One thing that irritates me is there is next to no comments on the increase in heat due to the existence of cities, road networks, etc. We have literally covered the earth in steel, concrete and other building materials instead of grass, trees and the other parts of nature. No one talks about 'greening cities' anymore as they did in the late 1980's, and 1990's.
The reason the heat island effect is not more talked about is that it is a well known and studied effect, which, when compared to the effect of pumping literal billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, turns out to be only local and numerically negligible.
@@scasey1960 Plants also form the backbone of natural ecosystems, and they absorb about 30 percent of all the carbon dioxide emitted by humans each year.
Agreed, With Global Warming the Urban heat island effect is out of Control. I can't imagine why people would want to live in super hot cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas and Tuscon. If Phoenix were 1/10th the size it is now. The Temperature would be at least 10* cooler. But your in the hottest desert in the US, so WHY?
One thing I almost never hear anyone talking about in reference to sea level rise is that the ground will actually get lower, as well. Water is heavy, and the area around coastlines is often made of unconsolidated material, which compresses easily (and all at different rates). The other way it can go down is if the weight of the water actually pushes down on the tectonic plate, itself. We know this can happen, because the last time the poles completely melted, there was an inland sea in the middle of the US. There wasn't any more water on Earth than there is now, but the weight of the encroaching sea shoved the plates downward as it advanced. Imagine climbing onto an inflatable raft in a swimming pool. Once ice started forming on the poles again and the water started to go down, the continent sprang back up, and you can see the evidence in the rock layers, now. I'm not saying it might get that bad again, since that was a really long time ago and the plates have shifted around a lot, but water-weight is definitely a factor in sea level rise. It's interesting, because you can't just think about it in terms of the current topography. We don't know exactly where the shoreline would be at any given level of sea rise.
This blows my mind. If all that is true, then this might very well be one of the things that makes plates change direction. Just like the the inflatable raft in your analogy, the play will want to move our from under the wieght. This might push plates around or even break them.
The iceage pushed down hard on the Canadian Shield with litteral kilometers of ice, this pushed up the land at the edge sorta like a see-saw. Long island is a terminal moraine of this glacier and without the glacier the Canadian shield is glacially rebounding upwards, and the former edge is going back down. End result is that half of the sea level rise in NYC is just from the land glacially rebounding downwards to its original position. Also the icecaps have enoung mass to exert some gravitational influence on the seas just like the tides, and when they melt that influence will end and the "low tide" near the equator and "high tide" near the poles will average out contributing a greater amount to sea level rise in the tropics than the polar regions.
@@izzycurer1260 intresting note. The southwest of England has some of the highest tides in the world. When the tide come in twice a day the land is pushed down up to 6 inches, and also rebounds twice each day
It's no longer a slow process. This week a new ice sheet in Antarctica is calving, making mammoth amounts of water subject to melting. I would love an update on this please.
Yes it had to happen because Al Gore's predictions are so far behind. He promised that 40 % of Florida would be under water by now, we must push for more melting so that Al Gore does not become the liar that some of us know he really is. (When in danger or in doubt - run in circles scream and shout).
The reemergence of a sea in the CA central valley would be apropos. The agriculture industry that turned this land dry would be facing bigger issues than irrigation!
@@JB-1138 🌭 That would suck more than the damn sharks. And that's also not how it works because physics. Increased heat prevents the water vapor in clouds from condensing into raindrops so there would be even less rain. Because thermal energy increases the scale of molecular vibration of the water molecule, which exceeds the electromagnetic field of attraction and therefore preventing fluid cohesion. And water molecules have a high thermal energy storage capacity. And since humans shed excess heat by sweating which evaporates into the air taking some of the excess thermal energy with it, and the air has a limited capacity to absorb moisture, as the water content in the air increases, evaporation decreases. That's why humidity makes you feel hotter, because you actually are hotter since you are not shedding heat into the air. So increasing temperature will increase evaporation in the short term but prevent that evaporated water from condensing into rain, until the air becomes saturated with hot water vapor and can no longer hold any more moisture, at which point all evaporation stops and the entire world is blanketed by a super hot cloud of steam. If you think being cooked like rice is great, you should figure out a way to steam yourself into a ballpark frank. And let everyone else deal with the sharks. Good luck.
THIS would make another great "What If" episode... I thought I read somewhere that it could happen with one of the fault lines breaking open and whatever natural barrier that exists could fail and flood it one fell swoop... I.e. the largest disaster in US history and them some...
