The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double-backwards-somersault through a hoop whilst whistling the 'Star Spangled Banner', but in fact the message was this: 'So long and thanks for all the fish.'
Considering that over the past 50 years, our estimates of ocean fish population has decreased by 95%, the dolphins may just have realized there's not much fish left to be given to them.
"... you probably haven't realised the seriousness of the situation." I had that realisation more than 40 years ago, and I'm still waiting for any meaningful response from governments.
This is one of those "what can you say?" episodes. Well done for the clear and comprehensive explanation, but I wish there were even the faintest hope of anything getting done about it.
Talk about it. Make people aware. The more public pressure, the more likelihood of politicians putting in legislation to regulate these companies profiteering from the displacement of tens or hundreds of millions of people.
A colleague of mine recently said that the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. will "fix climate change"... all I could do was laugh. The IRA should have been done 30 years ago, in my opinion, yet everyone is patting themselves on the back and celebrating. I wish more people were pushing the severity of all this.
And very hard to try and figure out what to motivate yourself with when you're aware that the norm so many folk are chasing after is going to be gone very shortly in geologic terms and likely our terms too. During the cynical days, i wonder if this is why intelligent life seems to be extremely rare in the universe. It possibly expands and advances far too fast for it's own good, having a nice few centuries of huge growth before making it's habitat inhospitable. Damn our tribalistic tendencies from adapting to life in small groups. Maybe without them, we wouldn't be so caught up as a species constantly fighting and quarrelling as we are now.
@Dave? That's a stupid comment. It's the "dose of reality" that leads to the realisation of there being no chance of this getting fixed. 'Hope' here means, not some wafty aspiration but 'possibility.' It's a standard usage but if you want to nitpick words then at least make sense in your own terms. To say that hope got us here is fatuous. Try greed, selfishness, arrogance, stupidity, laziness and blind faith as causes [for starters].
We are in the middle of another emergency right now with record low temperatures and snowfall in Canada. Can we please have some of this warming that climate change is supposed to bring us, our heating bills are getting a bit hard to handle. Considering that the coastal areas of the US and Canada have become the place where the nut cases out number the sane a rise in sea level is very welcome. I've listened to both sides of the global warming argument from people that are all very well educated scientists and there seems to be as much for it as against it so I'm going to live as much the same as I always have as possible. One big argument against the doom and gloom world ending scenario is that all the lying corrupt politicians have wholeheartedly embraced it and are using it to tax people and force them to change how they live. Politicians never have peoples best interests in mind and are only concerned with power and getting reelected. If a politicians says something is a certain way then I can almost guarantee that it isn't.
the only ones "for" climate change are the profiteers causing it....and very misinformed as most of our crops become unsustainable very quick and global famine happens. quit spreading your lies and your propaganda...as you obviously are not speaking in good faith and are more than likely being some sort of edgelord troll
Blue ocean events (expected to be moderately likely by 2030 and almost certain by 2050) mean drastically reduced temperature differentials between the Arctic and 60 degrees North, which means a sluggish jet stream. And this means big changes to climate patterns in the northern hemisphere. And...this means massively disrupted food production systems in the northern hemisphere. You can do the next one...
I am afraid you are absolutely right. The sluggish jet stream can create droughts simultaneously in America, Europe and Asia, reducing e.g. wheat harvest dramatically even without war. But we must not give up.
lmao, I saw articles predicting ice free arctic in less than 5 years like every year for the past 30 years and its still there, just wrong every time lol
@@xtremelemon8612 ... and in the mean time polar ice has been increasing. No, wait, strike that, ice continues to decrease, so the logical conclusion is, ..., anyone?
I love to see any of these climate crisis pushes stake something against it. Like "if the sea doesn't rise by 7 metres by this date I will give my house to charity" or perhaps like a bad doctor loose their licence to practice. I think science and models would become better overnight if being wrong cost them in some way.
You don't understand models then. The purpose of a model is to simulate some variables trending in a certain way and predicting the outcome. The purpose isn't to be accurate. The purpose is to create indicators that can predict possible outcomes. It tells them which are the important variables to keep an eye on and what trends are bad. Scientists make tonnes of models covering a wide array of variables and different combinations of variables. Logic dictates that a large amount of those models will not accurately predict the future, because many of them are using opposite trends of similar variables. When people point to a model as a warning, like in this video, it isn't to claim a scientist looked into their crystal ball. It's to say that the trends that this model mapped are happening and this is what the model predicted if those trends continue.
@@haddow777 Humbug. The modellers play the game to attract funding and a great way to make a living. Make them pay if they get it wrong take back the funding and spoil their game.
@@Cruner62 you would have a lot of destitute weather forecasters than. I'm sorry, but it's kind of hard to comprehend such a shallow view of predictive models, so it's hard to respond. It's like you don't understand even the basic logic of what a predictive model's benefits are. Being wrong is a huge part of building a predictive model. That is why they don't just build one. I guess you see some predictive model's being talked about on the news and somehow think those are tbe only model's being made or something. In actuality, they make multiple models simulating multiple predictions. They run them in parallel. The more right one predicts, the mare they figure the variables it is using match reality. So naturally they hone their predictions to that model. They then make more fine tuned predictions and then make a whole bunch of new models based on the parts of each model that were correct. It's a long and error prone process to build the most accurate model. To try and claim that a model has to be accurate right out the gate does nothing but betray a lack of understanding of predictive model's and general logic. Also, people building and running model's aren't generally looking for funding. Models like that take specific understanding to build and a good amount of computer power. They're already funded. For them, if they get a model right, it just means they're going to refine the model by building a whole slew of new models with further refinements.
I have just checked the Danish Met Institute Graphs, and Arctic temperatures have fallen by 2.5C over the past six years, that's Winter Spring and Autumn, Summer temperatures on average have not changed over the last 30 years. Arctic sea Ice extent has also been increasing since 2015 We were supposed to see the Arctic Ice free in summer by 2012 Antarctic sea ice was at an all time record in 2014.
Of course climate changes because of earth trajectories - stop wars and destruction and adapt to suit the changes - almost all conflicts are of religious origins and others through ideologies of individuals like the current global cabals aiming at world domination.
Well I look at it this way, if it was global cooling that would be worse as we would all have to scrunch into the land around the equater to stay warm and grow food so we need to look at global warming as a plus not a minus.
Even as person who is very concerned about global warming and the effects of human activity on the climate, I can see that this is an exaggeration of facts meant to scare people. The Arctic is not warming anywhere near this quickly. We don’t need climate hysteria, we need to understand the actual facts and then work to find solutions. We can’t change the damage from years of human activity overnight, but we can calmly move forward, working together, using real science, and build a better future. Hysteria will only lead to failure.
It is your fault, turn off the Electric, don't buy anything made from oil, don't use animal products. Sack cloth and ashes is not a good look. Cosmetics, don't buy them. Drink nettle tea, it has no airmiles. Nett Zero is unobtainable it is a fantasy of rich westerners. Ask a typical African what it means to them. Nothing. They will continue to burn fire wood to heat their food, as they have done since the dawn of hominids on this planet. Desertification is mostly because they cook using wood fires. Use wood, get a stone age axe, go cut trees, cook out. The belief that the UK can make do without fossil fuels are deceiving themselves. 12000 wind turbines is no where like enough will need 151000 of them and the fact that the UK has shutdown another two nuclear power stations (not capable of getting energy from Scotland to England) means that 3000 Km of Moroccan HVDC interconnector is still on the drawing board. In the whole history of energy production, as soon as something makes a bit of money, it is nationalised. The only people to benefit from Nett Zero, will be Banks and Corporations, dealing in financial instruments.
CLIMATE ENGINEERING is the main reason for weather-related issues, including the overall warming of the planet. (Pollution plays a small part). The governments will deny it, but weather manipulation has been happening since WW2. There are over 160 patents for weather modification, so we absolutely have the technology to do it. Wherever you might live, look up in the sky and you will notice periodically smoke-like aerosol trails coming from commercial and military planes. These trails are filled with TOXIC aluminum, barium, strontium, etc. NANOPARTICLES that are manipulated by microwave energy(generated by HAARP and cellphone towers) to create droughts, floods, snowstorms, you name it. They are also extremely harmful to human health. There are many players with different agendas. PLEASE INVESTIGATE FOR YOURSELF. KEEP AN OPEN MIND. ua-cam.com/video/fEKdGa8-I24/v-deo.html www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-dimming-full-length-climate-engineering-documentary/
The crazy idea that tinkering politicians would have a thermostat knob that they can turn on with measures paid for by taxpayers Stop the climate scam and green corruption with taxpayers' money
In 1924 there was a similar very rapid warming of the Arctic. The explorer Spefenson reported young thin rotten ice between Alaska and the North Pole. There was no ice around Spitsbergen. Glaciers were me!ting rapid!y. If I check the official global temperature records this was at a time when the Earth was at it' s coldest in the last 100 years. How can this be?
It wasn't similar at all. 2001 to 2007 was a bifurcation event leaving the sea ice in a state it hasn't been in probably since the early holocene. There is no way this bifurcation can be reversed given current ghg forcing.
@@chrisreed5463 But why are the the early 1920's shown to be the coldest recent period when all the contemporary evidence is that they were not? 1921 had record heat across USA and Asia. I checked the historic temperature records of the Arctic ports and they all show similar temperature in the 20s to today. What do you mean by a bifurcation event?
The Arctic minimum summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 17 years. In the past few years it was almost as high as 1995. The probability that this could be due to chance has now dropped to 10% (after Swart et al calculations, 2015). If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p
It’s curious, I’m 77 years old and I remember that as far back as 45 years ago “scientists” were predicting catastrophic sea level rise within 10 years and when that didn’t occur they predicted it would happen in the next 10 years, etc etc. Now 45 years later they’re still doing the same thing. It’s hard to believe people when they are so consistently wrong.
Tomorrow never comes. It's all based on dodgy climate models. More ice and snow in the northern hemisphere than since records began. The oceans are also cooler.
I've been wondering.... How do you animate the research articles, figures and other graphics??? One of the best-looking science-related channels on UA-cam!!!
THIS is NOT a science channel at all, clearly you do not know enough about this subject to realize YOU are being conned, stop being so gullible and do some real research on what the broad range of scientific studies have shown over the decades.
@@Splarkszter Better than that i am RIGHT ! This video is simply propaganda designed to convince the ignorant and gullible that something unusual is happening with aspects of climate, just another in a long series, when an examination of both the overall data, and the long history of such claims over the last fifty years have shown them to be spurious. Temperature, weather and climate are ALL TOTALLY within normal variability for our current interglacial. The data is VERY clear.
I enjoyed your presentation, however I feel you should present the lowest and highest temperature predictions not just the highest ie RPC 2.6 and RPC 8.5. Considering past predictions have been at or below RPC 2.6.
I live less than 500km from the arctic circle and I am not even going to watch this video because this kind of news are too depressing to me. I'm studying to have a career on renewable energy sector and I'll focus on doing my best to cut global emissions and protect the nature. That is all I can do..
This all makes me wonder why anyone would move to Florida or any lowland coastal area. The costs of redoing all the infrastructure along the coasts as the sea levels rise or just finding places for everyone to move to if all those places are abandoned are astonishing - a much larger cost than changing our habits and using renewables. Carbon capture is still best done by not ruining what forests we do have and planting more in places that can support them.
It's because sea level isn't rising by 50 meters over night, but more like 15 cm or 6 inches every 15 years. You will be able to live in most parts of Florida for many decades, maybe centuries with a little bit of engineering magic.
@@ax14pz107 very interested in your comment. Does it suggest sea level rise will be non linear over time, ie spurts of rises more than 1 standard deviation from the mean, during certain time periods? If so, I would sincerely wish to learn more....thx.
@@frederickmatthews4259 absolutely. Check out the meltwater pulses of the early Holocene. Rates possibly above two inches a year have occurred before. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise
Fundamentalist religion is the root of most of the gullibility that allows a large part of the population to be manipulated to be anti-science. This is particularly true in the US.
I've ALWAYS based my physical science assessments on how long they are. I once commended Albert Einstein on his papers being able to be skimmed through by me in 17 minutes. Perfect science because solely of that.
Unfortunately, we have to state that most news about the climate in the media is incomplete, misleading or completely wrong. The completely fundamental question of WHETHER the emissions of carbon dioxide affect the climate so much that it is noticeable is rarely addressed. It is presented instead as an established truth
I've just now noticed from the uni bremen (deutsch) time series that there's an approximate cycle 3-4 years long of Arctic Ocean sea ice minimum (September) extent on top of the slow downward trend from 2006-2022 that didn't exist 1972-2006 (the period of their time series). So highest minimum extent years within a cycle were 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022 and lowest minimum extent years within a cycle were 2007, 2012, 2016, 2020 (of which 2007, 2012 were bigger & famous). Not anything like a Sine wave, they can't be overlaid for a really good match but there's something there. So if a cycle exists then 2023 will be lower than 2022, 2024 will be lower than 2023, and 2025 will be higher than 2024 (so 2024 will be lowest in the cycle). As I stated that's a rather cyclic-looking pattern laid ON TOP OF the slow downward trend of minimum sea ice extent. Hey, I almost made a prediction, never hardly done that before (I'm like Guy McPherson's lazy, handsome younger brother who just grunts "beats me" if you ask him "So what d'you think will happen about ").
except that its nonsense. There isnt going to be a devastating climate collapse. Note the question mark he has after his headline statement. It means he doesn't even back it himself.
Biproduct of more fresh water in the surface of the sea. We see the same in Greenland, but overall the temps are rising. Both sea and land temps. It mostly shows as the sea doesn't freeze over anymore as it used to.
When it comes to tipping points this is what the IPCC (Special Report on implications of 1.5C or more warming, Chapter 3) says:“there is little evidence for a tipping point in the transition from perennial to seasonal ice cover. No evidence has been found for irreversibility or tipping points, suggesting that year-round sea ice will return given a suitable climate”. The IPCC also do not believe the melting of the arctic permafrost will cause a tipping point in the release of warming methane gas “the carbon released to the atmosphere from thawing permafrost is projected to be restricted to 0.09-0.19 Gt C yr-1 at 2°C of global warming and to 0.08-0.16 Gt C yr-1 at 1.5°C, which does not indicate a tipping point”. The Earth's climate is a multi input thermodynamic system and will conform to Le Chatelier's Principle.
So why is the arctic ice still there if it has been melting much faster? It was predicted to be completely gone durings summers many years ago. How does this fit in with collapsing far more quickly than previous models?
No it wasn't. There were like two models that had the most extreme outcomes of the most extreme scenarios showing that maybe, possibly, if we get extremely unlucky, the Arctic could melt in the 2010s. I know it's hard to understand, but something having an absurdly low chance of happening doesn't mean it 100% will happen.
This is pretty obvious to people my age(38) than the new generation because they are not used to seeing 5 ft of snow like I did when I was 5 years old living in Wisconsin the whole time. I don't barely see even a foot of snow almost all winter now
Wisconsin here, too; plus I grew up in the Rocky Mountains. When I was a kid, we used to go drive past a glacier on Sunday drives. Even my aunt, who was married at the base of that glacier in the 1970's, didn't realize that it has melted away entirely now. Why doesn't she see it? Because in Utah, climate change has consequences so dire and immediate that you can't really acknowledge how bad it is--it's too awful to admit. Even as the snowpack that used to last until the end of August is now gone in June, and the fresh water source of that melting snow is gone with it. I moved to Wisconsin for the omnipresence of water, and the weather--including the cold winters. In the 14 years since, winters have only twice been close to the historical norms. People of our generation came along when the science was strong but the anti-science had just begun. When you have the genuine science come along at the right time to absorb it, and see the impacts shortly after, I think it may have made us more likely to be immune to the propagandists.
