , can cause a hurricane in Florida. The Hawkmoth effect refers to a similar phenomenon - a minor estimate fault in the data going in, or a slight in the algorithms running the models, and the result will be an enormous deviation in the output. Well worth a listen.
It would seem that an AMOC shutdown should not be the focus. Just minor reductions can be quite damaging. A 25% reduction could mean a negative 4-5°C of temps over Europe. That is enough to make things very bad for folks. Great paper! Kinda nice the AMOC may not shut down right away😁
Not me - Like Mr van Westen, Im Dutch, and I would welcome the skating winters and of course the Elfstedentocht that those -5 degrees winters would imply;) _be aware, some tongue be placed so far in cheek, a full skating iron will fit in there;)_
That’s the answer to a warming environment! Who’s going to be upset if climate heating in Northern Europe is counteracted by several degree decrease from a reduced AMOC flow?
@jomckeag4482 Well ya, you could assert that some normalization would happen. However, the system as a whole looks to be high chaotic and prone to extremes. So, it would be an error to assume that normality was stable. Extreme swings at certain times expose plants to frostkill, excess moisture, drought, and excessive heat. The climate casino puts everyone at risk😉
The only way the AMOC will be seriously effected is if the Arctic ice melts away completely. If that were to happen (extremely unlikely) it means its too warm to sustain ice, which means there will be virtually no winter in the Northern hemisphere...How is that BAD...??!!
What no one makes clear is if the density of the current is altered due to influx of ice melt AND less salty water from the tropics- the remaining portion of the current (which takes HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of years to complete a circulation) will continue to move water. Deep water currents continue to move and move deep cold water to warm areas. If the circular current breaks down in the North Atlantic then what happens to all the upwelling of ancient cold water in the tropics?
I "reinvented" the 2-box model from Stommel . Just have a look and put some ice in the Polar box. to put the Polar box in latent heat phase .You can also add a tap in the flow back to simulate the AMOC shutdown. because Q = m x c x delta T, the hockeystick model is back again . We don't need supercomputers to understand .... !!
Another insightful interview. Dr Westen suggests this new research should provide additional impetus for concerted action by our governments, but as Katharine Hayhoe and others have highlighted, this information deficit approach is unlikely to sway politicians who are not already persuaded. We need compelling narratives which appeal to leaders of all persuasions, as well as the wider public.
Stefan Rahmstorf just posted a talk on AMOC and the research van Westen talks about, here on UA-cam. Pretty disturbing if you get to digest all the message. -temps lowering 15 c in Norway, equatorial wet zones moving south, etc etc. Yep, it's all modelled and not actual measured changes, but there are some observed signs that changes are underway. On real climate website, there's a february 24 article by Rahmstorf too. Interesting, _and_ highly alarming
René is doing a great job, as are you Nick. Certainly Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil are well informed and behind this scientific input. We all must stay energised and "Frosty" as things geopolitically and ecosystem-climate wise are changing quickly. There's no fast fixes, but we have to start now where we can.
They’re well informed? They’re full of people who understand nothing about physics nor chemistry - nor history for that matter, cause a lot of them seem to think capitalism is the problem, while the communist countries emitted co2 just as well as their capitalist counterparts. On top of that, they’re unaware of the aerosol masking effect, which implies that all they’re striving for will make our predicament only worse. There is nothing we can do to save the world as we know it apart from a war or a pandemic or a famine which will kill billions of people. And no one wants that of course.
We don't know what would happen really.Maybe Europe would be the best place to live due to the cooling effect..I have noticed that Poland is more influenced by very deep winter low pressure winds .It makes Poland more marine climate than ever .Atmosphere pushing heavy rainfall more east .It used to be -30C now we have rain in winter .Winter is similar to the uk like used to be 20yrs ago .
be great to see more videos about how the current global temperature rises we saw just last year are off the charts in model predictions, and why the models are proving way too conservative is really worrying climate experts. as an example right now, temperatures in Perth Australia, are seeing a really abnormal run of 40 degree plus days which at that extreme is unheard off locally there where they are used to hot days. so its not stopping but getting worse. Good friend there just had his house damaged by a tornado, which again is almost unheard off at that location.
Very good show. I must say that this original AMOC paper was presented very bad to the public. I never trusted the mathematic calculation of the tipping point. The thing I never understood was how the stopping of AMOC with its cooling will not reduce the fresh water. For me it looks like a pendulum situation rather than a tipping point. I think this video present a much more realistic view on the problem. Good day for taking away doom day scenarios today. Just heard that El Nino will probably be replaced by La Nina without neutral this summer. Might save a lot of the Amazonas rainforest for some extra years. p.s. Since I live in Gothenburg in Sweden I prefer that the AMOC slowing down equal the global warming, but in the end will it probably just make the weather more volatile.
Could this trend counteract disasterous global warming or reverse it in a beneficial way! I had read in the past that a reversal could move as rapidly in as little as ten years.
I see sea temperatures are again reaching as yet unexplained new heights also i notice GHG`s and temperatures are rising at their fastest and ACCELERATING rate even after 32 years of government pledges ....