@@stickynorth That's not at all how fault lines work. Earthquakes are movements of maaaaybe a couple centimeters at greatest. That said, there have been earthquakes powerful enough to cause a tsunami in Lake Tahoe, which would also be a spectacle.
What's not accounted for in these sea level rises is that the ice caps themselves have a gravitational pull and thus they attract the water towards the poles, Antarctica 8X as much as Greenland. As these melt the water starts migrating away from the poles and redistributes itself, meaning sea level rises in places like Boston, Norfolk Virginia, Southern Louisiana and South Florida are easily at least double that of the global average! 😭
Awesome video. One minor glitch: there is an iceberg in Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, which may slide into the ocean in the next five (5) years. If it does that, it will raise the sea levels around the world by two feet in a matter of days. If the other glaciers then glide into the ocean, up to 10 more feet of ocean rise very quickly. So, hold onto your hats, and move inland :-)
If the ice at the North Pole melts it will NOT cause a sea level rise as this ice is already in the water. Only melting ice from land-based glaciers will raise the sea level.
Ok, hear me out: we relocate the people along the wasatch front in northern Utah and refill lake Bonneville, as well as lake lahontan in Nevada. We build a system like the Panama Canal to lift boats into it from the ocean. The two major lakes in the mountains will bring a huge increase in winter snowfalls, which will lead to deeper snowpacks and longer melt times, especially when the lakes will lead to cooler summer temperatures across the mountain west. So there should be an eventual increase in year to year snowpack leading to eventual glaciation. Also, much of the forest in the Rocky Mountains has been destroyed from wildfires over the past couple decades. We can use the water to aid in reforestation efforts which will lead to cleaner air and more precipitation. With these efforts I believe it will help eventually reverse warming and thus reverse sea level rise. Now, I realize this may never happen. Obviously, there are more than 2 million people who would need to relocate for one of these lakes to come back. Besides that it would cost trillions of dollars just to build the infrastructure for all this. And besides that there may be many micro and some macro eco systems highly disrupted by such a thing. But I think we need to think out of the box for a long lasting solution for our future generations.
Seems like a fine idea, if you can pump the water that far inland. And a canal would do nicely. Obviously, you cannot grow crops with salt water, but the sea would elevate humidity and rainfall.
For sure. Also, desalination is already something we can do, we don’t have to invent that technology. And given that there are a few salt mining/processing companies that wouldn’t be able to keep their current place of operating as it would now be under water they could run the desal plants and get their salt from the evaporating brine left over. Then they’d be able to increase their operations rather than lose them.
Agreed haha. I don’t see a bad in this. Plus a lot of the land now covered in ice will be nice and melted and ready to use. It balances out. Plus I’d be happy to see the rich coastal folks unwillingly be shifting their wealth to others currently less fortunate
The only outright lie in the video: "As humans, we constantly underestimated the devastating effects of climate change." Maybe you're too you to remember bro, but in elementary school in the early 1990's, I was told "if humanity doesn't stop global warming, New York city will be almost completely underwater by the year 2005!". That and countless other doomsday scenarios going back to the 1970's which never came to fruition, and never will. Thankfully, I did something about it. I studied Meteorology/Climatology in college with a focus on Paleo-Climatology and I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt, the issue is not the planet warming. The issue is thousands of politicians and other elites scamming the gullible out of trillions of dollars with a promise to STOP the warming (which is LITERALLY impossible), instead of a focus on adapting to the coming change. You know, what humans have done since humans have existed. Adapt. Overcome. Survive. The science-based report that the sea will rise one to one and a half feet in the next ONE HUNDRED YEARS is the most accurate, as it extrapolates current climate trends with ice-core atmospheric data. I think Humanity can find a way to adapt to that over the next century. Oh, and one last thing, do some research on the mid-Pliocene climate period. Then tell me "the earth is going to et too hot for life!".
So true. Remember the Maldives? They were supposed to be entirely under water 20 or 30 years ago. Also remember the prediction in the 1970's that we were going to die by the next ice age by 1990 or 2000.
The effects of AGW are beginning to express themselves exactly as predicted going back to the 1970's. Just take a look around. The predicted timelines for those effects to manifest have been all over the place though. But now we know precisely when they will start to happen... It's right f*cking now.