@@paintedwings74 What many don't want to realize it this planet is everchanging. There have been ice ages that have lasted thousands of years. I might not be ready for one myself, but I am definitely at better odds than many are of surviving whatever mother nature throws at us
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 Thats why it's called climate CHANGE and not global WARMING. The climate is experiencing more extreme shifts in weather. Once you understand that, you'll see how one area could be having warmer winters with less snowfall, while another area could be having colder weather with more snowfall
If you are genuinely curious, there are answers to that. Warmer winters mean a slower, wavier jet stream (more similar to the summer jet stream). The atmospheric motion of the jet stream keeps the arctic and subarctic air masses largely separated from each other. With the increased “waviness” of the warmer jet stream, you get large southward dips that carry arctic air into southernly latitudes. So the average air temperature is warmer, the arctic air is warmer, and the winter jet stream is weaker. However the now-warmer arctic air is still far colder than the air that would be typically above, say, Texas. So you get extreme winter events south of the arctic, while temperatures warm and ice decreases in the arctic.
Just love all the scientific speak........"could", "believe", "might", "speculate", "modeling", "suggesting", "estimated", "probably", "likely", ect.....
2004 they said "no ice in the arctic by 2007". Then in 2006 they said the same about 2010. Then when that didn't happen it was no ice by 2014. Then that didn't happen it was 2017. Same old bulldust over and over. If your predictions turn out to be wrong time and time again then look at your certitudes.
@@godfreypigott Probably the fake fake news. The fake news such as CNN is alarmist, and the fake fake news such as Fox is denialist. Together they divert factual discussion into angst by framing the "debate" around two straw positions. This angst is converted into cash, a bit like Monsters Inc.
I like it when new research indicates that warming was previously underestimated, as it always does. It reassures me that their work is reliable, and that they're not pushing an agenda.
What you read is what the scientists are allowed to publish, so naturally it will always be the rosiest version. What's actually going on is _always_ worse than what gets published. ;-)
@@thomasking5970 I was being sarcastic. Of course they'll publish the most alarmist hyperbole they can, to justify continuing to suck taxpayers' money. Only self-hating soy boys and corrupt globalists take any notice of the rubbish they produce now, anyway. Unfortunately, that's who is running the west (into the ground).
The Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Hapai underwater eruption last January ejected tons of ocean vapor into the upper atmosphere imposing some degree of warming albeit temporary to global rise according to a NASA report last August. These anomalies are not usually taken into account in computer modeling (well maybe now) but look at this year's droughts and floods which mostly attributed to climate change but possibly to this volcanic eruption.
@@Tengooda Most vocanic eruptions cool the atmosphere with aerosols that block sunlight, but not the HTHH volcanic eruption which will cause temporary warming as the water vapor some 400,000 tons is in the stratosphere and will remain there for about a decade. I think the article mentioned it could cause a T rise up to 0.5°C estimate.
@@williamm8069 A NASA article entitled "Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere" dated 2nd August 2022 states, "the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects", but makes no mention of 0.5°C warming. I have not found that figure elsewhere - that is not to say it does not exist, but if you cannot provide a source you should withdraw it, particularly as you appear to be attributing some of this year's climate events to that eruption.
@@Tengooda I read that NASA article as well and was surprised but I was trying to find the source for you. Geologyhub YT channel mentioned the warming effect but I read it from another source. It could just have been scientists speculating without actual measurements. I know academically I should retract the statement but I was hoping someone else could have pointed it out. 400,000 tons of water vapor 60 km high in the atmosphere definitely made a disturbance to the jet stream and climate - the question is how much disturbance? I do remember the article mentioned the water vapor will remain for several years to almost a decade.
Now semi-retired, I've spent much of my working life designing & manufacturing precision instruments for the geophysics community. You'll understand that my natural biases are towards making & archiving real-world measurements. I am skeptical of the accuracy of climate models that claim to predict the future, yet need to be "tuned" to make their postdictions of the past match the archived real-world data, & which then do a poor job of matching reality as the future arrives. After all, our planet, along with the plants & animals on it, has survived much worse than a degree or two of warming over a century or three. As you mention in your introduction, we're only just ~15,000 years out of a long period of glaciation, with some forecasts suggesting that another ice age is likely within another ~15,000 years or so. The records from various sources, especially deep borehole ice cores from Greenland & Antarctica, tell us that there have been multiple ice ages in the past. Similarly, we also know that there have been many times that the Earth was much warmer than today, & both animal & plant life flourished with upwards of 6 or 7 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we can easily engineer ourselves out of these slow but massive long-term climate cycles. We need more data, especially over, & at extreme depths of, the world's oceans, & we need much more computing horsepower to improve the climate models to the point that they actually serve a useful purpose instead of simply exciting the alarmists into making more & more extreme forecasts of catastrophes in a distant future. One of humanity's greatest talents is our ability to adapt to many different environments - using fire, clothing, man-made shelters, etc, etc. Let us carefully observe what happens as the decades go by. We can do a lot by preparing contingency plans that are flexible enough, & we being skeptical enough, that we do not risk all our treasure on unproven schemes.
What do you exectly mean by tuning? Some tuning is fine, some is problematic. The idea that every tuning is bad is wrong. Let me explain. A simple prediction is if X then Y. Let’s look at gravity. If I have a bal in my hand and I drop it, gravity would predict it would fall. The bal not falling would be a failed prediction under the condition I actually dropped it. This is quite obvious. However, many people that are critical of climate models forget this condition. They thus conclude that the bal not falling is a failed prediction no matter if I would actually drop the bal. Climate models don’t only predict the influence of changing climate drivers but also how the drivers change in the future. A simplified example is a model that if the CO2 concentration would increase to 800 ppm the temperature would increase with Y. Just because we don’t see a temperature rise of Y is thus not evidence that prediction failed because the CO2 concentration didn’t increase to 800ppm. To check if a climate model is accurate you need to tune is by providing the actual changes in greenhouse gas concentrations but also changes in other drivers like solar influx. Yes, the earth experienced many climate changes. However that simply does not mean there can’t be an antropogenic influence on the climate.
I disagree with your statement that humans a so great at adapting to different surroundings. We adapt our surroundings to become how we like it, and that is exactly the problem. We don't adjust to live in harmony with nature, like animals do, we change nature to suit us. So, I see survival for only a handful, which will tell about the great flood that swept the earth, and it will turn into a myth for maybe the hundredth time in earth's history. And by the time the next civilisation starts to discover some proof for huge floodings in the landscape, it might already be too late again to alter their fate.
@@Vicartje Do you seriously think that humanity will be wiped out by the impacts of climate change? Given our immense numbers never yet seen before on Earth(about to hit 8 billion!), it would take uninhabitability of the Earth as a whole to truly kill us off. As you'll know, both the Arctic and Antarctic will be far more suitable for habitation if warming continues, while much of the Earth will remain habitable but under a different climate that will take getting used to. We may very well see a contemporary African humid period and a greening of the Sahara in the next century.
Show us your precision instruments that protect Fidji from drowning, Pakistan from being flooded, coral reefs from bleaching, Madagascar from catastrophic droughts... The future has arrived already.
Jrb_sland I read your comment and found it to be very well reasoned and satisfying. You remind me of Richard Feynman when he said: "When the models make predictions that are wrong then the models are wrong." Your last statement "... we being skeptical enough, that we do not risk all our treasure on unproven schemes." really strikes a cord in me. We can spend our entire GDP on CO2 reduction and only reduce the Global temperature a tiny fraction of one degree (F or C). We certainly do need to be very careful to adequately test our theories so that we can make the best use of our resources so that our expenditures can be worthwhile.
I'm always hesitant to click on these videos of yours because hopeful game-changing stuff is always easier to hear. The scale of the problem is so immense it is hard to grasp. Thank you for your videos.
@@josephfrank6815 I wish all the climate change scammers would jump off tall buildings. It would have saved at least 3 women from getting RAPED BY AL GORE allegedly.
As an American Anglophile, I truly enjoy your accent. You speak English beautifully. To our point: The existential question about climate disaster SEEMS to be true.
Here in Puerto Vallarta MX, the first wave of winter change hit us. El nino is here. I was first a tourist and became a resident in this region. When young it was dry with a rainy season, now we move into much more rain as the changes occur. Hurricanes were rare, int 4 years we have been directly hit by two severe cyclones and one with torrential rains 2 days later. I have been in the rain forests of Brazil Colombia, Phillipines and Thailand. That rainfall was the first time I feared for my life and my neighbors. If a person fell on their back the rain was the equivalent of fire hoses in the face. We live on ridges of the sierras and wet air moves in from the Pacific, meanwhile those same neighbors drive Ford Rangers and Chevy Suburbans as daily cars. We need a way to change their desire to be that potentate in the covered palanque travelling alone. The desire for personal transportation is overwhelming in a nation that needs good public transportation.
@@glenda917 Turns out there was plenty to "fear"..... the anti-Brexiters were absolutely correct and the Brexiters LIED all the way through the campaign and after as well. And if you aren't seriously frightened, then you're as old as I am, or you are as ignorant as most Americans are concerting how climate disruption is ending the habitat and habitability of their home. Near Term Human Extinction is a thing and it's a thing in the Sixth Mass Extinction. Welcome to the party.
Great Info Video,and very sad state of climatic affairs,but we still have a chance of preventing the worst,and many people are working on parasitical solutions,including myself so everyone please hang on best you can.Thanks For The Hard Work
No, we’re doomed to overheating , we have been for 40 years… But shortly before that (1970s) we we doomed to global cooling and new ice age😂. The only difference now is they’ve made it a business, created fear, manufactured the problem, applied taxes to the population and created a supposed saviour in themselves.
It is ghastly, having something so terrifying and nigh-inevitable explained in such a pleasant voice, and so well structured and presented. It would have been less unsettling if he had been screaming "RUN!! RUN!! YOU"RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!"
@@eshafto what is accually scary is you, and all those that so willing accept this nonsence. To blindly repeat its inevitable?? . Have you even looked at the artic ice data on a multitude of unbias sites, why are people so dumb to just simply believe without question, intelligent skepticism or analysis. It's how easy people can be brainwashed that's really scary. Really scary, and the reason is that ridiculous harmful policy is accepted due to this belief. He lays it out for dummies yes and the dummies believes it. I can tell you the artic ic is just fine and the absurd notion that it will melt in 10 years is ridiculous, but please don't take my word for it, don't be lazy research some unbias original sourse it's that simple.
I mean, we're almost certainly looking at a 3 Centigrade increase -- trying to calm ourselves by still talking about what would have happened had we done the right thing 20 years ago is just preventing people from seeing what the future will really be like.
And yet the climate models have consistently over-predicted warming and have repeatedly been revised to show less warming. It was an interesting hypothesis back in the 80s but has since become a political hoax.
@@kirklaird8345 that's not actually the truth. Initially the models over predicted, bevarar there were buffets like the pema frost. And now we're running out of buffers, and it's turning the other way. We know how much energy the sun insolates. We know how much the carbon blanket keeps. It's very basic science. Predictions from the 1800s were confirmed by satellites in the 80s. The only question is where that energy gets stored. And the more carbon we add, the faster we store more of it Where do you think it gets stored?
@@jonwatte4293 They are gaslighting you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the wavelengths it absorbs and then emits are nearly totally absorbed. Adding more CO2 has very little effect. The models used the assumption that the forecasted slight increase in temperature due to CO2 would cause a significant increase in water vapor content in the atmosphere. This "accelerated feedback" mechanism was the main driver of the forecasts of increasing temps but it didn't happen. They have had to repeatedly revise climate models to account for the fact that temperature just hasn't increased like it was supposed to. In fact climate scientists cannot model cloud formation - which, after the sun's radiation, and our own atmosphere is the most important factor in climate. You should ask yourself this: If climate science was "settled science" then how did they overlook the so-called buffers you mention and why have all the forecasts been wrong requiring models to be repeatedly revised? The Maldives are still not submerged. The oceans are still rising at the same rate they have been rising for 150 years (about 1" per decade) and the Arctic summer sea ice is still there - and it hasn't changed much since 2006.
I really feel conflicted about giving this video the thumbs up: excellent content, presentation and sources… but really really sad and bad news for every one 😔 thanks for keeping us alert and aware
hes got it completely wrong...the earth is now cooling rapidly,ask the australians..the tonga eruption means a year without a summer in the northern hemisphere
@@steve-r-collier The sulfur dioxide moves into the stratosphere and combines with water to form sulfuric acid aerosols. The sulfuric acid makes a haze of tiny droplets in the stratosphere that reflects incoming solar radiation, causing cooling of the Earth's surface. Wait so can't we utilize this pump out a bunch of sulfuric acid aerosols?
A map from the 16th century? First reliably reported arrival at Antarctica was in 1895. Many maps were pure fantasy back in the day because of lack of real knowledge.
The summer of 2011 we had 60 days of triple degree heat and then the lowest sea ice level was recorded in 2012. This year with all the global heat waves going I’m placing my bet that 2023 Artic sea ice will be the lowest Ever recorded or no sea ice at all next summer. Hope next year I’m not saying I told u so.
I like how you said leaders should declare a global emergency. Actually the first reaction i had to the pandemic being called an emergency was "boy do i have news for you lot. Just wait" also since years ago, west antarctica was realised by some that it's past the point of return, so as you said about the dominoes. But they're already falling actually. but anyway, we should still pay reparations to mapa before we get to the end of the line. FridaysForFuture is on this week please take a look at the cause and spread the word. It's a massive organised strike for real change also dude i can't imagine how you cope with keeping up with the news so much. Maybe you're like me in some way and have just accepted the real possiblity (or perhaps now more than a possibility) of the worst future. But however you manage to cope i hope you take care. Thank you for sharing the journey with us, it's been really lovely and will continue to be really nice to share the road ahead
Well, if you haven't checked what EU is doing, its just that. Apparently we have some kind of climate emergency therefore we collected 1 000 billion euros to 'battle against climate change'.. Just tell me what that money will do to battle against natural cycles?
On top of that, now we have electricity prices rising, because these green activists thought electricity comes from wall, but didn't understand the physics behind electricity production. Just have a think.
@@dougaltolan3017 Alright but climatology isn't unique in that, so I'm really curious if whether what the data shows these people translates to less of them having children as a result.
@@HonestSonics I await your paper on this, should be an interesting read.. Possible confounding factor: If it really is the end of the world, shouldn't we be partying (including baby making), going out with a bang?
@@WENCHintheTINFOILhat Yes, 'it's like people' (extraordinarily intelligent and diligent scientists around the world) have done an enormous amount of extremely difficult "Research" using technology that you have little to no comprehension of. And you've got??? .... Idle prattle.
It's fun to watch this on Christmas 2022, as the entire northern hemisphere is having the most record breaking, widespread winter of all time. 7 feet of snow in Japan. Once again record breaking cold in Canada, USA.
Right? The sad part is, as mentioned in his video about the slowing down AMOC, North America and Europe tend to freeze harder while more ice sheets defrost. That’s crazy and threatening. Extreme weather patterns sound like pure chaos!
I don't know about wide spread record breaking winter, I live in the Great lakes region and it just seems like the same old winter we've always gotten.
@@robertlivingston1634 Yes. It is the new normal in Vancouver. Believe it or not Vancouver used to go the whole winter without snow This is no longer true. Vancouver starting in 2016 has had long cold record breaking cold every single winter now.
@@billpetersen298 My mom's side of the family moved to Vancouver when the population was about 20,000 people, 1910. My Dad's side moved here during the gold rush. From the archives, winters in the lower mainland are normally rainy with the occasional below freezing weather. I don't know if you remember, but on April 14th, 2022 it was -1°C, with snow. I filmed it. Most of the small birds died in the neighbourhood. Having snow still coming down on the Coquihalla all the way into May has now made the ministry of highways extend the requirement for snow tires, from no longer ending in March but April now. The weather is all over the place. 2018: record wildfires. But 80% human caused. 2019 no campfire bans all year. Wet and cool Summer. Cold winter 2020 same. No campfire bans. Mild summer cold winter snow. 2021 Early campfire ban. Record breaking heat extended. long cold winter 2022 hot summer. So far early start for winter
Canada's arctic islands where once covered in lush forests, but now my country is completely frozen half the time and half of it is frozen all the time . i don't mind if things warm up a bit.