Does the SOTA climate modelling suggest that AMOC shutdown would sharpen temperature differentials & thus shift the jet stream further north, making it tighter & stronger? This should eliminate the weaker wavy patterns we have experienced thru the past decade or so, & I guess could theoretically stabilize wind patterns in northern latitudes ?
Just a thought about your upcoming interview with Dana Fisher: it would be interesting to hear what someone like Gaia Vince has to say in response (or just in contrast to) to Fisher's work as Vince's most recent book, Nomad Century, falls just short of extolling climate change as 'the opportunity of the century for people to move north into the arctic regions and build the cities and industries of the future.' Optimistic fantasy on Vince's part, I suppose, but t sure would interesting to see her have glass of cold, hard reality placed in front of her and see if she takes a sip from it.
Thanks, James. I'll ask. I have Nomad Century but have not yet read it. I thought you were going to say 'glass of cold hard chablis', but it is Sunday!
The guest seems to under state the situation. The public is far too passive and had better start being scared. Only then will it demand action by government.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with the terms 'Anthroshift' and 'the human tipping point.' We can continue to study and model the collapse of AMOC, Arctic and Antarctic glaciers and sea ice, the Amazon rainforest, Boreal permafrost etc. (as we should), until the cows come home, but until we hit 'the human tipping point' ... nothing will change. Nor is it sufficient to blame politicians, even though they have the power to intervene, because for the most part, they are simply responding to lobbyists, who are in turn responding to shareholders, who in turn depend on the demands of the people ... who seem far more interested in nonsense. It's pretty obvious that we're a long way from 'the human tipping point.' Any random youtube video gets far more attention than videos on the serious topic of climate change, (which barely register and are even flagged by youtube.) For example: this video, entitled "Trump Gets MERCILESSLY BOOED at Philadelphia 'Sneaker Con'", posted only 14 hours ago, which already has 1,050,219 views and 13,434 comments. Not that I have any confidence in our future, but if things are going to improve, we need to shift our focus to attaining, by whatever means, this elusive anthroshift.
The tipping of the AMOC can be triggered by a sudden influx of meltwater. From where would that water come? We have the horseshoe form of the mountains on Greenland, with the open end on the southern end. I have no information wether there is a considerable amount of meltwater under the kilometers thick icecap on Greenland. Another possibility is a enormous vulcanic eruption melting the Greenland icecap. Certainty we don't have. This phenomenon of burst through of meltwater formed the Channel and the Great lakes in the USA. It happened before with castostrophic results.
It's not caused by fresh water , but by the lack of sea ice, there is less convection in Arctic. Fresh water from greenland is a result of the heating not the cause of the collapse. Northern hemisphere will heat, not cool down. The AMOC has already collapsed in March 2023 . check SST of Atlantic ocean. Apply superposition principle (like in electronics circuts) Q= m x c x deltaT ,but now for heat transported /s >> Q/s = m /s x c x deltaT. If water mass transported / second decrease and power of sun (Q/s ) stay the same delta T will increase by this simple formula. , The lack of sea ice, there is less convection in Arctic. Fresh water from greenland is a result of the heating not the cause of the collapse. Northern hemisphere will heat, not cool down.
Excellent interviews. The graphic filters depicting your guests are not working for me, however. ... I worry that it's not putting your best foot forward for other viewers?
excellent video, from a retired oilman who really has all awareness changed into a green supporter. The true costs of alternative energy is within most peoples grasp.
You can't stop the AMOC from shutting down it whil happend regardless even if we stop fossil fuel today witch is not fossiel anyway but a hydrocarbon witch the earth produces in the dieper parts of the crust.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY HAPPENING… AND WILL SOONER THAN YOU THINK… Do you model the change in precipitation patterns off the east coast of America, huge amounts of fresh water dumping into the Atlantic on top of the Ice Melt from Both Greenland and Antarctica. The shifting of the Poles has already happened, it’s snowing around Hudson Bay and not Greenland! “There will be a shifting of the poles. There will be upheavals in the Arctic and the Antarctic that will make for the eruption of volcanos in the Torrid areas... The upper portion of Europe will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. The earth will be broken up in the western portion of America. The greater portion of Japan must go into the sea.” ― Edgar Cayce
"What a load of old bollocks." Mr C. Sutton. And my guesses (yes, that's all every adverse climate prediction ever made is) are just as valid as anyone else's, regardless of who they are.
Stop trying to scare the childern and elderly lol. Everyones figued out these agw and similar models are junk . There plenty of modelers and computer jockeys who talk about the model problems to interview to go along side with this video
Time has run out! But we still need to take action. The people who say that time has run out and therefore we have to just accelerate towards the wall at max speed are id10ts
Unfortunately progress in combating global warming has hit the buffers. Reduction in global emissions just aint happening, and the transition to EV transport is going pear-shaped thanks to the risk hazards in EV batteries being widely exposed & dominating that news space.
Glacial, interglacial, glacial, interglacial ecc Where are we now ? At the end of an interglacial era (maybe) ? In the middle of one 12.000 years cycles (maybe) ? In this kind of climate change actually in course the next proximal change will be abrupt and rapid or slow ? Question that find only hypothesis
True, were at the end of interglacial and nearing a new ice age _we would be_ if not we have managed to raise carbon content to 500 ppm effectively (accounting for the fast rise of methane) . Last time for that much carbon in the atmosphere, you'd have to go way back, even beyond the Pliocene, the last warmer era before the Pleistocene ice ages. In Pliocene, temps were roughly 2+'C higher. We may count on going quite a bit over that, if we keep going this way (and all signs keep pointing there , and going there _fast_ to answer your last question. Global temps incidentally breached 1,5' up in 2023, already.