Due to increasing strength of hurricanes, New York City is building a $1.45 billion dollar sea wall to protect against storm surge. The region is also considering a larger $119 billion sea wall for the same purpose. At this time point, it doesn't really matter what people think. If people have the money to fight the sea, they build sea walls. But it they don't, they abandon the city and move further inland to rebuild like what the Indonesians are doing with their capital city. And if the people are even poorer and don't t have the money to do either, they just become economic migrants by the tens of millions like the Bangladeshi... flooding the surrounding regions by the millions.
China is screwed even with just 1-2 meters, this would be enough to flood Shanghai which is by far their city with the biggest economic output. Moreover, relocating dozens of millions of people would be a nightmare.
Like I alluded to, in a previous comment, humans are amazing at adaptation. This all seems catestrophic IF it was to happen over night. Well it won't. It's going to be gradual and like I say, humans are the best at adapting.
Right, we will have plenty of time to move to higher ground there isn't a tsunami coming. Some people who used to live inland will have ocean front property is the only difference there will be.
I know you're joking, but I've always been a little dubious about any sun blocking proposals. Plants need sunlight. If sunlight gets reduced, it will reduce plant growth, and we need those plants for carbon capture. People are doing all these things to invent some magical new carbon capture device when we already have them everywhere in the form of plants. A little less sunlight wouldn't actually kill the plants, but as someone who owns a lot of houseplants, I'm well aware of how minor changes in sunlight affect foliage output and total growth. Anyone seriously putting ideas out there about giant mirrors (which is something I have actually heard before) has obviously never done any gardening. I'm all for better and fancier carbon capture devices, but until then, we shouldn't cripple the ones we already have.
What I don't understand, landmarks like Plymouth Rock are exactly the same distance above sea level as it was in 1620? There are piers in Florida were the water markings are the same since the 1700's.
another important thing to remember: if the ice is already detached from the land, it's displacing the water, so it doesn't really matter if it melts at that point.
@@josephfuller6229 no it doesn't. melting doesn't add water. if you pour a glass of water half full and fill the other half up with ice, and let it melt, then it's just going to be a regular full glass of water. it's not going to spill over the edge. the thing that matters is that the ice breaks off from the land.
@@macriggland6526 frozen it's on the water and not in the water so how do you figure it adds no water when it melts seriously stop drinking the Kool aid from the republikkkan terrorist party
That's why the topic was the melting ice caps, not sea ice. The ice caps are on land and aren't displacing existing sea water. They are however already melting and adding to the volume of sea water, so it isn't even a matter of "what if it happens", it's a matter of "it is happening".. Congratulations on blowing up your attempt at being clever. Do pay attention and try to keep up.
Places like California’s Central Valley, Portland, Montreal, and the Mediterranean might be possible to protect from sea level rise as the sea cuts through a narrow strait of highlands whether it’s the Golden Gate, the Colombia River, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and the Straits of Gibraltar respectively are all narrow enough to build some massive sea level control infrastructure on. Atlantropa was a bad idea for land reclamation but for sea level preservation it is the best yet
There are also a number of other factors to take into account: - these dams would have to be maintained perfectly for thousands of years without a single fault because their failure would kill dozens of millions of people, - they would have to resist earthquakes of magnitude 9 - they would require billions of tons of earth and cement, steel, etc which would require massive CO2 emissions, thus further compounding the global climate drift Moreover, peak conventional oil was reached around 2008 and peak all-types oil is on the horizon so we have a limited amount of fossil fuel to use for such mega projects. It would be better to use them to properly transition away and as quickly as possible from fossil fuel.
A few corrections to my post: - earthquake protection would be needed for sismic zones, not everywhere - as you mentioned, if built in narrow areas,the amount of cement and steel needed may not be too high so the emissions are less of a concern. However, in areas like Montreal, the issue would be that there is a massive river (the St Lawrence, which is the main outflow of the Great Lakes) which still needs to find its way to the ocean. Closing the St Lawrence would thus also result in flooding the entire area behind the damn, including much of Montreal. This issue is likely with all other places as well as most of them have rivers which currently flow into the ocean.
I remember being able to find a sand bar that could walk on when I was a little kid at the beech now as a grown adult I can never find a sand bar that can walk on.
well, if the polar caps melt, the extra freshwater in the ocean raises the freezing temperature of the oceans and disrupts the ocean currents ... and we slide into the next Ice Age ... which will expose more land, not less
And is that any better? Europe will drift into an ice age because the gulf stream will be slowed down/ stopped, while other parts of the world will experience higher temperatures than usual, heat waves, droughts and floods near the coastline. All in all, extreme weather phenomenona will occur more often and that's a bad thing, no matter how much land we (well, only Europe) might gain in the process.