Yes, and only 12,000 years ago Almost all of Canada was under ice almost 5 miles deep over a lot of it. I was in Canada the last 2 winters near Toronto. It was bloody cold much of the time and it snowed a-lot. This is just Weather but I do want to commiserate about it.
@@thunderbearclaw Yes, interesting isn't it? I wonder why they keep giving us scare stories instead of investigating why the lady Ice Age ended? That event was clearly catastrophic, but they are not interested in it. Very odd.
@@leicestersq1 _"instead of investigating why the lady Ice Age ended"_ This has been extensively investigated. The reason you mostly hear about climate scientists who warn of current-day climate change should be pretty obvious: They are extremely alarmed by it, so they'll take any opportunity to tell the public about it.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs OK, so what caused the sudden end of the last ice age? There was ice one mile thick where Chicago is now. It all went instantly. And now Chicago has average temps of 27C in July. Impossible for ice to build up there now. What happened? Best I can tell is that the pole shifted. I don't know, but there was an all but instant change. What caused it? 200m rise in sea levels. CO2 didn't do that. So what did?
Papers predict . . . While in reality, the Arctic ice pack is much above the mean size going back over one century. Most studies start at 1979, which is near an all-time maximum
Nice to hear from someone who is thinking about this. I was a Teen in the 1970's in Montreal Quebec and my personal experience was that this was a very cold period. A good friend got frost bite on both of his heels. The media and the experts then were predicting that we were entering a new Ice Age. In I think 1974 I spent a whole summer at our cottage and almost everyday it never got much above 65 F. I used to complain that I was purple when I swam. Again bloody cold. Later in the early 80's I worked in Calgary Alberta. On my first winter there we had a 6 week long stretch where the weather every night and morning went below minus 45 Farenheit. I went out for a jog and my ear lobes froze solid. It was a great time to start a temperature series and declare it to represent the norm.
You should point out that we have Arctic sea ice surveys going back to the 1920s and even satellite data back in the early 70s. The only reason they start at 1979 is because, as you point out, 1979 was a maximum in what surveys since the 1920s tell us is a cyclical pattern.
@@grindupBaker ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who disagree with the truth. Another fact is that the Arctic currently has more ice than 6000 years ago according to Science Daily (10/20/08) source, “Geological survey of Norway“. They go on to state that the Arctic may have been periodically ice free during that era
But he explained the 1979 start point by saying that's when the measurements became accurate. Therefore they can safely ignore all the prior data. That's one way to get rid of inconvenient contrary data. The trick, of course, is to say it with a straight face.
i mean sure if you mean due to periods of high volcanic activity or asteroid impacts etc but its sort of irrelevant hey. There are 7 Billion of us here now and were all pretty dependent on a pretty narrow set of environmental conditions
@@vincentchauvet6654 there are only that many people on the planet because of fossil fuels not inspite of them. Would you rather two thirds of the world population starve?
Whenever there is news about climate science there is a word that always comes up... "underestimating" ... and this is the most scary thing. Not only is it bad, not only do we miss some details, but anytime we learn more it gets worse.
Not much. It's mostly that News is what sells. So for all these social-only venues, those of us who study the PHYSICAL science (so not the social "sciences") find it's either a modest change to what was previously published or it's no change at all over what's been given by scientific documents for many years, but rather it's just a synthesis of many of those older documents, a re-hash showing a bunch in one "new" document. All that's in this video, for example, has been known for many years and is simply a synthesis or re-hash for the purpose of making it News .... again. Something like 5% increase in the analysis results of past data or the modelling of future is the sort of thing that comes out every decade or so. For example, 71% open un-iced Arctic Ocean water for September for a decade and then 77% next decade, just roughly that sort of thing, a 6% increase in the faint September low-sunshine heating over the decade in that example.
I live in au , yes it’s all good. Even to the point the qld gov still lets cargo , oil tankers to transit through it. Well who are we to argue with a dickdick lefty
I am following the climate deterioration since 1973 after the first 'oil shock'. No scientific proof or reasoning could convince politics and big business of the dire consequences of our destructive greed for profits and power. We, as a species have failed to maintain our existence and we are all responsible. We are victims of our 'success'. Previous civilisations came and went. This time we're all in for 'interesting' times ahead.
I was a research assistant at university for a scientist studying arctic plants. I logged plants in her study area into a database. I was amazed that most of the plants were the same as those I knew in the Pacific Northwest. In miniature. I expect many could grow bigger in warmer temps. I like the thought, anyway.
Judging by ice-cores taken at Greenland the temperature at that location, say over the last 10,000 years, has fluctuated within a steady range. On the basis that this natural trend continues then it is inevitable that the icecaps will continue reducing within this epoch, just as they have done until today.
Yes, over thousands of years; that's how the natural cycle works. We're speed running that process by dumping unheard of quantities of greenhouse gases in the air in a short time (centuries). Earth is a large system with a lot of inertia or momentum. We're only starting to get a sense of how much we've thrown it off while continuing to make the problem worse because emissions don't go down.
Anyone that wants to better understand warming periods should definitely check out Tony Heller. He covers the medieval warning period and even drought conditions and river levels.
Tony Heller is backed by the fossil fuel industry. He stands to gain from any inaction done towards climate change. It has already been proven that the medieval warming period was very localized over Europe. Current global temperature and co2 levels are near exceeding the maximums in all of human history, all in the span of just a decade.
There is absolutely no point in looking to future technological solutions ( the search for which I am in favour of) while we continue to ignore the simple solutions which we already have. Here in the UK we are wasting 20% of our energy just heating leaky housing. We desperately need to insulate our housing. We continually fail to do so. If we won't take the simple measures, which would actually benefit people, what hope is there of taking the harder ones which will come at a cost . INSULATE NOW!!!!!!!!
Climate change makes me think of the Fermi Paradox, which questions why-- given the size and age of the universe-- we haven't seen any sign of any other life out there. One possibility is that all civilizations destroy themselves before achieving interstellar travel. I wonder if we are about to be an example of that. Another possibility is that we are actually alone. Life is just that special and rare and unique.
@0:34 The ice extent on the picture is far from accurate, where it only shows 70-80 % of the real ice extent, which you can get from the Danish Institute for Meteorology, DMI. There you can also check that the icecurve is just normal, compared to the mean values between 2004-2013. There's no collapse what so ever in sight. About Greenland, there has been a small loss of ice during the latest 20 years, about 200 Gton /year. (1 Gton is eq to 1 km3 of water). It can sound a lot, but if it continue to do so it will take about another 2000 years for all ice on Greenland to melt. In the meantime perhaps the weather will change. Maybe you should have a re -think.
I wish we could just go back to another snowball earth! (When ice core samples for that period show approximately 25,000ppm CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere).
If we’re talking facts my friend not peer reviewed papers that are six months old THE BOOK to go to is called ‘“2 mile time machine “where a group of scientists spent over five years drilling through the 2 mile thick ice sheet and now I can tell us exactly what The last 12,000 years of climate was ?
Thanks for this intelligent assessment of the state of the arctic sea ice. For the past few days I have been bombarded with abuse by followers of Australian journalist Graham Lloyd for having the temerity to oppose his climate change denial rants on UA-cam. As a climate scientist, I am capable of providing science fact to the sceptics but it might have been less traumatising for me just to direct them to your excellent post.
So how high has the sea levels around Oz risen? Give me a break Peter. Sounds like you're part of the problem. Just another scientist pretending they know everything about a planet 4.5 billion years old. Yawn.
@@stuartpearce4773 Perhaps John Robson, who claims he knows a full plate from an empty one, should join me in East Africa, to observe people and animals dying daily from drought and hunger from unprecedented climatic conditions that are almost certainly climate change related. He will not see many full plates from which he can feed his smug platitudes.
@@peterusher2020 so this is a new phenomenon is it Peter? Yeah right. Droughts and floods are unfortunately normal weather events in many parts of the world. The severity of them, especially in urban areas, is magnified by the increased bulk of buildings, paved roads and lack of proper planning from governments in regards to storm water drainage. People raving on about that it's climate changes fault is just ignoring a hundred plus years of historical data.
@@danielanders4773 Yes Daniel, it is different. A third consecutive La Niña and negative IOD has resulted in six inadequate rainy seasons. Unprecedented in the sixty years I have professionally been involved in African and International climatology. I pointedly did not attribute the events categorically to climate change, only the probability that the effect was causal. There is plenty of new desert here for climate deniers to bury there heads in, but climate change Is real and most of present and predicted effects are unwelcome.
that is because it isn’t increasing. But it does appear more stable. Global temperature changes have been more apparent in the northern hemisphere probably because a far greater proportion of the southern hemisphere is ocean.
I’m looking at the PIOMAS cite for the most recent month, Dec 22, and it says “Average December 2022 ice volume was 1.1 standard deviations above the 1979-2021 rend line.” Also “The December time series … have no apparent trend over the past 11 years.”
The front page of the piomas site shows a graph of sea ice volume with a negatively sloped linear regression. The caption tells us that the ice volume is the seasonally adjusted ninth lowest on record. Being 1.1 standard deviations above the trend line is not unusual for one datapoint. I cannot find the quote about the December time series, but I am not surprised because the statement itself ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. Religious fruitcakes are not a good source of science information.
Thank you for mentioning a future fraught with destruction as not being a place to bring children. The human overpopulation concerns alone are devastating.
Thank YOU for recognizing overpopulation. Too few recognize overpopulation as a general problem, let alone a driver of climate change. We wouldn't be wrecking this planet as much if our population hadn't soared out of control upwards of 8 billion. The Earth has been bent and twisted every way we, humanity, have demanded to support our disgusting numbers. In the end, it becomes starkly apparent that we are a cancer to all other life on Earth.
Imagine the scale of leadership needed to put into action those Cop decisions. We have better data then ever before. Flood defences? It seems rather late.
@@paulwelch4643 IDOT !, clearly you have no knowledge of the climatic history of the planet not even our current interglacial ! Only the ignorant and gullible would be taken in by such obvious propaganda. Sea levels are currently ONE TO TWO METERS LOWER than 4500 years ago, if ALL the Arctic ice cap and Greenland sea ice shelves melted TOMORROW it would raise sea levels by ZERO MILLIMETERS , thats because they already displace their full volume of water. Only 8000 years ago there was NO summer Arctic sea ice and almost NO Greenland land ice temperatures during the Holocene Thermal Optimum were 6-8 Deg C warmer than now. For most of the period of human civilization temperatures were WARMER than now.
One thing that you can add to this is volcanic actions of late,one of the last one's knocked the earth's axis by nearly 7inchs, may not sound much but it puts the Arctic in the sun for longer 🙃 Model's are just that Model's a slight miscalculation and it's going to be out by a long way ,just a guess at a worst case cenario
If you haven't had sleepless nights from the positive feedback loop of methane release in the Eastern Siberian shelf of the arctic ocean, you are part of the problem.
Difficult to know what to say after watching this. Especially in the midst of the Putin madness and the resultant rush back to fossil fuels. At 69, I'm not going to see too much of this, but what a God awful mess we're handing over to our kids. My youngest is only 13 and my grand children are only 10 and 8 - they are going to see the full horror show. If they survive it. As a child of the 50s and 60s, who has spent his whole life seeing the world getting better and fairer and more prosperous, it's a real kick in the guts to realise now that my generation and the ones before it, are handing over a world of potential nightmare problems to our children and grandchildren. How did we manage to screw things up so badly? and, if we survive, will we learn our lesson? I'm afraid I very much doubt it.
For us babyboomers to get back at least some credibility one consequence is to try to approach a zero carbon lifestyle immediately. Which means strictly no flying, no fossil cars, plant based diet, abandon fossil heating, shop stop, handing over our houses to young families. Nobody ever said that generational justice would be easy.
The same groups run the world that ran it then. We just have to do what we can in spite of them. To see one's efforts continually undone by ignorant selfish fools day after day is crushing, but on we must go. What else can we do?
@@thedabbler2753 " We want to be able to do what we want to do! We want to get loaded, and we want to have a good time. So that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna have a good time." Simon Pegg, from The World's End.
@@achenarmyst2156 My son is 27 years old. He and his wife have 3 children aged 8, 5 and 3. Send me your details and we'll arrange for you to hand your house/s over to him immediately. Oh. And thank you.
Imagine all the countries that all the immigrants are coming from, how messed up they are so once the boat is full here this place will be like the places the immigrants came from,
Bering Sea warming? Maybe that's why the Oplio Crab season has been canceled. The quota for fisherman is determined by population. An estimated 1 billion crab are missing. Thus requiring the cancelation of an entire fishing season. Don't Look Up.
Loved the sea ice graphics. The ice was seen flowing back and forth while the cloud formations remained static, "Simulation" should have been added as a caption. You used the term "Computer Modelling" a number of times in this piece surely shooting yourself in the foot. Just a few short months ago the absurdity of this method of presentating flawed (or corrupt) data as mathematical fact was illustrated on the outbreak of Covid 19. The early models having been proved wildly wide of the mark on casualty numbers, were remodelled time after time in a vain effort to get near to real world statistics. Governments are intentionally destroying national economies in pursuit of the great reset using climate models. This is all theoritical, or junk, science. Empirical evidence shows that the Earth is cooling, Greenland ice is thicker, polar bears are becoming a pest to indiginous communities and Ms. Thunberg is showing early signs of growing up. Who funds the scientists who produced the papers on which you based your piece.? Any climate scientist unless nearing retirement, would be foolish enough to depart from the alarmist narrative, unless he or she had a driving ambition to ask if you want fries with your order.
are you seriously implying that academia ALL OVER THE WORLD is involved in some large conspiracy? who would gain anything from that? Data doesn't change no matter who funds the research.
About time to recognize that those ‘doom mongers’ are proven to have been pretty much spot-on I should think. Especially with Kipling (or his parody) in mind.
Yet the forecasts (there have been many over the decades) that the Maldives would be submerged by 2020 hasn't happen (in fact they are slightly bigger than they were decades ago) and the Arctic summer sea ice, which was supposed to disappear by 2014 is still there - pretty much the same as it was in 2006.
The crazy idea that tinkering politicians would have a thermostat knob that they can turn on with measures paid for by taxpayers Stop the climate scam and green corruption with taxpayers' money
The Arctic has been cooling for the last 8000 years. A little up and down for the last 100 years, but generelly it is still cooling. We are near the end of the inter glacial periode.
"The Arctic has been cooling for the last 8000 years. A little up and down for the last 100 years, but generally it is still cooling. " No, the Arctic is rapidly warming, with one town in northern Norway now averaging SEVEN degrees F warmer than the long-term average.
@@KEB129 "Then you are a data denier like all the other climate alarmists!" No, I'm reporting the actual truth. The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere on earth, with a number of places already being 3-4 degrees C warmer than the long-term average. Half the Arctic ice mass that was there in the 1970s has melted away, the permafrost is melting and collapsing at a dangerous and destructive rate, etc., etc. With all due respect, you must not be reading the scientific evidence because scientists are very scared about the rapid warming going on in the Arctic. I must ask--WHERE are you getting your information from?
@@HealingLifeKwikly Greenland Ice core data GIsp 2 and a lot of other souces like IPCC data from 1990 when there was still SOME science in it, snd not like today when it is all policy and propaganda.