@@reuireuiop0 Yes What we are going to see on the next few years will most depend on the behaviour of: the Cosmos rays to the Solar system the Earth core anomalies the Earth magnetic field the Pole shift and for consequences the Oceans the Permafrost the Vulcans the state of Earth atmosphere ecc ecc Good luck to all of us 💫🌎🎶👃🪷👌❣️🔮🙏✋
Meanwhile, Greenland ice melts at a rate eight times faster than previously thought. Approximately 30 million tons of meltwater are now entering the ocean not per day, but per hour.
First of all a flippant point: father and son? Sorry, of course not, but the similarities are very numerous, separated by a generation gap! Second less flippant point: as tipping points are THE wild card in terms of prediction because there are so many moving parts, literally: well .... so far we have consistently overestimated our safe timescales. On that basis alone we might guess that one, or perhaps some, or even, in a domino effect, ALL tipping points are already breached.
So it will be like in the movie called The Day After Tomorrow but not as fast and exstream as in the movie? also if you take in account of earths weakining magnetic field , all the predictions lead to before 2050. There is no window opportunity of stoping whats coming we just have to wait it out, after about 2050 the climate should start carming down. Its got to the point that its not sience anymore and its all politital, so politital that you have to cut down trees get rid of crops becasue they some how affect the climate. crazy , there is a cancer in sicence and only way around it is to look at all the facts and connect the dots for your self.
Here is a way to look at the current rate of fossil fuel extraction, that most people wouldn't think of. What do you do when you KNOW your industry is doomed? You get as much of your product out of the ground as fast as you can, and get it all sold now! That's how I interpret the current rate of fossil fuels extraction. They are terrified of having stranded assets, and stranded assets are a REAL possibility, in as little as 10 years. So what I'm saying is we could go from "peak oil", to virtually no oil, extremely fast. They know this can happen, because it has happened to other industries in the past. It's going to be an interesting decade!
Religious memorabilia should be removed before interviews. I knew in the first few seconds, his religious beliefs do not allow him to talk about population. Nick might want to talk to harem masters to balance things up. In those days when he died, all his concubines went with him.
I need another dark-haired & non-native english speaker, with even larger glasses, before can I start worrying about the climate crisis, sry. I'm sure even though humanity was here when the planet was much hotter, the future you want us to be afraid of is super scary. Where do I buy my carbon credits at?
The 1.5 C goal is absolutely unachievable.
'The global temperature pushed past the internationally agreed warming threshold for a 12-month period, with February 2023 to January 2024 running 1.52C hotter than pre-industrial levels, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service of the European Space Agency.'
These organisations that over the decades continue to suppress and obfuscate our predicament keep moving the goalposts for this almost arbitrary 1.5C limit. The trick they've pulled to achieve this is to keep altering the averages, so instead of a 12 month average, they make it a 30 or 50 year average lol. I understand 12 month's doesn't tell the full picture due to fluctuations such as El Nino and La Nina, but after the coming la nina I can't ever see it dropping below 1.5C again.
Either way, our demise is set in stone. The time to act was decades ago. Even if we miraculously achieved net zero tomorrow, it won't suddenly make the current GHGs in the atmosphere disappear (there is a lag effect so the planet would carry on heating up). So keeping that in mind, we're still pumping out inordinate amounts of CO2 into the air without any serious signs of reducing it meaningfully. Approx 520 private jets were used to transport people home after the Superbowl the other day lmao
Sure, the 1.5°c is nonsense but more for the fact that it is a global average and that is in itself a fiction. The concentration of GHGs is a better measure. It doesn't help too much while emissions are rising and things are getting worse but at least it makes more sense!
I agree the concentration of GHGs is an important metric, however I disagree that global average temperature is nonsense. The average sea surface temperature and 2m above ground average temperatures are both great imo.
I'd be interested to know why you think otherwise?
@@SamWilkinsonnPolar Gradient in paleo-climatology more usually Polar Amplification
Arctic can heat 10c but diluted on global avg by only subtle avg changes in equatorial belt
@@DrSmooth2000 I mean great, but what are you implying?
The reason global average temps are useful indicators is to see how much net energy/heat is being transferred into the atmosphere and oceans. Polar amplification is accounted for in the global average temperatures.
I may have misinterpreted your intentions with the comment, it might be worth explaining the point you're trying to make in future.
@@SamWilkinsonn suppose impossible to gauge the perceptive inference ability of one's co-communicators with on Internet. Especially with non-native speakers in the mix.