@@___________________________._ the clue is in the title Josh ... "Extreme Sea Level Rise" i didn't comment on worse or preferable outcome - just the topic of "Extreme Sea Level Rise" ... call me crazy, but i suspect the major contributors to the climate on our planet are #1 the sun, #2 the rest of the universe, #3 whatever life is on earth at any given time (because i have heard some crazy conspiracy theories that suggest that the climate has always changed - even before human use of fossil fuel ... and much more rapid change than we are currently experiencing ... maybe one day i'll go look to see if there is any scientific validity to this position (wink)
It would have if we had only released the amount of CO2 we did in the 1980s. However since than we have massively increased CO2 production. So the sea current stop. Heat from the equator does not get to the poles. However the amount of CO2 release is so massive, the poles also heat up along with the entire earth. We will not return to the ice age cycle. We have release carbon that was last seen in the biosphere 300 million years ago, during the carboniferous period.
You ever heard of Y2K ??? That was a load of poles that the computer guys sold to the USA. The government and large companies went to the computer experts and said ----- "OK, if Y2K is something to be concerned about then you have a high paying job for several years working out a solution. If it's of no concern then good bye and good luck with the rest of your life." To which the computer experts replied ---- "Let us see, why yes, we believe this is a major problem and we'll be employed for years finding a solution." This is the biggest of my concerns about global warming. So, scientist and researchers, if global warming is something to be concerned about then you have a high paying job for for the rest of your life working out a solution. If it's of no concern then good bye and good luck with the rest of your life. I don't necessarily believe the ice age ended 10,000 years ago. I think it's possible that we're still coming out of it. An ice age relapse got Napoleon at Waterloo and probably the Germans at Moscow. I have lots of other question about this. Our politicians made billionaires out of a lot of computer guys and millionaires out of themselves while the Russians and Chinese said "it's nonsense" and did nothing about it. Y2K left a bad taste in my mouth and I don't trust scientist and researchers any more than I trust computer guys or the WHO, the CDC, the FBI and most of all the White House in 2022.
Lots of misinformation here. The 30s and 50s were record breaking warm. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere caps out and can’t keep increasing. Climate alarmism lives but we must educate ourselves on the real climate situation.
If the North Pole sea ice melts, sea levels will rise by exactly zero. By definition, it already floats on the sea and displaces the amount of water it weighs. It will turn into water and nothing happens. I am pretty sure you meant to speak about the ice shields of Greenland and the rest of the arctic that are currently on land. Errors like this make it too easy for people to dismiss you and the very valid point you are trying to make.
This was a lot of BS. For the last 800 million years the average temperature has been 10 degrees c. warmer than the current average. For most of this time there were no polar ice caps, so sea levels were as high as estimated in this video. The co2 levels were also higher. All this happened with no human input.
If the polar ice caps melt, you can use the water to transform the SW desert back to agriculture and you would not have to tap the Great Lakes, either.
There is no climate crisis. The earth goes through cycles. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to say or believe that. All hell will come down on you if you do. 🙄
New England has wet-bulb temperatures in all of the non-winter seasons. They could be deadly in the future. Sealevel rise too, Cape Cod could disappear.
Just a fact to chew on. There is a rock that has been at Plymouth rock since 1620. In the 400 years since it was placed there, it is still above water. There has been no rise in the water.
EVEN IF this were to happen, it would not be for several hundred years and it would most likely not be all of the world’s ice. Also, a warmer earth (by a few degrees, 1-3) is better for life overall. See the comparisons between the medieval warm period and the little ice age for example.
The oceans get acidic and forest and food get scorched by the time your deserts become usable well be long dead. Also great to know you don't consider any life besides human. Disgusting.
Hey man, nice vid. Scary though. I would love to find a map (well, hate, but you know what I mean) which shows more clearly the state of South Carolina after that 60-meter rise. Is there a way you can point me in the right direction, or do a video devoted solely to showing geographic what-if-scenario maps with varying level of sea rise? I saw SC on the east coast 60-meter map, but it was a bit far away and it was hard to get a sense of where the water was in relation to individual counties, which I am most interested in. Thanks so much for any other info you can provide.
If you add all of the melting and thawing tundra and all of the gasses being released from all of that biomatter biomatter that never decomposed all of a sudden decomposing that feedback loop is already out of hand. Everyone is talking about we need to get off of ice cars and buy electric vehicles but what about all of the air travel which is way more polluting than the cars on the road.