@@KEB129 Thanks for your reply, but I have no idea what you meant to say. BTW, there is zero evidence of any data tampering, misconduct, or "politics' by climate scientists. NINE independent investigations have found zero wrongdoing. Meanwhile, the predictions of the majority of climate scientists regarding warming keep coming true, which means they are right about how our emissions are warming the planet and disrupting the climate.
Unprecedented is the new normal. As the temperature continues to soar climate will become increasingly hostile to agriculture. Drought, fire, flood and unpredictable shifts in seasons are increasing along with temperature. Add energy to a fluid system and it becomes more active... like soup churning in a pot.
Great video as usual, sadly if it does not make money and feed the greed of human expansion across the globe it will also flounder and fail to find the right audience. Thank you for highlighting this most important issue.
"the greed of human expansion across the globe " Human greed - yes Human expansion - not so much. You may wish to research recent good news information concerning human demographics on a global scale because some in the demographic community are currently suggesting that United Nations population projections flawed.
Larger oceans and seas means that the Earth will be capable of retaining more latent heat. More latent heat contained in our oceans means dramatically higher global cloud cover than we have today. More cloud cover means that there will be more overall precipitation. This may result in more snow cover over higher elevation areas. It also bodes well for deflection of the Sun's light and heat away from Earth. What may be lost in the Earth's potential to deflect the Sun from the melting of the Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets in Greenland may be more than recovered elsewhere. Also, we really don't know for certain what sorts of effect an ice-free Artic would have on ocean currents. Everything at this point is just speculation. The only thing that is certain is that global warming is much more conducive to life overall than the opposite.
*Looks at snowball earth predictions of early 2000s, with scientists saying "It's hard to predict short term changes, but these long term changes are certain"* So... are we getting closer or further from there, exponentially?
As regards the melting of Arctic Ice, the records nearly always seem to start in 1979. Strange that, considering it was a year of record extent for Arctic Ice. Even so, data from NOAA (2022) show winter (March) ice coverage has hardly changed since '79, and that the summer (September) coverage trend had stopped declining since 2007. How inconvenient! Didn't someone predict in 2007 Arctic ice free by 2010, or 2015, or 2013, or in 5 years? Or was it in 2008 the Arctic ice sheet would melt away. Also predicted in 2008 North Pole ice free in ... 2008 ... or in 10 years. 2009 prediction: Arctic ice free in 2014. 2012 prediction: snow will be gone by 2020. And 2013 star prediction: Methane catastrophe in 2 years because of ice free Arctic. 2018 prediction: zero chance of permanent ice in Arctic by 2022. It's still there, and it's stopped shrinking. If you consider global sea ice cover, it was basically flat from 1981 to 2008, rose until 2010, stayed level until 2015, dropped until 2018, and then rebounded almost all the way back to the 1990-2000 average. Nobody predicted theses changes, nor can they explain them. The changes have no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is make-believe.
@Brent Summers Thin ice is more conducive to the maintenance of bear and walrus populations. Despite all the predictions, the Arctic remains increasingly biologically productive. Even if the ice were to disappear in the summer, this would not cause the extinction of polar bears. The Arctic has been ice-free during the Holocene climate optimum, and during the previous Eemian interglacial (both of which were warmer than current). The polar bears and other fauna were present during these events, and neither of these (obviously) resulted in their extinction or the obliteration of Arctic ecosystems.
Predicting an ice free Arctic in 10 years are we? Are you sure you want to make this prediction? Greenland has seen above average ice gains in 4 out of the last 6 years. 540 gigatons in 2017 and 500 gigatons in 2018 if my memory serves me right. This is way above average. Antarctica recorded it's lowest temp in recorded history. Coral reefs in Australia are at a 36 year record high. How can this be with a warmer world? Beware of making predictions. The internet is forever!
In 2017, the cumulative daily melt area for the Greenland ice sheet was the smallest since 1996, yet still higher than any year between 1979 and 1994 (1995 was a high melt season). The 2017 melt season was also notable for its late melt events, one of them occurring on October 29 to 31, tied for the latest for any year in the satellite record. Between September 2018 and August 2019, the Greenland Ice Sheet set a record for ice loss (532 ± 58 billion metric tons). Between September 2019 and August 2020, the rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet was much lower (293 ± 66 billion metric tons), but still above the 2002-2020 average measured by GRACE. Average ice loss for Greenland over the full 18-year record was 268 ± 14 billion metric tons per year. You facts are simply wrong.
@@grumpyguardsman6161 I just double checked my numbers and I'm correct. Sorry. 2017 - 540 gigatons net gain which is 160 gigatons above the 1981 - 2010 average of 380 gigatons. 2018 - 500 gigatons net gain which is above average... 2019 - 180 gigatons net gain which is 200 gigatons below the 1981 - 2010 average of 380 gigatons. 2020 - 375 gigatons net gain which is 5 gigatons below average... 2021 - 400 gigatons net gain, above average... 2022 - 450 gigatons net gain, above average. All years gained more ice than lost overall.
All models factor in solar forcing, and all but the simplest models factor in changes in solar forcing. The effect of changes in the magnetic field is much less than the effect of greenhouse warming.
@@godfreypigott Right, so solar activity can raise temperatures significantly for days, weeks or months on end, cause droughts that last for years, but climate change is worse? If and when a major CME hits the Earth it will make climate change look like nothing, every time a solar flare hits the Earth it pumps energy into the poles, which raises temperatures, sometimes by double digits in short bursts.
@@Tommy_Bee Apparently you are still unable to discern the difference between solar activity and *CHANGES* in solar activity in terms of the effect on climate. And the second part of your comment was fiction.
Great stuff. With the shutdown of the AOMC, also consider the impact on atmospheric dynamics and Mother Nature's correction to the problem, by the cooling of the Arctic and increased snow production across mountains and Greenland. It is a complicated Rube Goldberg affair with unexpected consequences.
Yes, true, and by now we know that it has happened before (at the end of the last Ice Age, when the North American mega-lake Agassi emptied into the Atlantic leaving behing it some 'ponds', today'[s Great Lakes), the climate cooled temporarily suddenly because AMOC was interrupted). The thing is that at that time, humanity totaled a few millions of individuals living in caves and riverside/coastal hamlets. Today we are above 8 billions and we are tagging along some trillions of dependents (pets and industrially-bred animals) plus a fragile world economy - if Mother Nature decided to self-correct, human civilization would be torn to shreds with billions of victims!
@@paulthomas963, yes, the global mean temperature has been rising and the polar ice caps, glaciers and permafrost are melting quickly. The thing is that this rise in temperature brings more unstable climate. so our winters do tend to get colder and more snowy. Where is the problem in that?
The Earth has been doing things like this for 2 billion years. Humans are just ants on the surface. A single massive volcanic eruption releases more CO2 and pollution into the atmosphere in a day compared to entire human history.
"How much is related to human activity and how much towards natural cycles?" 100% of global warming over the last 60 years is due to humans, and 98% of global warming since the late 1800 is due to humans.
@@HealingLifeKwiklyastonishing claim. The simple fact that the earth has warmed and cooled, under natural influences for a few billion years would suggest you are wrong. But you could be right, in which case, the end is nigh!
Ironically a 40% decrease in sulfur pollution from Coal reduction also heats up Earth another 1 degree Celsius due to the Aerosol Masking Effect being twice as bad as previously thought. This is not mentioned in the news of course but any science search will show this truth.
The message is clear. The globalist know the climate story is nonsense. They are allowing third world countries to use coal because it is about defeating the West. That is all it os about. Crashing the system to create a new one. The history of climate alarmism is fascinating. This hoax has been going on for decades with the same nonsense just wrong info and predictions.
@@adohmnail6445 Europe is fast-tracking coal and other fossil fuel power plants as we speak. The US paused new coal plants a few years ago but that could change anytime. Of course we know where a lot of new coal plants are being started weekly but nobody cares about that.
Don't know why people give the IPCC reports so much leverage... these climate change patterns are carved into the rock beneath us. Species die out over and over, thanks to technology most of us might survive this one. Pity the natural progression is used as propaganda for politicians and their fellow capitalists, humanity has been convinced they actually have control over any of this.
I'm really pessimistic. Our leaders and humans only react when there's a direct imminent risk. I'm pretty sure that we will continue to do business as usual up until at least the next decade. At least I live in Montreal, a place in the world where climate change has less detrimental effects than for example China or Pakistan.
Read the Communist Manifesto for an answer as to what to do. There's a reason why the same governments, corporations, and media that created the climate crisis are the ones demonizing it.
I can remember last year when you stated categorically that the Gulf Stream was not going to be affected any time soon when anyone who’s watched ‘The day after tomorrow’ has been expecting it for years 🤔😉
Gulf stream probably won't be under threat until we go past 4 degrees Celsius. If that does happen it will be at the back end of this century. Not any time soon on a human timescale but admittedly still pretty near term in the big scheme of things. That's why climate action is so crucial.
Many of the ideas from that movie seem to be copied from the 1979 novel "The sixt winter" by John Gribbin ad Douglas Orgill. I've red it in high school, took it as work of science fiction but never forgot it. Seems to have some things not wrong by now: Humanity will be too slow to respond accurate.
@@JustHaveaThink "That's why climate action is so crucial". Calm down. Earth doesn´t care about climate scaremongering narcissists. You´re really not as important as you like to think you are.
The reason 2012 was so low in sea ice during the summer was due to multiple cyclones that churned up the sea ice during that year, they came one after the other almost like a freak weather cycle. If something even half as bad had happened this year, there would have been an ice free arctic, or if not very close. Doom mongers aren't really being doom mongers, rather being realistic given the increased chances of strange weather patterns potentially hitting the arctic area with the rapidly changing weather system. If anything, I would say we have been lucky!
I truly appreciate you gathering this information and presenting us with a detailed overview that saves our time. Having studied climate change since it wasn't so popular (1978), I'm often reminded of the data that we still lack. We know that as the sea ice melts, colder water sinks deeper in the ocean. Does that significantly drop the temperature in the deepest parts of the ocean? We don't know; we have no data on that. It probably does. Does that colder water keep chilling until it covers such a large area that it starts to mix in ocean currents and could cool our climate? We don't know; we have no data on that. It probably does. Is there a greater volume of cold water sinking to the depths when there is less ice insulating the polar oceans? We don't know; we don't have the data. There probably is. Does this mean we need to get busy in the oceans collecting this data for future climatologists? It probably does!!
The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double-backwards-somersault through a hoop whilst whistling the 'Star Spangled Banner', but in fact the message was this: 'So long and thanks for all the fish.'
A classic line from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, I believe? Douglas Adams was well ahead of his time!
The truth of climate change is protected by a strong SEP field.
Considering that over the past 50 years, our estimates of ocean fish population has decreased by 95%, the dolphins may just have realized there's not much fish left to be given to them.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🐬🌈
You didn't attribute it.
"... you probably haven't realised the seriousness of the situation."
I had that realisation more than 40 years ago, and I'm still waiting for any meaningful response from governments.
Concur. I would read about this as a kid in 1977.
We need a hemp revolution
same...
60 years for me. Nice to have some company. Thank you.
You realized it 40 years ago. Shows what an emergency it is
This is one of those "what can you say?" episodes. Well done for the clear and comprehensive explanation, but I wish there were even the faintest hope of anything getting done about it.
Talk about it. Make people aware. The more public pressure, the more likelihood of politicians putting in legislation to regulate these companies profiteering from the displacement of tens or hundreds of millions of people.
A colleague of mine recently said that the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. will "fix climate change"... all I could do was laugh. The IRA should have been done 30 years ago, in my opinion, yet everyone is patting themselves on the back and celebrating. I wish more people were pushing the severity of all this.
And very hard to try and figure out what to motivate yourself with when you're aware that the norm so many folk are chasing after is going to be gone very shortly in geologic terms and likely our terms too.
During the cynical days, i wonder if this is why intelligent life seems to be extremely rare in the universe. It possibly expands and advances far too fast for it's own good, having a nice few centuries of huge growth before making it's habitat inhospitable.
Damn our tribalistic tendencies from adapting to life in small groups. Maybe without them, we wouldn't be so caught up as a species constantly fighting and quarrelling as we are now.
@Dave? That's a stupid comment. It's the "dose of reality" that leads to the realisation of there being no chance of this getting fixed. 'Hope' here means, not some wafty aspiration but 'possibility.' It's a standard usage but if you want to nitpick words then at least make sense in your own terms. To say that hope got us here is fatuous. Try greed, selfishness, arrogance, stupidity, laziness and blind faith as causes [for starters].
Nothing can be done about it. Even those who say change needs to be done will not change enough.
We are in the middle of another emergency right now with record low temperatures and snowfall in Canada. Can we please have some of this warming that climate change is supposed to bring us, our heating bills are getting a bit hard to handle. Considering that the coastal areas of the US and Canada have become the place where the nut cases out number the sane a rise in sea level is very welcome. I've listened to both sides of the global warming argument from people that are all very well educated scientists and there seems to be as much for it as against it so I'm going to live as much the same as I always have as possible. One big argument against the doom and gloom world ending scenario is that all the lying corrupt politicians have wholeheartedly embraced it and are using it to tax people and force them to change how they live. Politicians never have peoples best interests in mind and are only concerned with power and getting reelected. If a politicians says something is a certain way then I can almost guarantee that it isn't.
the only ones "for" climate change are the profiteers causing it....and very misinformed as most of our crops become unsustainable very quick and global famine happens. quit spreading your lies and your propaganda...as you obviously are not speaking in good faith and are more than likely being some sort of edgelord troll
Blue ocean events (expected to be moderately likely by 2030 and almost certain by 2050) mean drastically reduced temperature differentials between the Arctic and 60 degrees North, which means a sluggish jet stream. And this means big changes to climate patterns in the northern hemisphere. And...this means massively disrupted food production systems in the northern hemisphere. You can do the next one...
I am afraid you are absolutely right. The sluggish jet stream can create droughts simultaneously in America, Europe and Asia, reducing e.g. wheat harvest dramatically even without war. But we must not give up.
lmao, I saw articles predicting ice free arctic in less than 5 years like every year for the past 30 years and its still there, just wrong every time lol
@@xtremelemon8612 ... and in the mean time polar ice has been increasing. No, wait, strike that, ice continues to decrease, so the logical conclusion is, ..., anyone?
Dude…I am on your page.
@@xtremelemon8612it’s coming. You should take a trip and see for yourself instead of reading it.
I love to see any of these climate crisis pushes stake something against it. Like "if the sea doesn't rise by 7 metres by this date I will give my house to charity" or perhaps like a bad doctor loose their licence to practice. I think science and models would become better overnight if being wrong cost them in some way.
You don't understand models then. The purpose of a model is to simulate some variables trending in a certain way and predicting the outcome. The purpose isn't to be accurate. The purpose is to create indicators that can predict possible outcomes. It tells them which are the important variables to keep an eye on and what trends are bad.
Scientists make tonnes of models covering a wide array of variables and different combinations of variables. Logic dictates that a large amount of those models will not accurately predict the future, because many of them are using opposite trends of similar variables.
When people point to a model as a warning, like in this video, it isn't to claim a scientist looked into their crystal ball. It's to say that the trends that this model mapped are happening and this is what the model predicted if those trends continue.
@@haddow777 Humbug. The modellers play the game to attract funding and a great way to make a living. Make them pay if they get it wrong take back the funding and spoil their game.
@@Cruner62 you would have a lot of destitute weather forecasters than. I'm sorry, but it's kind of hard to comprehend such a shallow view of predictive models, so it's hard to respond. It's like you don't understand even the basic logic of what a predictive model's benefits are. Being wrong is a huge part of building a predictive model. That is why they don't just build one. I guess you see some predictive model's being talked about on the news and somehow think those are tbe only model's being made or something.
In actuality, they make multiple models simulating multiple predictions. They run them in parallel. The more right one predicts, the mare they figure the variables it is using match reality. So naturally they hone their predictions to that model. They then make more fine tuned predictions and then make a whole bunch of new models based on the parts of each model that were correct. It's a long and error prone process to build the most accurate model.