You asked why the host might find issue with global average as a metric. I chipped in example of one notable 'issue'
Guess shouldn't have hazarded a speculation as to his concerns. Studying the Pliocene last night and fresh in my head remarkable fact Arctic was like +10 and global average was only up +2 to 3 (and at 400ppm to begin with and falling -- but theirs was a world coming from a Hothouse state into ice age and we are doing something rather opposite)
In short to medium run the increased planetary average is less relevant the lower latitude you are. Global Avg is a useful shorthand. PPM might be just as good -- but of course there is increasing appreciation of methane lately -- although that's harder to account for in paleo record so we can't 'translate' back and forth from historical to paleo (afaik) while using "CO2e"
No doubt I confused you further. Hopefully some readers understand me.
Pardon me if I missed it but I believe that in this sort of presentation it is important to mention that there are clear indicators in the geologic record for the AMOC shutting down.
Yes, it's there.
Yes, it's on page 756 of the geologic record. "Grog too cold. Grog going to go south now."
Yes there is record that it has shut down in the past, the fact we have it today also shows it can come back if the right conditions come into effect.
It would be interesting to see a model(s) of what could bring it back in case it does fail at some point.
When it happened last, it resulted in a climate temperature spike due to rapidly melting methane clathrate. This is a major tipping point if / when it happens again.
@@jimthain8777it’s not bouncing back over night with paper straws and e cars.
Thanks again for the interviews. Regarding the discussion of what actions policymakers would take based on evidence provided through scientific research like the research presented here I think what is missing from the discussion is a sociological framework. I especially like the former French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his ideas around habitus and the different forms of capital (economic, social, and cultural) as a way of explaining the subjective state of society and social structures as reproduced by people given their class associations/identifications. It really parallels metaphysical ideas in that there is a deep unconsciousness to how people reproduce their social reality. To have the ability to understand physical reality is actually a privileged position in society as the great majority of peoples simply absorb social structures passively and reproduce them without conscious effort so it is always a backward looking process (I call it a historical and subjective dialectic). So that is why we have Trump. To state things metaphysically is to say that in order for society to begin to face these multiple crises there has to come about a fundamental change in human consciousness where it is no longer about social identification which is deeply subjective and backward looking. If you follow people like Andrew Glikson, the paleo-climatologist, the paleo record would show systematic failure in multiple systems given increasingly higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Of course it is our society's historical point of view that our society prospered by "conquering nature" and all that and is individualistic. To come out of these delusions requires a broader view of what a human being is so we can relieve ourselves of class distinctions and begin to face our physical reality.
I too miss the social-psychological/philosophical/metaphysical element in the debate. Many people believe that technology will be the saviour of this predicament, but I'm convinced that this alone won't do. It's, as you say, human consciousness that needs to change. When you say that it "requires a broader view of what a human being is", I would even go one step further and propose that it's needed to - at least to some extent - overcome the "human condition", explore the metaphysical nature of one's true self without the blinders that humanity and human society impose. It is to let go of human superiority and exceptionalism, and to accept a new understanding of wholeness with nature beyond the physical.
However, we classic environmentalists know this since at least 30 years, and I for my part have been greatly disappointed by human society. I don't see willingness to change, and I've let go of any illusion that that which didn't happen for over three decades will still happen in time. The "window of opportunity" has been open for long, but I call it naive to believe that it will be used. I believe this species will be driven to the edge of extinction before true change is made. But that is eventually all right for me, for I've mentally let go of humanity years ago. The damage done to biodiversity is what concerns me more.
@@amberazurescale5617 if I may interject with what little insight I have left.
There is a gradual, however slow in speed and size, shift in human understanding of their essence in the grand scheme of it all. The works of Ian McGhilchrist and John Vervaeke influence a drastic shift in re-understanding nature in a new, more alive way - moving away from compartmentalized abstractness.
I have delved extensively into phenomenology, and the more I read the more confused I have become; not due to reasons of not being able to understand the epistemology that phenomenology deals with but that this very branch of philosophy implicitly illuminates how absurd human thought can be once it detaches from reality and retreats into a solipsistic chamber. To entertain the notion of "the others," as Emmanuel Levinas writes in "Totality and Infinity," and as Husserl/Heidegger's supposition that "others do exist too" argue, is to illuminate how abstract philosophy and reductive materialistic science have become.
As a final reflection, I too find myself under existential doubt in regards to loosening the grip of faith on humanity. It is a tough battle for empathy, as at times, becomes a costly matter to well-being.
@@amberazurescale5617 thank you for your comment- but I do think that human beings have the capacity to self reflect and to fully express consciousness and in that full expression will naturally take actions which would support the well being of themselves, the community, and nature. I hypothesize that it is how we think that disables our ability to act and that our thinking is backward looking.
The great majority of people lack the depth of thought to appreciate such insights. They are locked into the immediacy of satisfying their creature comforts & believe food will always be on store shelves, that chaos & destruction will only happen to others, & that aliens or a mythical god will save them from the consequences of their actions.
Philosophy doesn't cut it in the House of Representatives, where need & greed are distorted by power-centric political dogma
What was the story with "80 times"? That wasn't really clear. He seems to say that in their model it would need 80 times the melt rate of Greenland and thus 80 times the influx of sweet water? Doesn't that mean the model is at maximum only relevant in showing the principal possibility of flipping AMOC by too much melt water, but nothing about the actual likelihood of this happening in the next hundreds of years.