Did Anybody Else Notice He Confused Meters with Feet? The NOAA Chart @6:56 is In Feet Not Meters... So - The Worse Case Scenario Based on the North Pole Melting Is a Sea Level Rise of 7 Feet (2.3 Meters) Refer to Chart @6:56, Not 7.5 Meters (25 Feet) As Stated @ 7:09. The Worse Case Scenario Based on Both Poles Melting Is a Sea Level Rise of 19.7 Feet (6 Meters) Refer to Chart @6:56, Not 60 Meters (196 Feet) As Stated @ 7:57. So the Damage in The Worse Case Scenario Would Not Be Pretty But Not As Bad As Confusing Imperial & Metric Systems Make It Seem...
Geoff, you failed to differentiate between Polar Ice Caps and the Greenland Ice sheet which is on Land as is Antarctica's. The North Pole sea Ice is virtually completely gone. maybe 20% of it's original size from 200 years ago. Also, Antarctica is melting far faster than you lead on. This is fresh water Ice, Not sea Ice. So we're talking about major Sea Level Rise, say in Miami and Manhattan of at least 2 meters by 2040. Manhattan and Miami would be completely flooded. The data shows that the Greenland and Antarctica Ice sheets are melting exponentially, not gradually. If you live near a coastal City on the eastern US seaboard, I suggest you move inland at least 100 miles from the coast. This is going to be far worse than Geoff lets on.
Can anyone articulate the international transition plan to convert from fossil fuel to electric power? Hardest question is: How do we get Russia and China onboard? Without their full cooperation our efforts will only delay the inevitable. Are we, as a world population, willing to expend the resources necessary to effect regime change in these countries? Also understand there are nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM). Studies from MIT and private organizations have identified the current infrastructure cannot support the future electric energy demand, and projected wind and solar technologies are incapable of bridging the energy gap. Also understand there are nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM). Grid protection against cyber-attack, physical attack, and electromagnetic pulse are other concerns. Do we have a plan to protect our energy generation and transmission capabilities from these threats? Nuclear power is probably a thing of the past and hydro-electric generation is significantly constrained by environmental issues and drought conditions; what other sources of electricity generation can we expect? Do we have a plan for the safe and environmentally sound disposal of spent batteries from these vehicles and other devices once they’ve reached the end of their useful life?
After the 2000 presidential election, the one decided by “hanging chads” in Florida, I saw a bumper sticker in Orange County, California, that read, “Good News About Global Warming, No More Florida”.
you got my sub/ notification bell.. no one talking about tsunamis.. hell I knew this at 10 years of age back in 2010 😂🤣 hell what happens when u drop a heavy ass ice cube into a glass of water? hell no one watch Titanic or learn about whirlpools and density? 😂
Need to be careful with your wording. You say things gleefully that would be perceived as negative to someone from a rural area. However someone from a rural area is who would get the most benefit from your videos Keep in mind people who live in rural areas raise their own chickens so when you criticize meat you are insulting dinner. Same with coal. I agree. But that's also some people's way of life for generation. Its a sensitive topic. The content is great. I just wanted to let you know my rural blind spot was triggered lol 😆
The Ice cap melting will make no difference to sea levels, Ice floats because water expands as it freezes therefore becoming less dense. an iceberg has a much larger proportion of its size underwater and the very small portion above the surface is the amount it has expanded by, this means that if it melts it shrinks down to exactly the same space below surface level it occupied when it was frozen. This is a Physics fact that cant be changed.
I was hoping you'd show "before and after" images of these geographical locations... otherwise they don't mean much to me, or other people I would think? Then at the end you said "right now..." '3' times in a row?
@@opossumlvr1023 What scientists? And what qualifications do you have that allow you to know more than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying and understanding the complex processes of cause and effect? By what mechanisms did you arrive at your conclusions regarding the topic and what these "scientists" do or don't know? Hopefully they're more substantial than emotion and wishful thinking.
@@satanicmicrochipv5656 For science to advance we must have an open mind so we can accept any idea that the evidence supports. If the consensus was never questioned science would not advance. The climate alarmists claim absurd things such as "CO2 is a pollutant". The truth is that CO2 is a gas that exists naturally in the atmosphere and is vital for life to exist and the present levels are for lower than optimal for plants. More CO2 means more plant biomass thus more oxygen and plants for animals to eat and the whole biosphere benefits. If you wish to know what scientists predicted global cooling look it up for yourself. Either the media was pedaling fake news or the scientists were wrong.