To try and claim that a model has to be accurate right out the gate does nothing but betray a lack of understanding of predictive model's and general logic.
Also, people building and running model's aren't generally looking for funding. Models like that take specific understanding to build and a good amount of computer power. They're already funded. For them, if they get a model right, it just means they're going to refine the model by building a whole slew of new models with further refinements.
Ok
@@Cruner62are you brain-dead?
I have just checked the Danish Met Institute Graphs, and Arctic temperatures have fallen by 2.5C over the past six years, that's Winter Spring and Autumn, Summer temperatures on average have not changed over the last 30 years. Arctic sea Ice extent has also been increasing since 2015 We were supposed to see the Arctic Ice free in summer by 2012 Antarctic sea ice was at an all time record in 2014.
Thought it is type of ice that has changed and thickness.
Arctic sea ice free summer - 2035. This is real and not good!
Of course climate changes because of earth trajectories - stop wars and destruction and adapt to suit the changes - almost all conflicts are of religious origins and others through ideologies of individuals like the current global cabals aiming at world domination.
@@sallyranney8117nope .
Well I look at it this way, if it was global cooling that would be worse as we would all have to scrunch into the land around the equater to stay warm and grow food so we need to look at global warming as a plus not a minus.
Even as person who is very concerned about global warming and the effects of human activity on the climate, I can see that this is an exaggeration of facts meant to scare people. The Arctic is not warming anywhere near this quickly. We don’t need climate hysteria, we need to understand the actual facts and then work to find solutions. We can’t change the damage from years of human activity overnight, but we can calmly move forward, working together, using real science, and build a better future. Hysteria will only lead to failure.
Its big industry and companies doing the bulk of the polluting. They make us feel like its our fault exclusively and we must change.
Yeah these same companies that provide the crap that you probably buy!
It is your fault, turn off the Electric, don't buy anything made from oil, don't use animal products. Sack cloth and ashes is not a good look. Cosmetics, don't buy them. Drink nettle tea, it has no airmiles. Nett Zero is unobtainable it is a fantasy of rich westerners. Ask a typical African what it means to them. Nothing. They will continue to burn fire wood to heat their food, as they have done since the dawn of hominids on this planet. Desertification is mostly because they cook using wood fires. Use wood, get a stone age axe, go cut trees, cook out. The belief that the UK can make do without fossil fuels are deceiving themselves. 12000 wind turbines is no where like enough will need 151000 of them and the fact that the UK has shutdown another two nuclear power stations (not capable of getting energy from Scotland to England) means that 3000 Km of Moroccan HVDC interconnector is still on the drawing board. In the whole history of energy production, as soon as something makes a bit of money, it is nationalised. The only people to benefit from Nett Zero, will be Banks and Corporations, dealing in financial instruments.
CLIMATE ENGINEERING is the main reason for weather-related issues, including the overall warming of the planet. (Pollution plays a small part). The governments will deny it, but weather manipulation has been happening since WW2. There are over 160 patents for weather modification, so we absolutely have the technology to do it. Wherever you might live, look up in the sky and you will notice periodically smoke-like aerosol trails coming from commercial and military planes. These trails are filled with TOXIC aluminum, barium, strontium, etc. NANOPARTICLES that are manipulated by microwave energy(generated by HAARP and cellphone towers) to create droughts, floods, snowstorms, you name it. They are also extremely harmful to human health. There are many players with different agendas. PLEASE INVESTIGATE FOR YOURSELF. KEEP AN OPEN MIND. ua-cam.com/video/fEKdGa8-I24/v-deo.html www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-dimming-full-length-climate-engineering-documentary/
The crazy idea that tinkering politicians would have a thermostat knob that they can turn on with measures paid for by taxpayers Stop the climate scam and green corruption with taxpayers' money
We are all part of it as we buy all the "big industrys" products.
In 1924 there was a similar very rapid warming of the Arctic. The explorer Spefenson reported young thin rotten ice between Alaska and the North Pole. There was no ice around Spitsbergen. Glaciers were me!ting rapid!y. If I check the official global temperature records this was at a time when the Earth was at it' s coldest in the last 100 years. How can this be?
We are actually cooling. They give you statistics to fit their narrative.
Notice that nobody will give you a compelling answer & understand that data from this period & beyond has been erased or ignored by mainstream
Science
It wasn't similar at all. 2001 to 2007 was a bifurcation event leaving the sea ice in a state it hasn't been in probably since the early holocene. There is no way this bifurcation can be reversed given current ghg forcing.
They have tampered with the temperature records and reduced the temperature 1920-1940.
@@chrisreed5463 But why are the the early 1920's shown to be the coldest recent period when all the contemporary evidence is that they were not? 1921 had record heat across USA and Asia. I checked the historic temperature records of the Arctic ports and they all show similar temperature in the 20s to today. What do you mean by a bifurcation event?
I'M 67 and played upon Galveston Island beach as a child and there is no see level rise. With the sea level rise at end, another ICE AGE BEGINS.
Yes, Ice Age = bad news
Just because you can't see doesn't make it any less real
Dave, love your podcasts !!! Please keep them coming ! Well researched and informative and to the point ! Love it !!
The Arctic minimum summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 17 years. In the past few years it was almost as high as 1995. The probability that this could be due to chance has now dropped to 10% (after Swart et al calculations, 2015). If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p
It’s curious, I’m 77 years old and I remember that as far back as 45 years ago “scientists” were predicting catastrophic sea level rise within 10 years and when that didn’t occur they predicted it would happen in the next 10 years, etc etc. Now 45 years later they’re still doing the same thing. It’s hard to believe people when they are so consistently wrong.
Tomorrow never comes. It's all based on dodgy climate models. More ice and snow in the northern hemisphere than since records began. The oceans are also cooler.
I too can make shit up on the internet.
I've been wondering.... How do you animate the research articles, figures and other graphics??? One of the best-looking science-related channels on UA-cam!!!
Adobe After-FX i'm 90% sure
THIS is NOT a science channel at all, clearly you do not know enough about this subject to realize YOU are being conned, stop being so gullible and do some real research on what the broad range of scientific studies have shown over the decades.
@@peterjones4180 are you alright?
@@Splarkszter Better than that i am RIGHT !
This video is simply propaganda designed to convince the ignorant and gullible that something unusual is happening with aspects of climate, just another in a long series, when an examination of both the overall data, and the long history of such claims over the last fifty years have shown them to be spurious.
Temperature, weather and climate are ALL TOTALLY within normal variability for our current interglacial.
The data is VERY clear.
Littered with fake science alarmist propaganda though out . Consensus is not science .
I enjoyed your presentation, however I feel you should present the lowest and highest temperature predictions not just the highest ie RPC 2.6 and RPC 8.5.
Considering past predictions have been at or below RPC 2.6.
I live less than 500km from the arctic circle and I am not even going to watch this video because this kind of news are too depressing to me.
I'm studying to have a career on renewable energy sector and I'll focus on doing my best to cut global emissions and protect the nature. That is all I can do..
This all makes me wonder why anyone would move to Florida or any lowland coastal area. The costs of redoing all the infrastructure along the coasts as the sea levels rise or just finding places for everyone to move to if all those places are abandoned are astonishing - a much larger cost than changing our habits and using renewables.
Carbon capture is still best done by not ruining what forests we do have and planting more in places that can support them.
It's because sea level isn't rising by 50 meters over night, but more like 15 cm or 6 inches every 15 years. You will be able to live in most parts of Florida for many decades, maybe centuries with a little bit of engineering magic.
Bc Florida is a fantastic place to live....I live in the Keys. Yes, water is rising.....slowly. And we are preparing.
Because they don't understand non linear systems are non linear.
@@ax14pz107 very interested in your comment. Does it suggest sea level rise will be non linear over time, ie spurts of rises more than 1 standard deviation from the mean, during certain time periods? If so, I would sincerely wish to learn more....thx.
@@frederickmatthews4259 absolutely. Check out the meltwater pulses of the early Holocene. Rates possibly above two inches a year have occurred before.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise
I spoke to someone yesterday who said that one person online had told him that we’ve never had so much glacier ice.
How are people fooled so easily?
😂
Fundamentalist religion is the root of most of the gullibility that allows a large part of the population to be manipulated to be anti-science. This is particularly true in the US.
Dunning Kruger.🙄
@@johnhenry6771 and how do we do that on a practical basis?
I enjoy your streaming timing 10-20 min is enough to pass all important information
I've ALWAYS based my physical science assessments on how long they are. I once commended Albert Einstein on his papers being able to be skimmed through by me in 17 minutes. Perfect science because solely of that.
All lies.
Unfortunately, we have to state that most news about the climate in the media is incomplete, misleading or completely wrong. The completely fundamental question of WHETHER the emissions of carbon dioxide affect the climate so much that it is noticeable is rarely addressed. It is presented instead as an established truth
I've just now noticed from the uni bremen (deutsch) time series that there's an approximate cycle 3-4 years long of Arctic Ocean sea ice minimum (September) extent on top of the slow downward trend from 2006-2022 that didn't exist 1972-2006 (the period of their time series). So highest minimum extent years within a cycle were 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022 and lowest minimum extent years within a cycle were 2007, 2012, 2016, 2020 (of which 2007, 2012 were bigger & famous). Not anything like a Sine wave, they can't be overlaid for a really good match but there's something there. So if a cycle exists then 2023 will be lower than 2022, 2024 will be lower than 2023, and 2025 will be higher than 2024 (so 2024 will be lowest in the cycle). As I stated that's a rather cyclic-looking pattern laid ON TOP OF the slow downward trend of minimum sea ice extent. Hey, I almost made a prediction, never hardly done that before (I'm like Guy McPherson's lazy, handsome younger brother who just grunts "beats me" if you ask him "So what d'you think will happen about ").
What trend?
Thank you for taking the time to make this video, which is clear, short enough yet very explanatory.
except that its nonsense. There isnt going to be a devastating climate collapse. Note the question mark he has after his headline statement. It means he doesn't even back it himself.
By the way you did not mention the Antarctic sea ice hit an all time HIGH!!!!!
Biproduct of more fresh water in the surface of the sea.
We see the same in Greenland, but overall the temps are rising. Both sea and land temps.
It mostly shows as the sea doesn't freeze over anymore as it used to.
When it comes to tipping points this is what the IPCC (Special Report on implications of 1.5C or more warming, Chapter 3) says:“there is little evidence for a tipping point in the transition from perennial to seasonal ice cover. No evidence has been found for irreversibility or tipping points, suggesting that year-round sea ice will return given a suitable climate”. The IPCC also do not believe the melting of the arctic permafrost will cause a tipping point in the release of warming methane gas “the carbon released to the atmosphere from thawing permafrost is projected to be restricted to 0.09-0.19 Gt C yr-1 at 2°C of global warming and to 0.08-0.16 Gt C yr-1 at 1.5°C, which does not indicate a tipping point”.
The Earth's climate is a multi input thermodynamic system and will conform to Le Chatelier's Principle.
So why is the arctic ice still there if it has been melting much faster? It was predicted to be completely gone durings summers many years ago. How does this fit in with collapsing far more quickly than previous models?
No it wasn't. There were like two models that had the most extreme outcomes of the most extreme scenarios showing that maybe, possibly, if we get extremely unlucky, the Arctic could melt in the 2010s.
I know it's hard to understand, but something having an absurdly low chance of happening doesn't mean it 100% will happen.
Man these are some scary implications. I hope humanity can act on the problems before we see them and can't do anything
Not much chance of that but yes would be nice if it was an entirely different species than the one I got born into.
You are all chumps .
@@grindupBaker go travel extensively and then you'll see this rubbish is make believe white man's crap.
seeing how the world is only getting safer and more prosperous, what are we supposed to act on, Seratina?
@@grindupBaker another leftist who hates mankind. it's a mental illness and religion with you miscreants.
So do we just do nothing and let the lack of action continue or do we seriously take to the streets and not accept it, after all - it is our planet!
Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. We have the denial part down pat, time to move on to anger and actually do something.
Scientists: its an emergency and we need to act now.
Politicians: I hear you. War it is.
Politicians are elected. You can’t point the finger at them!
@@nirvonna this sounds like you were born yesterday :)
This is pretty obvious to people my age(38) than the new generation because they are not used to seeing 5 ft of snow like I did when I was 5 years old living in Wisconsin the whole time. I don't barely see even a foot of snow almost all winter now
Wisconsin here, too; plus I grew up in the Rocky Mountains. When I was a kid, we used to go drive past a glacier on Sunday drives. Even my aunt, who was married at the base of that glacier in the 1970's, didn't realize that it has melted away entirely now. Why doesn't she see it? Because in Utah, climate change has consequences so dire and immediate that you can't really acknowledge how bad it is--it's too awful to admit. Even as the snowpack that used to last until the end of August is now gone in June, and the fresh water source of that melting snow is gone with it.
I moved to Wisconsin for the omnipresence of water, and the weather--including the cold winters. In the 14 years since, winters have only twice been close to the historical norms. People of our generation came along when the science was strong but the anti-science had just begun. When you have the genuine science come along at the right time to absorb it, and see the impacts shortly after, I think it may have made us more likely to be immune to the propagandists.
@@paintedwings74 What many don't want to realize it this planet is everchanging. There have been ice ages that have lasted thousands of years. I might not be ready for one myself, but I am definitely at better odds than many are of surviving whatever mother nature throws at us
Pretty obvious? It recently snowed in Texas.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 Thats why it's called climate CHANGE and not global WARMING. The climate is experiencing more extreme shifts in weather.
Once you understand that, you'll see how one area could be having warmer winters with less snowfall, while another area could be having colder weather with more snowfall
If you are genuinely curious, there are answers to that. Warmer winters mean a slower, wavier jet stream (more similar to the summer jet stream). The atmospheric motion of the jet stream keeps the arctic and subarctic air masses largely separated from each other. With the increased “waviness” of the warmer jet stream, you get large southward dips that carry arctic air into southernly latitudes. So the average air temperature is warmer, the arctic air is warmer, and the winter jet stream is weaker. However the now-warmer arctic air is still far colder than the air that would be typically above, say, Texas. So you get extreme winter events south of the arctic, while temperatures warm and ice decreases in the arctic.
Just love all the scientific speak........"could", "believe", "might", "speculate", "modeling", "suggesting", "estimated", "probably", "likely", ect.....
Exactly! 😑
Then there are the "alternative facts" such as: climate change is a Chinese hoax by that stable genius Donald Trump. old geologist
@@brooksanderson2599 There you go......every problem in the world is somehow linked to Donald Trump.
@@sittingindetroit9204 WEeare welll into Earth's 8th (at least) mass extinction and it includes us. Trump is irrelevant.
-old geologist
He's speaking as honestly as he can.
2004 they said "no ice in the arctic by 2007". Then in 2006 they said the same about 2010. Then when that didn't happen it was no ice by 2014. Then that didn't happen it was 2017. Same old bulldust over and over. If your predictions turn out to be wrong time and time again then look at your certitudes.
Who is "they"?
@@godfreypigott Probably the fake fake news. The fake news such as CNN is alarmist, and the fake fake news such as Fox is denialist. Together they divert factual discussion into angst by framing the "debate" around two straw positions. This angst is converted into cash, a bit like Monsters Inc.
I like it when new research indicates that warming was previously underestimated, as it always does. It reassures me that their work is reliable, and that they're not pushing an agenda.
Are you the Messias? Because you seem to have achieved the impossible. Completely understanding a complex system. You realy understood science.
What you read is what the scientists are allowed to publish, so naturally it will always be the rosiest version. What's actually going on is _always_ worse than what gets published. ;-)
@@thomasking5970 I was being sarcastic. Of course they'll publish the most alarmist hyperbole they can, to justify continuing to suck taxpayers' money. Only self-hating soy boys and corrupt globalists take any notice of the rubbish they produce now, anyway. Unfortunately, that's who is running the west (into the ground).