He doesn't seem to be arguing that we're very close to a potential flip of AMOC. This should be better clarified since now all kinds of news articles are written that talk about an imminent ice age in Europe in the very near future, and they do it in a tone of confidence that will frighten the heck out of many. The Economic Times has an article titled "Melting glaciers threaten Gulf Stream collapse by 2025". This is most likely BS, and that's no good: Because when the reality is properly presented, the hype gets quickly refuted, and then the "evil climate deniers" have a hay day. So, please don't push climate panic, especially if it's just for fame. It makes climate science untrustworthy, and it can backfire badly.
If I understand part of the article correctly (probably not but giving it a shot), predicting an AMOC tipping is done by checking the 'minimum of the AMOC-induced freshwater transport at 34degrees S in the Atlantic (Fovs)" as a measure of AMOC stability. Current models, however, have a freshwater bias, resulting in positive values for Fovs whereas in reality its value and trend are already negative. So the current model is flawed and not really suitable to show the tipping point because it doesn't easily let you get to negative. In the current model, zero would be reached by 2075. But again, it is currently already negative. To compensate for that, they are inputting massive amounts of influx just to check if theoretically, a tipping point would happen in the current model. And it does. So I would think after that the model has to be 'fixed' and so we can see how much influx would be really needed to get the tipping point; once the bias is gone, it will be a lot less that 80 times the current amount to trigger it. How much, they don't know, but the trend is already in the wrong direction. The 2025 date IS bullsh*t, the researcher said, as they simply cannot say, only that we are heading towards it, the AMOC is not stable. Hope this helps a bit and is in at least some respects what is actually being said in the article and show.
Yet shorter - scientists check their models by "overloading" with freshwater input 80 times - freshwater input being the one factor to trigger AMOC breakdown.
He found he needed so much extra freshwater loaded into the model, they reckoned the results weren't realistic. They think the trigger point is at a far lower input of freshwater, or, the model is insufficiently sensitive to changing climate factors like freshwater.
I would make a safe bet and declare most official models are far too insensitive to extra carbon emissions, and fail to timely recognize tipping points . IPCC models are way behind actual measured climate change events, and we will likely be caught out be surprise by weather extremes which models expect only by 2050 or later.
One of the climate shocks I expect sooner is simultanuos crop failures around the globe due to stagnant weather patterns, causing droughts in one place, flooding elsewhere.
We getting a pretast in Europe, heatwaves in the North and South, flooding in the middle. Farmers here complain about soggy soil which will lead to a bad year with low yields. Prices will go up.
Climate inflation, the new phenomenon, but only a presage of things to come.
Scheiss auf den Klimawandel im Rechner!
Most policy makers and representatives from industry that I have met with will not listen to anything related to the AMOC. I was in forum a few weeks ago and the arguments against were this:
-Risk is very low of a collapse, probably just a variation in strength
If a tipping point does occur it will take at least 1000 years to reach it.
Nothing related to the AMOC will affect human activity for at least 1000 years, in any way.
...and the issue died right there. Selectivity of information tends many policymakers and industry to choose the outcomes that are in favour of development status quo; in my experience. I see a significant risk here. However I don't think there is really anything we can do now to mitigate it effectively. Instead, we must begin to focus on socioecolocical climate resilience and make our infrastructure climate durable.
She provides one of the clearest explanations of the effects. THank you for your clarity Rene!
I did a lot of modelling in my telecomm days, and a fundamental problem with models is they don't react well to positive feedbacks. Unless artificially damped, these feedbacks tend to quickly drive the model into bizarre states.
Feedback cycles are not discussed here. Modelling limitations and unexpected outcomes have to be lived with [better explanations would help] - as doing physical experiments on the scale of AMOC are not feasible.
@@eddygrunge4749 Models are discussed here, and issues with modelling are relevant to the discussion. And yeah "unexpected outcomes" have to be "lived with", as at this point homo stupidus has no choice but to ride down the path it created to extinction.
I can help you. you need superposition principle. But the AMOC has already collapsed in March 2023 . check SST of Atlantic ocean. Apply superposition principle (like in electronics circuts) Q= m x c x deltaT ,but now for heat transported /s >> Q/s = m /s x c x deltaT. If water mass transported / second decrease and power of sun (Q/s ) stay the same delta T will increase by this simple formula. , The lack of sea ice, there is less convection in Arctic. Fresh water from greenland is a result of the heating not the cause of the collapse. Northern hemisphere will heat, not cool down.
Yep, computer models are GIGO.
Remember an interview on Nate Hagens "Great Simplification" channel, with a UK modelling specialist, Erica Thompson.
She coined the term Hawkmoth effect, after the famous Butterfly effect in Chaos mathematics, in which a single butterfly flapping wings in the Caribbean , can cause a hurricane in Florida.
The Hawkmoth effect refers to a similar phenomenon - a minor estimate fault in the data going in, or a slight in the algorithms running the models, and the result will be an enormous deviation in the output. Well worth a listen.
It would seem that an AMOC shutdown should not be the focus. Just minor reductions can be quite damaging. A 25% reduction could mean a negative 4-5°C of temps over Europe. That is enough to make things very bad for folks.
Great paper!
Kinda nice the AMOC may not shut down right away😁
I agree, a few more summers will be much appreciated!