@@opossumlvr1023 Sure, the carbon cycle. It regulates the seasons of our temperate climate. It's a necessary component of photosynthesis. It's 12 and 13 isotopes are commonly released through volcanism along with trace amounts of 14 where vents pass through coal, shale or other petroleum seams. But CO² is not far below optimal for plants. It's approaching levels that will begin over saturating many plants like coniferous trees, causing photosynthesis to shut down. The Carboniferous plants died off with the dinosaurs. Many went down due to atmospheric particulate from the impact event blocking sunlight and even more went down as the horribly hot interglacial period temperatures plummeted, but a lot of them survived the two or so years of lower temperatures that may have hit freezing in certain places at night for a couple of weeks, if at all. The surface life that existed at that time had all evolved in the searing heat and high humidity of the IP. Of those plants that did survive those events, along with the some of the avian dinosaurs and our ancestors, the diaspids, very few survived the thousands of years of flood volcanism most likely triggered by the impact, that covered northern Asia and large parts of north American under a kilometer of basalt lava and released large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, shutting down photosynthesis in all but the most simple grasses, mosses and scrub and caused a global warming event that extended the searing IP for couple million years. By the time carbon levels dropped off enough for the current Glacial Period to get a late start, very few of the pre-impact land habitating life forms were left, and those were filtered even further by the freezing environment of the GP's glacial maximums. All of the plants and animals alive today evolved from the very few plants and animals that survived the series of catastrophes that closely followed the initial impact event, during the first 40+my of the current GP. The energent evolution of the first modern humans occurred during the last g-max, 250tya. And the entire development of human civilization has happened during the current g-min we call the Holocene, that began at the end of the last g-max, that we consider the last "ice age", 12tya. While there are a few regions that are cold or hot enough to be hostile to most life other than extremophile bacteria, we consider the Holocene climate to be generally comfortable, because it's the climate we evolved to survive in. And though we may not like the cold, we are better equiped by natural selection to survive in freezing ice age climates, than we are for surviving in anything even approaching the heat of the last IP that the dinosaurs thrived in. Atmospheric carbon levels are currently the highest they've been since the flood volcanism and it took volcanism of that scale thousands of years to produce that carbon level. Humans are currently emitting more carbon into the atmosphere every day, than the flood volcanism did in a year. Get your head around that point of data, then spin up your capacity for deductive reasoning and follow that evidence to the conclusion it leads to. The Holocene is coming to an end and the climate should be cooling as we approach the next g-max, but it's not. The average global temps have been ramping up over the last 100years and have gone almost vertical over the last 20years. An amount of average global temp increase that would take 2,000 years to occur by natural processes. The only variable that has changed is the amount of atmospheric carbon. And the average global temp increase graphs precisely with the graph of atmospheric carbon increase, albeit with a 35 year lag. If the temp graph is extrapolated out 35years to match the current carbon graph, we're looking at a nightmare. Perhaps I am an alarmist , but if the evidence is is objectively followed where ever it leads, then there is extreme cause for alarm. The evidence is undeniably confirmed by the worlds planetary scientists that have dedicated their entire lives to studying and understanding these complex processes of cause and effect, independently arriving at the same conclusion. No amount of emotion based wishful thinking by the scientifically illiterate is going to change the effects of cause. Objective reality is under no obligation to conform to anyone's likes, dislikes, wants or needs. But everyone is absolutely subject to the effects of objective reality. Nobody likes the implications of AGW, but burying your head in the sand won't put out the fire, your brain will just be the last part of you to burn. I'm pretty sure the claim of 1970's ice age, is from an early 2000's TIME Magazine cover about penguins that was photoshopped to be a 1970's cover about an ice age. Ask yourself... If a position can only be promoted, justified and defended by logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty and blatant deception, why would anyone support that position? SCIENCE PREVAILS!!! 🤘🤓🥃
Will tax payers have to cover these costs versus the shareholders of fossil fuel companies? Scientists have been in top of this problem from the beginning. Politicians have been complicit in catering to corporations that have intentionally obfuscating the problem.