And here I just read about the Thwaits in the antarctic collapsing faster than originally thought. Outstanding. We're just all kinds of screwed
The Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Hapai underwater eruption last January ejected tons of ocean vapor into the upper atmosphere imposing some degree of warming albeit temporary to global rise according to a NASA report last August. These anomalies are not usually taken into account in computer modeling (well maybe now) but look at this year's droughts and floods which mostly attributed to climate change but possibly to this volcanic eruption.
"imposing [a] 0.5°C global rise according to geologists."
What is the source for that assertion?
@@Tengooda you could look yourself
@@Tengooda Most vocanic eruptions cool the atmosphere with aerosols that block sunlight, but not the HTHH volcanic eruption which will cause temporary warming as the water vapor some 400,000 tons is in the stratosphere and will remain there for about a decade. I think the article mentioned it could cause a T rise up to 0.5°C estimate.
@@williamm8069 A NASA article entitled "Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere" dated 2nd August 2022 states, "the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects", but makes no mention of 0.5°C warming. I have not found that figure elsewhere - that is not to say it does not exist, but if you cannot provide a source you should withdraw it, particularly as you appear to be attributing some of this year's climate events to that eruption.
@@Tengooda I read that NASA article as well and was surprised but I was trying to find the source for you. Geologyhub YT channel mentioned the warming effect but I read it from another source. It could just have been scientists speculating without actual measurements. I know academically I should retract the statement but I was hoping someone else could have pointed it out. 400,000 tons of water vapor 60 km high in the atmosphere definitely made a disturbance to the jet stream and climate - the question is how much disturbance? I do remember the article mentioned the water vapor will remain for several years to almost a decade.
Now semi-retired, I've spent much of my working life designing & manufacturing precision instruments for the geophysics community. You'll understand that my natural biases are towards making & archiving real-world measurements. I am skeptical of the accuracy of climate models that claim to predict the future, yet need to be "tuned" to make their postdictions of the past match the archived real-world data, & which then do a poor job of matching reality as the future arrives.
After all, our planet, along with the plants & animals on it, has survived much worse than a degree or two of warming over a century or three. As you mention in your introduction, we're only just ~15,000 years out of a long period of glaciation, with some forecasts suggesting that another ice age is likely within another ~15,000 years or so. The records from various sources, especially deep borehole ice cores from Greenland & Antarctica, tell us that there have been multiple ice ages in the past. Similarly, we also know that there have been many times that the Earth was much warmer than today, & both animal & plant life flourished with upwards of 6 or 7 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we can easily engineer ourselves out of these slow but massive long-term climate cycles.
We need more data, especially over, & at extreme depths of, the world's oceans, & we need much more computing horsepower to improve the climate models to the point that they actually serve a useful purpose instead of simply exciting the alarmists into making more & more extreme forecasts of catastrophes in a distant future.
One of humanity's greatest talents is our ability to adapt to many different environments - using fire, clothing, man-made shelters, etc, etc. Let us carefully observe what happens as the decades go by. We can do a lot by preparing contingency plans that are flexible enough, & we being skeptical enough, that we do not risk all our treasure on unproven schemes.
What do you exectly mean by tuning? Some tuning is fine, some is problematic. The idea that every tuning is bad is wrong. Let me explain. A simple prediction is if X then Y. Let’s look at gravity. If I have a bal in my hand and I drop it, gravity would predict it would fall. The bal not falling would be a failed prediction under the condition I actually dropped it. This is quite obvious. However, many people that are critical of climate models forget this condition. They thus conclude that the bal not falling is a failed prediction no matter if I would actually drop the bal. Climate models don’t only predict the influence of changing climate drivers but also how the drivers change in the future. A simplified example is a model that if the CO2 concentration would increase to 800 ppm the temperature would increase with Y. Just because we don’t see a temperature rise of Y is thus not evidence that prediction failed because the CO2 concentration didn’t increase to 800ppm. To check if a climate model is accurate you need to tune is by providing the actual changes in greenhouse gas concentrations but also changes in other drivers like solar influx.
Yes, the earth experienced many climate changes. However that simply does not mean there can’t be an antropogenic influence on the climate.
I disagree with your statement that humans a so great at adapting to different surroundings. We adapt our surroundings to become how we like it, and that is exactly the problem. We don't adjust to live in harmony with nature, like animals do, we change nature to suit us. So, I see survival for only a handful, which will tell about the great flood that swept the earth, and it will turn into a myth for maybe the hundredth time in earth's history. And by the time the next civilisation starts to discover some proof for huge floodings in the landscape, it might already be too late again to alter their fate.
@@Vicartje Do you seriously think that humanity will be wiped out by the impacts of climate change? Given our immense numbers never yet seen before on Earth(about to hit 8 billion!), it would take uninhabitability of the Earth as a whole to truly kill us off. As you'll know, both the Arctic and Antarctic will be far more suitable for habitation if warming continues, while much of the Earth will remain habitable but under a different climate that will take getting used to. We may very well see a contemporary African humid period and a greening of the Sahara in the next century.
Show us your precision instruments that protect Fidji from drowning, Pakistan from being flooded, coral reefs from bleaching, Madagascar from catastrophic droughts... The future has arrived already.
Jrb_sland I read your comment and found it to be very well reasoned and satisfying. You remind me of Richard Feynman when he said: "When the models make predictions that are wrong then the models are wrong." Your last statement "... we being skeptical enough, that we do not risk all our treasure on unproven schemes." really strikes a cord in me. We can spend our entire GDP on CO2 reduction and only reduce the Global temperature a tiny fraction of one degree (F or C). We certainly do need to be very careful to adequately test our theories so that we can make the best use of our resources so that our expenditures can be worthwhile.
I'm always hesitant to click on these videos of yours because hopeful game-changing stuff is always easier to hear. The scale of the problem is so immense it is hard to grasp. Thank you for your videos.
We're doomed. Everyone jump off tall buildingd
A sign. that the end. Is near
It's a scam.
@@josephfrank6815 I wish all the climate change scammers would jump off tall buildings. It would have saved at least 3 women from getting RAPED BY AL GORE allegedly.
@@victorjcano The end of your freedom is near if you buy into the commie climate scam.
As an American Anglophile, I truly enjoy your accent. You speak English beautifully. To our point: The existential question about climate disaster SEEMS to be true.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE DISASTER !
Only those who have almost no understanding of the broad range of scientific studies think so.
Wouldn't you be more worried your fwit leader is doing his best to probably start a nuclear war?
James Tiburon: religious zealot whose god is Mother Earth
Here in Puerto Vallarta MX, the first wave of winter change hit us. El nino is here. I was first a tourist and became a resident in this region. When young it was dry with a rainy season, now we move into much more rain as the changes occur. Hurricanes were rare, int 4 years we have been directly hit by two severe cyclones and one with torrential rains 2 days later. I have been in the rain forests of Brazil Colombia, Phillipines and Thailand. That rainfall was the first time I feared for my life and my neighbors. If a person fell on their back the rain was the equivalent of fire hoses in the face. We live on ridges of the sierras and wet air moves in from the Pacific, meanwhile those same neighbors drive Ford Rangers and Chevy Suburbans as daily cars. We need a way to change their desire to be that potentate in the covered palanque travelling alone. The desire for personal transportation is overwhelming in a nation that needs good public transportation.
To those of you panicking.. you need to broaden your research-
Say 500,000 date range? Ice core samples maybe?
If you aren't panicking, you aren't aware. Panic is the rational response to multiple threats to your existence pounding you all at once.
Still not panicking
@@kimweaver1252 project fear
@@glenda917 Turns out there was plenty to "fear"..... the anti-Brexiters were absolutely correct and the Brexiters LIED all the way through the campaign and after as well.
And if you aren't seriously frightened, then you're as old as I am, or you are as ignorant as most Americans are concerting how climate disruption is ending the habitat and habitability of their home. Near Term Human Extinction is a thing and it's a thing in the Sixth Mass Extinction. Welcome to the party.
Are these the same people that made up that there we will not know what ice and snow are by 2010
Yes and the same people who are behind environmental modification through the use of global weather engineering technology. It’s a Hegelian dialectic.
Great Info Video,and very sad state of climatic affairs,but we still have a chance of preventing the worst,and many people are working on parasitical solutions,including myself so everyone please hang on best you can.Thanks For The Hard Work
No, we’re doomed to overheating , we have been for 40 years…
But shortly before that (1970s) we we doomed to global cooling and new ice age😂.
The only difference now is they’ve made it a business, created fear, manufactured the problem, applied taxes to the population and created a supposed saviour in themselves.
Parasites, the lot of ya
Seven decades of weather and climate engineering, but lets ignore that.
@Doug Kenney CO2 emission is a form of climate engineering, intentional or not.
I like how this is structured and presented. Easy to understand, for us dummies. Thanks 😊
Only dummies would believe it though its nonsence
It is ghastly, having something so terrifying and nigh-inevitable explained in such a pleasant voice, and so well structured and presented. It would have been less unsettling if he had been screaming "RUN!! RUN!! YOU"RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!"
@@eshafto what is accually scary is you, and all those that so willing accept this nonsence. To blindly repeat its inevitable?? . Have you even looked at the artic ice data on a multitude of unbias sites, why are people so dumb to just simply believe without question, intelligent skepticism or analysis. It's how easy people can be brainwashed that's really scary. Really scary, and the reason is that ridiculous harmful policy is accepted due to this belief. He lays it out for dummies yes and the dummies believes it. I can tell you the artic ic is just fine and the absurd notion that it will melt in 10 years is ridiculous, but please don't take my word for it, don't be lazy research some unbias original sourse it's that simple.
@@eshafto or don't believe it!
to sell bs to religious zealot climate cultists
I mean, we're almost certainly looking at a 3 Centigrade increase -- trying to calm ourselves by still talking about what would have happened had we done the right thing 20 years ago is just preventing people from seeing what the future will really be like.
#permafrost
And yet the climate models have consistently over-predicted warming and have repeatedly been revised to show less warming. It was an interesting hypothesis back in the 80s but has since become a political hoax.
@@kirklaird8345 that's not actually the truth.
Initially the models over predicted, bevarar there were buffets like the pema frost. And now we're running out of buffers, and it's turning the other way.
We know how much energy the sun insolates. We know how much the carbon blanket keeps. It's very basic science. Predictions from the 1800s were confirmed by satellites in the 80s. The only question is where that energy gets stored. And the more carbon we add, the faster we store more of it
Where do you think it gets stored?
@@jonwatte4293 They are gaslighting you. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the wavelengths it absorbs and then emits are nearly totally absorbed. Adding more CO2 has very little effect. The models used the assumption that the forecasted slight increase in temperature due to CO2 would cause a significant increase in water vapor content in the atmosphere. This "accelerated feedback" mechanism was the main driver of the forecasts of increasing temps but it didn't happen. They have had to repeatedly revise climate models to account for the fact that temperature just hasn't increased like it was supposed to. In fact climate scientists cannot model cloud formation - which, after the sun's radiation, and our own atmosphere is the most important factor in climate.
You should ask yourself this: If climate science was "settled science" then how did they overlook the so-called buffers you mention and why have all the forecasts been wrong requiring models to be repeatedly revised? The Maldives are still not submerged. The oceans are still rising at the same rate they have been rising for 150 years (about 1" per decade) and the Arctic summer sea ice is still there - and it hasn't changed much since 2006.
@@kirklaird8345 and why are there so many models that produce wildly differing predictions?
I really feel conflicted about giving this video the thumbs up: excellent content, presentation and sources… but really really sad and bad news for every one 😔 thanks for keeping us alert and aware
If you believe this you will believe anything. Fearmongering
hes got it completely wrong...the earth is now cooling rapidly,ask the australians..the tonga eruption means a year without a summer in the northern hemisphere
@@steve-r-collier The sulfur dioxide moves into the stratosphere and combines with water to form sulfuric acid aerosols. The sulfuric acid makes a haze of tiny droplets in the stratosphere that reflects incoming solar radiation, causing cooling of the Earth's surface.
Wait so can't we utilize this pump out a bunch of sulfuric acid aerosols?
Why weren't we under water in the 16th century there's a map of antarctica without ice ???
A map from the 16th century?
First reliably reported arrival at Antarctica was in 1895.
Many maps were pure fantasy back in the day because of lack of real knowledge.
The summer of 2011 we had 60 days of triple degree heat and then the lowest sea ice level was recorded in 2012. This year with all the global heat waves going I’m placing my bet that 2023 Artic sea ice will be the lowest Ever recorded or no sea ice at all next summer. Hope next year I’m not saying I told u so.
Ha, ha, ha…. I’ll take that bet.
I like how you said leaders should declare a global emergency. Actually the first reaction i had to the pandemic being called an emergency was "boy do i have news for you lot. Just wait"
also since years ago, west antarctica was realised by some that it's past the point of return, so as you said about the dominoes. But they're already falling actually.
but anyway, we should still pay reparations to mapa before we get to the end of the line. FridaysForFuture is on this week please take a look at the cause and spread the word. It's a massive organised strike for real change
also dude i can't imagine how you cope with keeping up with the news so much. Maybe you're like me in some way and have just accepted the real possiblity (or perhaps now more than a possibility) of the worst future. But however you manage to cope i hope you take care. Thank you for sharing the journey with us, it's been really lovely and will continue to be really nice to share the road ahead
No, it's a scam.
Well, if you haven't checked what EU is doing, its just that. Apparently we have some kind of climate emergency therefore we collected 1 000 billion euros to 'battle against climate change'.. Just tell me what that money will do to battle against natural cycles?
On top of that, now we have electricity prices rising, because these green activists thought electricity comes from wall, but didn't understand the physics behind electricity production. Just have a think.
@@dj_e8 Green communist traitors.
meanwhile...the weather isn't murdering people by the millions.
I'd be interested to know how many climate scientists choose to have children, compared to other professions
Given the intense computational nature of climatology, you will probably find the results skewed by the "nerd" factor.
Geeks don't get laid.
@@dougaltolan3017 Think you have watched "Idiocracy" too many times.
@@hotdognl70 Maybe, if that is even possible.
But geeks not getting laid predates that film by decades.
@@dougaltolan3017 Alright but climatology isn't unique in that, so I'm really curious if whether what the data shows these people translates to less of them having children as a result.
@@HonestSonics I await your paper on this, should be an interesting read..
Possible confounding factor: If it really is the end of the world, shouldn't we be partying (including baby making), going out with a bang?
Thank you very much for your still existing underlying British humor. I appreciate very much your fact - based information. Best regards from Germany.
While I should probably find this terrifying i find it rather fascinating. It somehow reminds me of learning about ancient history.
There is a vast amount of human history hiden between today's sea level and 300 feet down.
Yes. It’s like humans think this isn’t cyclical and part of earth’s history. And always will be.
@@WENCHintheTINFOILhat Yes, 'it's like people' (extraordinarily intelligent and diligent scientists around the world) have done an enormous amount of extremely difficult "Research" using technology that you have little to no comprehension of. And you've got??? .... Idle prattle.
I like to think that humanity will respond in a way we can make a good movie about.
That is the key. We have to be relatable, not perfect, and our flaw has to become our strength.
It's fun to watch this on Christmas 2022, as the entire northern hemisphere is having the most record breaking, widespread winter of all time.
7 feet of snow in Japan.
Once again record breaking cold in Canada, USA.
Right? The sad part is, as mentioned in his video about the slowing down AMOC, North America and Europe tend to freeze harder while more ice sheets defrost. That’s crazy and threatening. Extreme weather patterns sound like pure chaos!
I don't know about wide spread record breaking winter, I live in the Great lakes region and it just seems like the same old winter we've always gotten.