Not me - Like Mr van Westen, Im Dutch, and I would welcome the skating winters and of course the Elfstedentocht that those -5 degrees winters would imply;)
_be aware, some tongue be placed so far in cheek, a full skating iron will fit in there;)_
That’s the answer to a warming environment! Who’s going to be upset if climate heating in Northern Europe is counteracted by several degree decrease from a reduced AMOC flow?
@jomckeag4482 Well ya, you could assert that some normalization would happen. However, the system as a whole looks to be high chaotic and prone to extremes. So, it would be an error to assume that normality was stable. Extreme swings at certain times expose plants to frostkill, excess moisture, drought, and excessive heat.
The climate casino puts everyone at risk😉
The only way the AMOC will be seriously effected is if the Arctic ice melts away completely. If that were to happen (extremely unlikely) it means its too warm to sustain ice, which means there will be virtually no winter in the Northern hemisphere...How is that BAD...??!!
Please see Paul Beckwith and James Hanson. We have passed the tipping point or we are so close it can't be stopped. Enjoy it it all while you can.
They have been saying the same thing for 30-40 years....STILL nothing has happened...How surprising...
What no one makes clear is if the density of the current is altered due to influx of ice melt AND less salty water from the tropics- the remaining portion of the current (which takes HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of years to complete a circulation) will continue to move water. Deep water currents continue to move and move deep cold water to warm areas. If the circular current breaks down in the North Atlantic then what happens to all the upwelling of ancient cold water in the tropics?
I "reinvented" the 2-box model from Stommel . Just have a look and put some ice in the Polar box. to put the Polar box in latent heat phase .You can also add a tap in the flow back to simulate the AMOC shutdown. because Q = m x c x delta T, the hockeystick model is back again . We don't need supercomputers to understand .... !!
Awesome, that was quick to get him on the show! Thank you!
Another insightful interview. Dr Westen suggests this new research should provide additional impetus for concerted action by our governments, but as Katharine Hayhoe and others have highlighted, this information deficit approach is unlikely to sway politicians who are not already persuaded. We need compelling narratives which appeal to leaders of all persuasions, as well as the wider public.
Compelling narratives = political and financial lies and propaganda.
Stefan Rahmstorf just posted a talk on AMOC and the research van Westen talks about, here on UA-cam. Pretty disturbing if you get to digest all the message. -temps lowering 15 c in Norway, equatorial wet zones moving south, etc etc.
Yep, it's all modelled and not actual measured changes, but there are some observed signs that changes are underway.
On real climate website, there's a february 24 article by Rahmstorf too. Interesting, _and_ highly alarming
80x what is happening presently-that’s a relief.
Basically no chance, its just a scare story to create headline with, to keep the 🐑🐑🐑 in line with the agenda...
René is doing a great job, as are you Nick. Certainly Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil are well informed and behind this scientific input. We all must stay energised and "Frosty" as things geopolitically and ecosystem-climate wise are changing quickly. There's no fast fixes, but we have to start now where we can.
Is depends what you mean by "fast fixes." Is
They’re well informed? They’re full of people who understand nothing about physics nor chemistry - nor history for that matter, cause a lot of them seem to think capitalism is the problem, while the communist countries emitted co2 just as well as their capitalist counterparts. On top of that, they’re unaware of the aerosol masking effect, which implies that all they’re striving for will make our predicament only worse.
There is nothing we can do to save the world as we know it apart from a war or a pandemic or a famine which will kill billions of people. And no one wants that of course.
Nonsense
@@Nehner Say something of use. What is "its"?
Great guest!
We don't know what would happen really.Maybe Europe would be the best place to live due to the cooling effect..I have noticed that Poland is more influenced by very deep winter low pressure winds .It makes Poland more marine climate than ever .Atmosphere pushing heavy rainfall more east .It used to be -30C now we have rain in winter .Winter is similar to the uk like used to be 20yrs ago .
Thank you for this content.
Could you put a link to the study in the video description?
Good idea.
be great to see more videos about how the current global temperature rises we saw just last year are off the charts in model predictions, and why the models are proving way too conservative is really worrying climate experts. as an example right now, temperatures in Perth Australia, are seeing a really abnormal run of 40 degree plus days which at that extreme is unheard off locally there where they are used to hot days. so its not stopping but getting worse. Good friend there just had his house damaged by a tornado, which again is almost unheard off at that location.
The reason climate models are so far off the mark is because they are a load of bollocks.
Very good show. I must say that this original AMOC paper was presented very bad to the public. I never trusted the mathematic calculation of the tipping point. The thing I never understood was how the stopping of AMOC with its cooling will not reduce the fresh water. For me it looks like a pendulum situation rather than a tipping point. I think this video present a much more realistic view on the problem. Good day for taking away doom day scenarios today. Just heard that El Nino will probably be replaced by La Nina without neutral this summer. Might save a lot of the Amazonas rainforest for some extra years.
p.s. Since I live in Gothenburg in Sweden I prefer that the AMOC slowing down equal the global warming, but in the end will it probably just make the weather more volatile.
We are completely screwed all the models are flawed
Could this trend counteract disasterous global warming or reverse it in a beneficial way! I had read in the past that a reversal could move as rapidly in as little as ten years.
Suspicious Observers on UA-cam.