so you totally contradict your hole video about how pollution is the reason for the polar ice caps melting at 57 seconds in cause if pollution was really the cause of it it would have started in 1760 during the industrial revolution cause that is when you had coal burning every thing so the truth is Antarctica was once with out ice the Sahara desert was once a tropical climate and Florida and death valley were once covered in ice like Antarctica this is very normal were just witnessing the climate shift irl that's all it is the earth is not a prefect round shape so its not going to spin a prefect spin either what ended the last ice age was when the earths axis tilted cause of that reason that was no were in the video left that all out also and how the axis is tilting and moves and that will cause climate change but naw what if geography don't want to talk about geography they want to bash you for driving your car or running your ac or having a bond fire they wont tell you how much pollution it causes making there video cause all that lights and computers and cams causes pollution that's not including all the pollution caused by the power company's make to power all that stuff to so how much green piece pay you to make this trash video of lies
@@satanicmicrochipv5656 41 million years ago the Earth's axis tilt was 22.1 degrees right now it's at 24.5 before 1940 the Earth's axis tilt was 23.5 degrees you got a computer in your hand you can look this up I'm not saying your stupid but I am a card carrying member of Mensa so.......
@@dflkfhgpoidsfhg Yep, 41mya is when the last interglacial period ended and the current glacial period we're in the middle of began. The current glacial minimum we've been experiencing for the last 12ty (the Holocene) is just one of many fluctuating glacial minimum's and glacial maximum's within the greater GP, with what we consider the last "ice age" being one of the many g-max's. All of mammal evolution from diaspids has happened during this GP, with the emergence of modern humans only 250+tya and the entire development of human civilization having occurred during the Holocene g-min. The last IP saw the evolution of land based life from primitive photosynthesisizing plants to the dinosaurs and our ancestors, the synapspids that were capable of regulating their body temps, allowing them to survive the impact event that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs. Modern humans would be very hard pressed to survive and limited to the uncomfortably hot polar regions during the last IP that the dinosaurs thrived in. What we consider to be a generally comfortable climate globally, even with it's uninhabitable regions of deadly heat and deadly cold, is just a less cold fluctuation within a more often than not, freezing cold GP. There are 3 variables that contribute to GP's, IP's and the min, max fluctuations... Axial tilt, eccentricity and precession. Axial tilt is the variance in the tilt of the axis, as you said. Eccentricity is the variance in earths orbital distance from the sun. And precession is the variance in the direction the axis is pointing. All of which have subtle effects on the amount of UV radiation that reaches the earth. Materials suspended in the atmosphere, such as sulfer compounds and surface conditions effect albedo and how much UV is reflected into space and how much makes it to earths surface where it's absorbed and stored as thermal energy until it's released as IR radiation. UV doesn't interact with carbon and passes through the atmosphere regardless of atmospheric levels of carbon saturation. However, IR radiation does interact with atmospheric carbon. The IR emitted from the surface toward space will be absorbed by any carbon it encounters end route, converting it to stored energy and eventually emitting it spherically as IR, sending a percentage back down to earths surface, to start the process over again. The more atmospheric carbon, the more IR being returned back down to earth. At a specific level of saturation a positive feedback loop develops and the amount of IR radiation trapped in that loop increases relative to increases of atmospheric carbon. The more complex a system is, the greater that systems sensitivity to to initial conditions is, resulting in minor fluctuations within the variables to produce drastic effects. Xn+1=Rxn(1-Xn)
@@dflkfhgpoidsfhg Who said anything about humans living with dinosaurs, homie? I'm well aware that the Flintstones isn't a documentary. Is Mensa cool with low reading comprehension now days? If you want to turn off the cartoons and take another run at it, I'll withhold judgment on your reading skills. You've already botched the science though, but I'll give you another chance. However, I won't be as forgiving as Mensa next time. A photon checks into a hotel. The bellhop asks the photon if it has any luggage. The photon replies... "No, I'm traveling light."
Are you sure the water doesnt fill in the dried up waterways. There are a lot of sried up waterways. Not just one area but everywhere. What is the thinking to move the water from melting ice to these areas that are drying upnor dried up. Challenging with salt versus fresh.