@@robertlivingston1634
Yes.
It is the new normal in Vancouver.
Believe it or not Vancouver used to go the whole winter without snow
This is no longer true. Vancouver starting in 2016 has had long cold record breaking cold every single winter now.
@@rosssmith8481 That depends on how long you’ve lived in Vancouver. The last decade or two, winters have been dryer and warmer. The cedars are dying.
@@billpetersen298
My mom's side of the family moved to Vancouver when the population was about 20,000 people, 1910. My Dad's side moved here during the gold rush.
From the archives, winters in the lower mainland are normally rainy with the occasional below freezing weather.
I don't know if you remember, but on April 14th, 2022 it was -1°C, with snow. I filmed it.
Most of the small birds died in the neighbourhood. Having snow still coming down on the Coquihalla all the way into May has now made the ministry of highways extend the requirement for snow tires, from no longer ending in March but April now.
The weather is all over the place.
2018: record wildfires. But 80% human caused.
2019 no campfire bans all year. Wet and cool Summer. Cold winter
2020 same. No campfire bans. Mild summer cold winter snow.
2021 Early campfire ban. Record breaking heat extended. long cold winter
2022 hot summer. So far early start for winter
Canada's arctic islands where once covered in lush forests, but now my country is completely frozen half the time and half of it is frozen all the time . i don't mind if things warm up a bit.
Yes, and only 12,000 years ago Almost all of Canada was under ice almost 5 miles deep over a lot of it. I was in Canada the last 2 winters near Toronto. It was bloody cold much of the time and it snowed a-lot. This is just Weather but I do want to commiserate about it.
@@thunderbearclaw Yes, interesting isn't it?
I wonder why they keep giving us scare stories instead of investigating why the lady Ice Age ended? That event was clearly catastrophic, but they are not interested in it. Very odd.
@@leicestersq1 _"instead of investigating why the lady Ice Age ended"_
This has been extensively investigated.
The reason you mostly hear about climate scientists who warn of current-day climate change should be pretty obvious: They are extremely alarmed by it, so they'll take any opportunity to tell the public about it.
@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs OK, so what caused the sudden end of the last ice age?
There was ice one mile thick where Chicago is now. It all went instantly. And now Chicago has average temps of 27C in July. Impossible for ice to build up there now.
What happened?
Best I can tell is that the pole shifted. I don't know, but there was an all but instant change. What caused it? 200m rise in sea levels.
CO2 didn't do that. So what did?
Papers predict . . . While in reality, the Arctic ice pack is much above the mean size going back over one century. Most studies start at 1979, which is near an all-time maximum
Nice to hear from someone who is thinking about this. I was a Teen in the 1970's in Montreal Quebec and my personal experience was that this was a very cold period. A good friend got frost bite on both of his heels. The media and the experts then were predicting that we were entering a new Ice Age. In I think 1974 I spent a whole summer at our cottage and almost everyday it never got much above 65 F. I used to complain that I was purple when I swam. Again bloody cold. Later in the early 80's I worked in Calgary Alberta. On my first winter there we had a 6 week long stretch where the weather every night and morning went below minus 45 Farenheit. I went out for a jog and my ear lobes froze solid. It was a great time to start a temperature series and declare it to represent the norm.
You should point out that we have Arctic sea ice surveys going back to the 1920s and even satellite data back in the early 70s. The only reason they start at 1979 is because, as you point out, 1979 was a maximum in what surveys since the 1920s tell us is a cyclical pattern.
"the Arctic ice pack is much above the mean size going back over one century". Liar.
@@grindupBaker ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who disagree with the truth. Another fact is that the Arctic currently has more ice than 6000 years ago according to Science Daily (10/20/08) source, “Geological survey of Norway“. They go on to state that the Arctic may have been periodically ice free during that era
But he explained the 1979 start point by saying that's when the measurements became accurate. Therefore they can safely ignore all the prior data.
That's one way to get rid of inconvenient contrary data. The trick, of course, is to say it with a straight face.
So 2018 was colder than 2012. Got it.
Superb video, well done as usual, thanks for bringing the latest science out so clearly. Shame the topic is so depressing…
Many thanks!
It's all lies.
All those BS models has failed.
The topic isn't so depressing if you don't believe the lies being promulgated.
Anyone care to share their thoughts on this one? ua-cam.com/video/n-W76C0kkwc/v-deo.html
Remember... Modelling the Future is always more accurate than Historical Data and actual Observation.
This is a joke right ?
Noo...🤭
I am sure that this is not the first time that all this has happened, we just happen to be here to see it this time round.
i mean sure if you mean due to periods of high volcanic activity or asteroid impacts etc but its sort of irrelevant hey. There are 7 Billion of us here now and were all pretty dependent on a pretty narrow set of environmental conditions
@@vincentchauvet6654 As was all life that came before us, that's the nature of things.
Yeah, climate changed before... but it usually take THOUSANDS of years, never so incredibly fast. It's been proven, we are causing it..
@@vincentchauvet6654 there are only that many people on the planet because of fossil fuels not inspite of them. Would you rather two thirds of the world population starve?
WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE,,,.
Whenever there is news about climate science there is a word that always comes up... "underestimating" ... and this is the most scary thing. Not only is it bad, not only do we miss some details, but anytime we learn more it gets worse.
Not much. It's mostly that News is what sells. So for all these social-only venues, those of us who study the PHYSICAL science (so not the social "sciences") find it's either a modest change to what was previously published or it's no change at all over what's been given by scientific documents for many years, but rather it's just a synthesis of many of those older documents, a re-hash showing a bunch in one "new" document. All that's in this video, for example, has been known for many years and is simply a synthesis or re-hash for the purpose of making it News .... again. Something like 5% increase in the analysis results of past data or the modelling of future is the sort of thing that comes out every decade or so. For example, 71% open un-iced Arctic Ocean water for September for a decade and then 77% next decade, just roughly that sort of thing, a 6% increase in the faint September low-sunshine heating over the decade in that example.
Didn't a recent paper show the great barrier reef is thriving against reports that it was dying?
Yes! The barrier is growing back so fast after the crown of thorn starfish breakout. Don’t believe the news! From Qld, Australia.
I live in au , yes it’s all good. Even to the point the qld gov still lets cargo , oil tankers to transit through it. Well who are we to argue with a dickdick lefty
Never let the truth get in the way of climate alarmism, they might lose revenue otherwise.
I am following the climate deterioration since 1973 after the first 'oil shock'. No scientific proof or reasoning could convince politics and big business of the dire consequences of our destructive greed for profits and power. We, as a species have failed to maintain our existence and we are all responsible. We are victims of our 'success'. Previous civilisations came and went. This time we're all in for 'interesting' times ahead.
I was a research assistant at university for a scientist studying arctic plants. I logged plants in her study area into a database. I was amazed that most of the plants were the same as those I knew in the Pacific Northwest. In miniature. I expect many could grow bigger in warmer temps. I like the thought, anyway.
The next "new" research will probably show just the opposite. Remember in the 70's when we were about to enter a new ice age?
Oh look, someone hasn’t done their research
Judging by ice-cores taken at Greenland the temperature at that location, say over the last 10,000 years, has fluctuated within a steady range. On the basis that this natural trend continues then it is inevitable that the icecaps will continue reducing within this epoch, just as they have done until today.
SHHH!!! Don't tell the idiot peasants they are being duped! Instead, remind them that it is their fault and they need punishment!
Thank you this person smart
Yes, over thousands of years; that's how the natural cycle works. We're speed running that process by dumping unheard of quantities of greenhouse gases in the air in a short time (centuries).
Earth is a large system with a lot of inertia or momentum. We're only starting to get a sense of how much we've thrown it off while continuing to make the problem worse because emissions don't go down.
Anyone that wants to better understand warming periods should definitely check out Tony Heller. He covers the medieval warning period and even drought conditions and river levels.
Tony Heller is backed by the fossil fuel industry. He stands to gain from any inaction done towards climate change. It has already been proven that the medieval warming period was very localized over Europe. Current global temperature and co2 levels are near exceeding the maximums in all of human history, all in the span of just a decade.
Heller is a liar.
There is absolutely no point in looking to future technological solutions ( the search for which I am in favour of) while we continue to ignore the simple solutions which we already have. Here in the UK we are wasting 20% of our energy just heating leaky housing. We desperately need to insulate our housing. We continually fail to do so. If we won't take the simple measures, which would actually benefit people, what hope is there of taking the harder ones which will come at a cost . INSULATE NOW!!!!!!!!
humanity has destroyed the very branch of the tree it lives on through stupidity, now it is too late to make things right
Climate change makes me think of the Fermi Paradox, which questions why-- given the size and age of the universe-- we haven't seen any sign of any other life out there. One possibility is that all civilizations destroy themselves before achieving interstellar travel. I wonder if we are about to be an example of that. Another possibility is that we are actually alone. Life is just that special and rare and unique.
@@nsbd90now And not eternal.
@0:34 The ice extent on the picture is far from accurate, where it only shows 70-80 % of the real ice extent, which you can get from the Danish Institute for Meteorology, DMI. There you can also check that the icecurve is just normal, compared to the mean values between 2004-2013. There's no collapse what so ever in sight.
About Greenland, there has been a small loss of ice during the latest 20 years, about 200 Gton /year. (1 Gton is eq to 1 km3 of water). It can sound a lot, but if it continue to do so it will take about another 2000 years for all ice on Greenland to melt. In the meantime perhaps the weather will change.
Maybe you should have a re -think.
More B.S. What is your agenda that you appear in the comments section here, spouting flat out lies? Do you work for an oil conglomerate?
Thanks and I will check the Danish Institute for Meteorology, DMI link
@@jimmyf9545 Who do YOU work for?
Sorry, tried to edit. It's a scam and glaciers melting is natural.
@@jimmyf9545 It's a global scam. No I don't work for big oil so don't ask.
I wish we could just go back to another snowball earth! (When ice core samples for that period show approximately 25,000ppm CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere).
It was nice. Dragonflies were the size of VWs, in the tropics ,of course
Yeah this guy now has caught the CC bug. I presume every video from here on end will be more hysteria about the end of civilisation.
Thankyou for your work. It is comforting to hear someone speaking the facts ina calm and rational manner.
If we’re talking facts my friend not peer reviewed papers that are six months old THE BOOK to go to is called ‘“2 mile time machine “where a group of scientists spent over five years drilling through the 2 mile thick ice sheet and now I can tell us exactly what The last 12,000 years of climate was ?
Fantastic stuff. Keep it coming!
Commie lies. No more please.
Thanks for this intelligent assessment of the state of the arctic sea ice. For the past few days I have been bombarded with abuse by followers of Australian journalist Graham Lloyd for having the temerity to oppose his climate change denial rants on UA-cam. As a climate scientist, I am capable of providing science fact to the sceptics but it might have been less traumatising for me just to direct them to your excellent post.
So how high has the sea levels around Oz risen? Give me a break Peter. Sounds like you're part of the problem. Just another scientist pretending they know everything about a planet 4.5 billion years old. Yawn.
ua-cam.com/video/jgivtoYVdNs/v-deo.html
@@stuartpearce4773 Perhaps John Robson, who claims he knows a full plate from an empty one, should join me in East Africa, to observe people and animals dying daily from drought and hunger from unprecedented climatic conditions that are almost certainly climate change related. He will not see many full plates from which he can feed his smug platitudes.
@@peterusher2020 so this is a new phenomenon is it Peter? Yeah right. Droughts and floods are unfortunately normal weather events in many parts of the world. The severity of them, especially in urban areas, is magnified by the increased bulk of buildings, paved roads and lack of proper planning from governments in regards to storm water drainage. People raving on about that it's climate changes fault is just ignoring a hundred plus years of historical data.
@@danielanders4773 Yes Daniel, it is different. A third consecutive La Niña and negative IOD has resulted in six inadequate rainy seasons. Unprecedented in the sixty years I have professionally been involved in African and International climatology. I pointedly did not attribute the events categorically to climate change, only the probability that the effect was causal. There is plenty of new desert here for climate deniers to bury there heads in, but climate change Is real and most of present and predicted effects are unwelcome.
Sad they don't talk about Antarctic sea ice gains.
that is because it isn’t increasing. But it does appear more stable. Global temperature changes have been more apparent in the northern hemisphere probably because a far greater proportion of the southern hemisphere is ocean.
I’m looking at the PIOMAS cite for the most recent month, Dec 22, and it says “Average December 2022 ice volume was 1.1 standard deviations above the 1979-2021 rend line.” Also “The December time series … have no apparent trend over the past 11 years.”
The front page of the piomas site shows a graph of sea ice volume with a negatively sloped linear regression. The caption tells us that the ice volume is the seasonally adjusted ninth lowest on record. Being 1.1 standard deviations above the trend line is not unusual for one datapoint. I cannot find the quote about the December time series, but I am not surprised because the statement itself ambiguous to the point of being meaningless.
Religious fruitcakes are not a good source of science information.
Thank you for mentioning a future fraught with destruction as not being a place to bring children. The human overpopulation concerns alone are devastating.
Thank YOU for recognizing overpopulation. Too few recognize overpopulation as a general problem, let alone a driver of climate change.
We wouldn't be wrecking this planet as much if our population hadn't soared out of control upwards of 8 billion. The Earth has been bent and twisted every way we, humanity, have demanded to support our disgusting numbers. In the end, it becomes starkly apparent that we are a cancer to all other life on Earth.
Imagine the scale of leadership needed to put into action those Cop decisions.
We have better data then ever before.
Flood defences? It seems rather late.
@@paulwelch4643 IDOT !, clearly you have no knowledge of the climatic history of the planet not even our current interglacial !
Only the ignorant and gullible would be taken in by such obvious propaganda.
Sea levels are currently ONE TO TWO METERS LOWER than 4500 years ago, if ALL the Arctic ice cap and Greenland sea ice shelves melted TOMORROW it would raise sea levels by ZERO MILLIMETERS , thats because they already displace their full volume of water.
Only 8000 years ago there was NO summer Arctic sea ice and almost NO Greenland land ice temperatures during the Holocene Thermal Optimum were 6-8 Deg C warmer than now.
For most of the period of human civilization temperatures were WARMER than now.
It's easy to say that isn't it! Another ignorant view.
you hate mankind. you're nothing but an asshole.
One thing that you can add to this is volcanic actions of late,one of the last one's knocked the earth's axis by nearly 7inchs, may not sound much but it puts the Arctic in the sun for longer 🙃
Model's are just that Model's a slight miscalculation and it's going to be out by a long way ,just a guess at a worst case cenario
Bored shirtless by a coring bunt
Ahh yes, the conspiracy nutters in action.
If you haven't had sleepless nights from the positive feedback loop of methane release in the Eastern Siberian shelf of the arctic ocean, you are part of the problem.
Difficult to know what to say after watching this. Especially in the midst of the Putin madness and the resultant rush back to fossil fuels. At 69, I'm not going to see too much of this, but what a God awful mess we're handing over to our kids. My youngest is only 13 and my grand children are only 10 and 8 - they are going to see the full horror show. If they survive it. As a child of the 50s and 60s, who has spent his whole life seeing the world getting better and fairer and more prosperous, it's a real kick in the guts to realise now that my generation and the ones before it, are handing over a world of potential nightmare problems to our children and grandchildren. How did we manage to screw things up so badly? and, if we survive, will we learn our lesson? I'm afraid I very much doubt it.
For us babyboomers to get back at least some credibility one consequence is to try to approach a zero carbon lifestyle immediately. Which means strictly no flying, no fossil cars, plant based diet, abandon fossil heating, shop stop, handing over our houses to young families.
Nobody ever said that generational justice would be easy.
The same groups run the world that ran it then. We just have to do what we can in spite of them. To see one's efforts continually undone by ignorant selfish fools day after day is crushing, but on we must go. What else can we do?