I see sea temperatures are again reaching as yet unexplained new heights also i notice GHG`s and temperatures are rising at their fastest and ACCELERATING rate even after 32 years of government pledges ....
Sea temp rise has been constant for the last 6000 years, its the tail end of the last ice age...
With the extreme weather ie the rain we have experienced worldwide could it be that we are much closer to the tipping point. Just a thought.
Does the SOTA climate modelling suggest that AMOC shutdown would sharpen temperature differentials & thus shift the jet stream further north, making it tighter & stronger? This should eliminate the weaker wavy patterns we have experienced thru the past decade or so, & I guess could theoretically stabilize wind patterns in northern latitudes ?
If the AMOC weakens Greenland will cool down and there is less freshwater melting. Less freshwater means the AMOC is not weakening anymore.
Are they going to transfer the growing areas to the equator. Northern Africa and the middle east.
Just a thought about your upcoming interview with Dana Fisher: it would be interesting to hear what someone like Gaia Vince has to say in response (or just in contrast to) to Fisher's work as Vince's most recent book, Nomad Century, falls just short of extolling climate change as 'the opportunity of the century for people to move north into the arctic regions and build the cities and industries of the future.' Optimistic fantasy on Vince's part, I suppose, but t sure would interesting to see her have glass of cold, hard reality placed in front of her and see if she takes a sip from it.
Thanks, James. I'll ask. I have Nomad Century but have not yet read it. I thought you were going to say 'glass of cold hard chablis', but it is Sunday!
Maybe a climate social tipping point ... The Day After Tomorrow for Europe especially.
One I'd rather avoid if at all possible. Get the point though. Cheers.
Does that mean, temp. in EU will stay the same as today = climate heating plus AMOC cooling equals the same as today?
It is human nature, ‘never willing to accept less’ that is unstoppable…sit back, pour a coffee and watch the ride
The guest seems to under state the situation. The public is far too passive and had better start being scared. Only then will it demand action by government.
Thank you
If it isn't obvious: we know that already more than 3 decades.
Just accept that nobody (with a slice of power) cares and move along.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with the terms 'Anthroshift' and 'the human tipping point.' We can continue to study and model the collapse of AMOC, Arctic and Antarctic glaciers and sea ice, the Amazon rainforest, Boreal permafrost etc. (as we should), until the cows come home, but until we hit 'the human tipping point' ... nothing will change. Nor is it sufficient to blame politicians, even though they have the power to intervene, because for the most part, they are simply responding to lobbyists, who are in turn responding to shareholders, who in turn depend on the demands of the people ... who seem far more interested in nonsense.
It's pretty obvious that we're a long way from 'the human tipping point.' Any random youtube video gets far more attention than videos on the serious topic of climate change, (which barely register and are even flagged by youtube.) For example: this video, entitled "Trump Gets MERCILESSLY BOOED at Philadelphia 'Sneaker Con'", posted only 14 hours ago, which already has 1,050,219 views and 13,434 comments.
Not that I have any confidence in our future, but if things are going to improve, we need to shift our focus to attaining, by whatever means, this elusive anthroshift.
The tipping of the AMOC can be triggered by a sudden influx of meltwater. From where would that water come? We have the horseshoe form of the mountains on Greenland, with the open end on the southern end. I have no information wether there is a considerable amount of meltwater under the kilometers thick icecap on Greenland. Another possibility is a enormous vulcanic eruption melting the Greenland icecap. Certainty we don't have. This phenomenon of burst through of meltwater formed the Channel and the Great lakes in the USA. It happened before with castostrophic results.
It's not caused by fresh water , but by the lack of sea ice, there is less convection in Arctic. Fresh water from greenland is a result of the heating not the cause of the collapse. Northern hemisphere will heat, not cool down.
The AMOC has already collapsed in March 2023 . check SST of Atlantic ocean. Apply superposition principle (like in electronics circuts) Q= m x c x deltaT ,but now for heat transported /s >> Q/s = m /s x c x deltaT. If water mass transported / second decrease and power of sun (Q/s ) stay the same delta T will increase by this simple formula. , The lack of sea ice, there is less convection in Arctic. Fresh water from greenland is a result of the heating not the cause of the collapse. Northern hemisphere will heat, not cool down.
This is not possible... the earth will always transfer heat from the equator to the pole. This is a fact.
How do explain ice age cycles then?
Excellent interviews. The graphic filters depicting your guests are not working for me, however. ... I worry that it's not putting your best foot forward for other viewers?
Save Our Planet Now!
excellent video, from a retired oilman who really has all awareness changed into a green supporter. The true costs of alternative energy is within most peoples grasp.
You can't stop the AMOC from shutting down it whil happend regardless even if we stop fossil fuel today witch is not fossiel anyway but a hydrocarbon witch the earth produces in the dieper parts of the crust.
A model with excessive parameters effecting something thaat haas been slowing for 1000yrs is down to climate change?
declaring recent climate anomalies as the warm-up for the impending crisis of human extinction would not be cool
IT IS ABSOLUTELY HAPPENING… AND WILL SOONER THAN YOU THINK… Do you model the change in precipitation patterns off the east coast of America, huge amounts of fresh water dumping into the Atlantic on top of the Ice Melt from Both Greenland and Antarctica.