@@thedabbler2753 " We want to be able to do what we want to do! We want to get loaded, and we want to have a good time. So that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna have a good time." Simon Pegg, from The World's End.
@@achenarmyst2156 My son is 27 years old. He and his wife have 3 children aged 8, 5 and 3. Send me your details and we'll arrange for you to hand your house/s over to him immediately. Oh. And thank you.
Imagine all the countries that all the immigrants are coming from, how messed up they are so once the boat is full here this place will be like the places the immigrants came from,
Bering Sea warming? Maybe that's why the Oplio Crab season has been canceled. The quota for fisherman is determined by population. An estimated 1 billion crab are missing. Thus requiring the cancelation of an entire fishing season.
Don't Look Up.
Loved the sea ice graphics. The ice was seen flowing back and forth while the cloud formations remained static, "Simulation" should have been added as a caption. You used the term "Computer Modelling" a number of times in this piece surely shooting yourself in the foot. Just a few short months ago the absurdity of this method of presentating flawed (or corrupt) data as mathematical fact was illustrated on the outbreak of Covid 19. The early models having been proved wildly wide of the mark on casualty numbers, were remodelled time after time in a vain effort to get near to real world statistics. Governments are intentionally destroying national economies in pursuit of the great reset using climate models. This is all theoritical, or junk, science. Empirical evidence shows that the Earth is cooling, Greenland ice is thicker, polar bears are becoming a pest to indiginous communities and Ms. Thunberg is showing early signs of growing up. Who funds the scientists who produced the papers on which you based your piece.? Any climate scientist unless nearing retirement, would be foolish enough to depart from the alarmist narrative, unless he or she had a driving ambition to ask if you want fries with your order.
Very well said.
Absolutely spot-on. And I was about to ask the same question, so I'll ask it too.
Spot on.
are you seriously implying that academia ALL OVER THE WORLD is involved in some large conspiracy? who would gain anything from that? Data doesn't change no matter who funds the research.
About time to recognize that those ‘doom mongers’ are proven to have been pretty much spot-on I should think. Especially with Kipling (or his parody) in mind.
Yet the forecasts (there have been many over the decades) that the Maldives would be submerged by 2020 hasn't happen (in fact they are slightly bigger than they were decades ago) and the Arctic summer sea ice, which was supposed to disappear by 2014 is still there - pretty much the same as it was in 2006.
The crazy idea that tinkering politicians would have a thermostat knob that they can turn on with measures paid for by taxpayers Stop the climate scam and green corruption with taxpayers' money
The Arctic has been cooling for the last 8000 years. A little up and down for the last 100 years, but generelly it is still cooling. We are near the end of the inter glacial periode.
"The Arctic has been cooling for the last 8000 years. A little up and down for the last 100 years, but generally it is still cooling. " No, the Arctic is rapidly warming, with one town in northern Norway now averaging SEVEN degrees F warmer than the long-term average.
@@HealingLifeKwikly Then you are a data denier like all the other climate alarmists!
@@KEB129 "Then you are a data denier like all the other climate alarmists!" No, I'm reporting the actual truth. The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere on earth, with a number of places already being 3-4 degrees C warmer than the long-term average. Half the Arctic ice mass that was there in the 1970s has melted away, the permafrost is melting and collapsing at a dangerous and destructive rate, etc., etc. With all due respect, you must not be reading the scientific evidence because scientists are very scared about the rapid warming going on in the Arctic. I must ask--WHERE are you getting your information from?
@@HealingLifeKwikly Greenland Ice core data GIsp 2 and a lot of other souces like IPCC data from 1990 when there was still SOME science in it, snd not like today when it is all policy and propaganda.
@@KEB129 Thanks for your reply, but I have no idea what you meant to say. BTW, there is zero evidence of any data tampering, misconduct, or "politics' by climate scientists. NINE independent investigations have found zero wrongdoing. Meanwhile, the predictions of the majority of climate scientists regarding warming keep coming true, which means they are right about how our emissions are warming the planet and disrupting the climate.
Everyday is a new emergency for 20 years now
Unprecedented is the new normal. As the temperature continues to soar climate will become increasingly hostile to agriculture. Drought, fire, flood and unpredictable shifts in seasons are increasing along with temperature. Add energy to a fluid system and it becomes more active... like soup churning in a pot.
Great video as usual, sadly if it does not make money and feed the greed of human expansion across the globe it will also flounder and fail to find the right audience. Thank you for highlighting this most important issue.
Yeah definitely more important that domestic and foreign political failures.
Flounder is a FISH;
FOUNDER is a Boat moving
Without being Anchored.
"the greed of human expansion across the globe "
Human greed - yes
Human expansion - not so much. You may wish to research recent good news information concerning human demographics on a global scale because some in the demographic community are currently suggesting that United Nations population projections flawed.
@@stephenchamberlain4179 385 Thousands Newborns per Day. Thats not steady state equalibrium.
What issue? If you look at other sites the mass ice balance is not decreasing at all. Don't just look at one idiot's view please!
Larger oceans and seas means that the Earth will be capable of retaining more latent heat. More latent heat contained in our oceans means dramatically higher global cloud cover than we have today. More cloud cover means that there will be more overall precipitation. This may result in more snow cover over higher elevation areas. It also bodes well for deflection of the Sun's light and heat away from Earth. What may be lost in the Earth's potential to deflect the Sun from the melting of the Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets in Greenland may be more than recovered elsewhere. Also, we really don't know for certain what sorts of effect an ice-free Artic would have on ocean currents. Everything at this point is just speculation. The only thing that is certain is that global warming is much more conducive to life overall than the opposite.
I almost suspect you've been paid for such an ill-informed opinion.
So, how many past dominos have we passed, and still not encountered, despite so much pessimism?
Don't be so impatient! We're getting there exponentially.
*Looks at snowball earth predictions of early 2000s, with scientists saying "It's hard to predict short term changes, but these long term changes are certain"*
So... are we getting closer or further from there, exponentially?
As regards the melting of Arctic Ice, the records nearly always seem to start in 1979. Strange that, considering it was a year of record extent for Arctic Ice. Even so, data from NOAA (2022) show winter (March) ice coverage has hardly changed since '79, and that the summer (September) coverage trend had stopped declining since 2007. How inconvenient! Didn't someone predict in 2007 Arctic ice free by 2010, or 2015, or 2013, or in 5 years? Or was it in 2008 the Arctic ice sheet would melt away. Also predicted in 2008 North Pole ice free in ... 2008 ... or in 10 years. 2009 prediction: Arctic ice free in 2014. 2012 prediction: snow will be gone by 2020. And 2013 star prediction: Methane catastrophe in 2 years because of ice free Arctic. 2018 prediction: zero chance of permanent ice in Arctic by 2022. It's still there, and it's stopped shrinking.
If you consider global sea ice cover, it was basically flat from 1981 to 2008, rose until 2010, stayed level until 2015, dropped until 2018, and then rebounded almost all the way back to the 1990-2000 average. Nobody predicted theses changes, nor can they explain them. The changes have no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is make-believe.
The ice is getting a lot thinner though. So the total quantity or mass of ice is decreasing fast.
@Brent Summers Thin ice is more conducive to the maintenance of bear and walrus populations. Despite all the predictions, the Arctic remains increasingly biologically productive. Even if the ice were to disappear in the summer, this would not cause the extinction of polar bears. The Arctic has been ice-free during the Holocene climate optimum, and during the previous Eemian interglacial (both of which were warmer than current). The polar bears and other fauna were present during these events, and neither of these (obviously) resulted in their extinction or the obliteration of Arctic ecosystems.
Predicting an ice free Arctic in 10 years are we? Are you sure you want to make this prediction?
Greenland has seen above average ice gains in 4 out of the last 6 years. 540 gigatons in 2017 and 500 gigatons in 2018 if my memory serves me right. This is way above average.
Antarctica recorded it's lowest temp in recorded history. Coral reefs in Australia are at a 36 year record high. How can this be with a warmer world?
Beware of making predictions. The internet is forever!
In 2017, the cumulative daily melt area for the Greenland ice sheet was the smallest since 1996, yet still higher than any year between 1979 and 1994 (1995 was a high melt season). The 2017 melt season was also notable for its late melt events, one of them occurring on October 29 to 31, tied for the latest for any year in the satellite record. Between September 2018 and August 2019, the Greenland Ice Sheet set a record for ice loss (532 ± 58 billion metric tons). Between September 2019 and August 2020, the rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet was much lower (293 ± 66 billion metric tons), but still above the 2002-2020 average measured by GRACE. Average ice loss for Greenland over the full 18-year record was 268 ± 14 billion metric tons per year. You facts are simply wrong.
@@grumpyguardsman6161
I just double checked my numbers and I'm correct. Sorry.
2017 - 540 gigatons net gain which is 160 gigatons above the 1981 - 2010 average of 380 gigatons.
2018 - 500 gigatons net gain which is above average...
2019 - 180 gigatons net gain which is 200 gigatons below the 1981 - 2010 average of 380 gigatons.
2020 - 375 gigatons net gain which is 5 gigatons below average...
2021 - 400 gigatons net gain, above average...
2022 - 450 gigatons net gain, above average.
All years gained more ice than lost overall.
Do any of the papers include the effects of solar forcing, or the weakening magnetic field?
An observer I see!
@@rogerkemper2095 yeah mate.
All models factor in solar forcing, and all but the simplest models factor in changes in solar forcing. The effect of changes in the magnetic field is much less than the effect of greenhouse warming.
@@godfreypigott Right, so solar activity can raise temperatures significantly for days, weeks or months on end, cause droughts that last for years, but climate change is worse? If and when a major CME hits the Earth it will make climate change look like nothing, every time a solar flare hits the Earth it pumps energy into the poles, which raises temperatures, sometimes by double digits in short bursts.
@@Tommy_Bee Apparently you are still unable to discern the difference between solar activity and *CHANGES* in solar activity in terms of the effect on climate.
And the second part of your comment was fiction.
When someone talks about "Mother Nature" we know we are in the presence of a great and gifted scientific mind.
Great stuff. With the shutdown of the AOMC, also consider the impact on atmospheric dynamics and Mother Nature's correction to the problem, by the cooling of the Arctic and increased snow production across mountains and Greenland. It is a complicated Rube Goldberg affair with unexpected consequences.
AMOC
Yes, true, and by now we know that it has happened before (at the end of the last Ice Age, when the North American mega-lake Agassi emptied into the Atlantic leaving behing it some 'ponds', today'[s Great Lakes), the climate cooled temporarily suddenly because AMOC was interrupted). The thing is that at that time, humanity totaled a few millions of individuals living in caves and riverside/coastal hamlets.
Today we are above 8 billions and we are tagging along some trillions of dependents (pets and industrially-bred animals) plus a fragile world economy - if Mother Nature decided to self-correct, human civilization would be torn to shreds with billions of victims!
@@paulthomas963, yes, the global mean temperature has been rising and the polar ice caps, glaciers and permafrost are melting quickly.
The thing is that this rise in temperature brings more unstable climate. so our winters do tend to get colder and more snowy.
Where is the problem in that?
A great presentation. How much is related to human activity and how much towards natural cycles? This is the crux.
or is it possible that human activity is itself a follow-on effect to natural cycles
The answer is, none.
The Earth has been doing things like this for 2 billion years. Humans are just ants on the surface. A single massive volcanic eruption releases more CO2 and pollution into the atmosphere in a day compared to entire human history.
"How much is related to human activity and how much towards natural cycles?" 100% of global warming over the last 60 years is due to humans, and 98% of global warming since the late 1800 is due to humans.
@@HealingLifeKwiklyastonishing claim. The simple fact that the earth has warmed and cooled, under natural influences for a few billion years would suggest you are wrong. But you could be right, in which case, the end is nigh!
So many new coal power plants being added around the world these days. Governments are issuing very confusing messaging around this, unfortunately.
Ironically a 40% decrease in sulfur pollution from Coal reduction also heats up Earth another 1 degree Celsius due to the Aerosol Masking Effect being twice as bad as previously thought. This is not mentioned in the news of course but any science search will show this truth.
The message is clear. The globalist know the climate story is nonsense. They are allowing third world countries to use coal because it is about defeating the West. That is all it os about. Crashing the system to create a new one. The history of climate alarmism is fascinating. This hoax has been going on for decades with the same nonsense just wrong info and predictions.
@@adohmnail6445 Europe is fast-tracking coal and other fossil fuel power plants as we speak. The US paused new coal plants a few years ago but that could change anytime. Of course we know where a lot of new coal plants are being started weekly but nobody cares about that.
Don't know why people give the IPCC reports so much leverage... these climate change patterns are carved into the rock beneath us. Species die out over and over, thanks to technology most of us might survive this one. Pity the natural progression is used as propaganda for politicians and their fellow capitalists, humanity has been convinced they actually have control over any of this.
I'm really pessimistic. Our leaders and humans only react when there's a direct imminent risk. I'm pretty sure that we will continue to do business as usual up until at least the next decade. At least I live in Montreal, a place in the world where climate change has less detrimental effects than for example China or Pakistan.
"Less detrimental" is detrimental enough to kill everyone in Montreal.
I've accepted about a decade ago that mass emigration will have to happen from my home country. Either that or drown.
Greetings from the Netherlands.
Read the Communist Manifesto for an answer as to what to do. There's a reason why the same governments, corporations, and media that created the climate crisis are the ones demonizing it.
YES, THAT'S THE REASON MAINLY, YOU ALL WANT TO KILL THE WORLD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO WARM YOUR COLD GULAG ARCHIPELAGO THAT YOU VOTE EVERYDAY, THANKS!!!!!
I can remember last year when you stated categorically that the Gulf Stream was not going to be affected any time soon when anyone who’s watched ‘The day after tomorrow’ has been expecting it for years 🤔😉
Gulf stream probably won't be under threat until we go past 4 degrees Celsius. If that does happen it will be at the back end of this century. Not any time soon on a human timescale but admittedly still pretty near term in the big scheme of things. That's why climate action is so crucial.
The Day After Tomorrow was fiction.
@@incognitotorpedo42 it had some interesting ideas in light of the mega freeze in Texas last year.
Many of the ideas from that movie seem to be copied from the 1979 novel "The sixt winter" by John Gribbin ad Douglas Orgill. I've red it in high school, took it as work of science fiction but never forgot it.
Seems to have some things not wrong by now: Humanity will be too slow to respond accurate.
@@JustHaveaThink "That's why climate action is so crucial".
Calm down. Earth doesn´t care about climate scaremongering narcissists. You´re really not as important as you like to think you are.
The reason 2012 was so low in sea ice during the summer was due to multiple cyclones that churned up the sea ice during that year, they came one after the other almost like a freak weather cycle. If something even half as bad had happened this year, there would have been an ice free arctic, or if not very close. Doom mongers aren't really being doom mongers, rather being realistic given the increased chances of strange weather patterns potentially hitting the arctic area with the rapidly changing weather system. If anything, I would say we have been lucky!
The idea that the poles could be ice free when they don't see sun 6 months out of the year is laughably retarded.
I truly appreciate you gathering this information and presenting us with a detailed overview that saves our time. Having studied climate change since it wasn't so popular (1978), I'm often reminded of the data that we still lack.
We know that as the sea ice melts, colder water sinks deeper in the ocean. Does that significantly drop the temperature in the deepest parts of the ocean? We don't know; we have no data on that.
It probably does. Does that colder water keep chilling until it covers such a large area that it starts to mix in ocean currents and could cool our climate? We don't know; we have no data on that.
It probably does. Is there a greater volume of cold water sinking to the depths when there is less ice insulating the polar oceans? We don't know; we don't have the data.
There probably is. Does this mean we need to get busy in the oceans collecting this data for future climatologists?
It probably does!!
Today's 'scientists' don't bother with data. They have computer models!!