The shifting of the Poles has already happened, it’s snowing around Hudson Bay and not Greenland!
“There will be a shifting of the poles. There will be upheavals in the Arctic and the Antarctic that will make for the eruption of volcanos in the Torrid areas... The upper portion of Europe will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. The earth will be broken up in the western portion of America. The greater portion of Japan must go into the sea.”
― Edgar Cayce
"What a load of old bollocks."
Mr C. Sutton.
And my guesses (yes, that's all every adverse climate prediction ever made is) are just as valid as anyone else's, regardless of who they are.
Stop trying to scare the childern and elderly lol. Everyones figued out these agw and similar models are junk . There plenty of modelers and computer jockeys who talk about the model problems to interview to go along side with this video
So, a European Ice Age in the middle of a global heat catastrophe? But, as the North cools, the fresh water from Greenland stops. No?
Time has run out! But we still need to take action. The people who say that time has run out and therefore we have to just accelerate towards the wall at max speed are id10ts
Unfortunately progress in combating global warming has hit the buffers. Reduction in global emissions just aint happening, and the transition to EV transport is going pear-shaped thanks to the risk hazards in EV batteries being widely exposed & dominating that news space.
Glacial, interglacial, glacial, interglacial ecc
Where are we now ?
At the end of an interglacial era (maybe) ?
In the middle of one 12.000 years cycles (maybe) ?
In this kind of climate change actually in course the next proximal change will be abrupt and rapid or slow ?
Question that find only hypothesis
Interglacial, end of 12,000 cycle
True, were at the end of interglacial and nearing a new ice age _we would be_ if not we have managed to raise carbon content to 500 ppm effectively (accounting for the fast rise of methane) .
Last time for that much carbon in the atmosphere, you'd have to go way back, even beyond the Pliocene, the last warmer era before the Pleistocene ice ages.
In Pliocene, temps were roughly 2+'C higher. We may count on going quite a bit over that, if we keep going this way (and all signs keep pointing there , and going there _fast_ to answer your last question. Global temps incidentally breached 1,5' up in 2023, already.
@@reuireuiop0
Yes
What we are going to see on the next few years will most depend on
the behaviour of:
the Cosmos rays to the Solar system
the Earth core anomalies
the Earth magnetic field
the Pole shift
and for consequences
the Oceans
the Permafrost
the Vulcans
the state of Earth atmosphere
ecc ecc
Good luck to all of us
💫🌎🎶👃🪷👌❣️🔮🙏✋
Can you please let us know we’re we would go to be the safest for the longest?
Bridport.
@@NickBreezein Tassie, former Van Diemens Land? Close to Mermaid Pool & Adam Beach? Still pretty cold though!
Meanwhile, Greenland ice melts at a rate eight times faster than previously thought. Approximately 30 million tons of meltwater are now entering the ocean not per day, but per hour.
First of all a flippant point: father and son? Sorry, of course not, but the similarities are very numerous, separated by a generation gap!
Second less flippant point: as tipping points are THE wild card in terms of prediction because there are so many moving parts, literally: well .... so far we have consistently overestimated our safe timescales. On that basis alone we might guess that one, or perhaps some, or even, in a domino effect, ALL tipping points are already breached.
we warned you now blue kachina is here red kachina comes A ho my relations 5th earth COMES
So it will be like in the movie called The Day After Tomorrow but not as fast and exstream as in the movie?
also if you take in account of earths weakining magnetic field , all the predictions lead to before 2050. There is no window opportunity of stoping whats coming we just have to wait it out, after about 2050 the climate should start carming down.
Its got to the point that its not sience anymore and its all politital, so politital that you have to cut down trees get rid of crops becasue they some how affect the climate. crazy , there is a cancer in sicence and only way around it is to look at all the facts and connect the dots for your self.
Hate to rain ☔ on your parade, but we are now at the tipping point if we haven't already passed 😕 it time to start praying like crazy.
Here is a way to look at the current rate of fossil fuel extraction, that most people wouldn't think of.
What do you do when you KNOW your industry is doomed?
You get as much of your product out of the ground as fast as you can, and get it all sold now!
That's how I interpret the current rate of fossil fuels extraction.
They are terrified of having stranded assets, and stranded assets are a REAL possibility, in as little as 10 years.
So what I'm saying is we could go from "peak oil", to virtually no oil, extremely fast.
They know this can happen, because it has happened to other industries in the past.
It's going to be an interesting decade!
Inflexible demand keeps growing
Religious memorabilia should be removed before interviews. I knew in the first few seconds, his religious beliefs do not allow him to talk about population. Nick might want to talk to harem masters to balance things up. In those days when he died, all his concubines went with him.
stupid opinion, I do not care at all about his religious believes, this is not the topic, this is about the amoc
@@thunderstorm6630 yes but amoc, habitat destruction, climate, extinctions, is all based around one thing - population.
I can't even spot it... you must have sensitive eye
I need another dark-haired & non-native english speaker, with even larger glasses, before can I start worrying about the climate crisis, sry. I'm sure even though humanity was here when the planet was much hotter, the future you want us to be afraid of is super scary. Where do I buy my carbon credits at?