I always thought the melting off ocean and polar ice lowers sea level as it takes up less volume as it melts, and land locked ice is what causes the sea levels to rise?
um, this video is disproven by the incredibly accurate documentary "Water World" Nearly the whole planet will be under water. please do your research next time
This channel is underrated, not like the overrated junk of CENSORING NOW, however, the right pronnunciation is URUWAY, and not URUWEY, however, this deserves 10 000 subscribers
We don't have a good record of overestimating I am afraid... When do we realize we have an obligation to future generations? I guess people don't think like that anymore
Heres another idea after the flood Noah jr and whoever made it off the arc, make a note to self, do not build citys on the coast a few feet above sea level even if it has a great harbor
It's amazing how many people believe we live on a stagnant Rock. We live on a wonderfully Dynamic Ever Changing planet of course the climate is going to change
Oh please - central valley flooded? I don't think so. The Golden Gate will be dammed and the SF bay and delta will become huge freshwater reservoirs that will provide water to the entire state.
when you look at the arctic in the north, the ice comes and goes through the seasons, so if you're going to include that ice onto the equation, you have to use the minimum of that, as with the Antarctic you have to only take the ice that is on a land mass, as floating ice can not be used in the equation as floating ice displaces more water than it mass, when you use all the ice that is on land or above sea level you end up with a very small amount of ice, which equates to very little sea level rise, to not use all of the green house gasses and only use 1 gas, you do your self an injustice as , it show the ignorance of your hypothesis, there are many variables in what drives our climate, carbon is just one of them and a fairly small one at that, if you believe in your hypothesis, show the calculations that prove what your saying about the amount of sea level rise, none of the scientist have ever done this, they just expect us to believe their word, with no proof, are you one of these or just another that spreads the untruths, ?
neat, my hometown will be a nice 20 minute drive from a new inland sea in a hundred years, probably driving up property value with it 10/10 would recommend.
One thing that bothers me is that every time a new report on the rate of ice melt on Greenland or West Antarctica comes out, it is higher and faster than the one before. If that kind of thing keeps showing up, we maybe looking at sea level rises of 20 to 30 feet by 2100.
That the rate of melting would increase was actually predicted but what is really concerning is that so far the melting rates and their effects exceed all our best predictions : melting is occurring much faster than we thought and in more places. What is particularly concerning is that the glaciers which protect central Antarctica from melting entirely (that area is below the sea level) seem to be also melting faster than we thought. If those fail, we can say goodbye to all coastal cities around the world within a very short time span.
One thing that irritates me is there is next to no comments on the increase in heat due to the existence of cities, road networks, etc. We have literally covered the earth in steel, concrete and other building materials instead of grass, trees and the other parts of nature. No one talks about 'greening cities' anymore as they did in the late 1980's, and 1990's.
The reason the heat island effect is not more talked about is that it is a well known and studied effect, which, when compared to the effect of pumping literal billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, turns out to be only local and numerically negligible.
That’s because the temperature increase is caused by increased CO2 content of the atmosphere.
@@scasey1960 Plants also form the backbone of natural ecosystems, and they absorb about 30 percent of all the carbon dioxide emitted by humans each year.
Agreed, With Global Warming the Urban heat island effect is out of Control. I can't imagine why people would want to live in super hot cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas and Tuscon. If Phoenix were 1/10th the size it is now. The Temperature would be at least 10* cooler. But your in the hottest desert in the US, so WHY?
One thing I almost never hear anyone talking about in reference to sea level rise is that the ground will actually get lower, as well. Water is heavy, and the area around coastlines is often made of unconsolidated material, which compresses easily (and all at different rates). The other way it can go down is if the weight of the water actually pushes down on the tectonic plate, itself. We know this can happen, because the last time the poles completely melted, there was an inland sea in the middle of the US. There wasn't any more water on Earth than there is now, but the weight of the encroaching sea shoved the plates downward as it advanced. Imagine climbing onto an inflatable raft in a swimming pool. Once ice started forming on the poles again and the water started to go down, the continent sprang back up, and you can see the evidence in the rock layers, now. I'm not saying it might get that bad again, since that was a really long time ago and the plates have shifted around a lot, but water-weight is definitely a factor in sea level rise. It's interesting, because you can't just think about it in terms of the current topography. We don't know exactly where the shoreline would be at any given level of sea rise.
This blows my mind. If all that is true, then this might very well be one of the things that makes plates change direction. Just like the the inflatable raft in your analogy, the play will want to move our from under the wieght. This might push plates around or even break them.
@@arthill2310 Awesome point. I didn't think about that
The iceage pushed down hard on the Canadian Shield with litteral kilometers of ice, this pushed up the land at the edge sorta like a see-saw. Long island is a terminal moraine of this glacier and without the glacier the Canadian shield is glacially rebounding upwards, and the former edge is going back down.
End result is that half of the sea level rise in NYC is just from the land glacially rebounding downwards to its original position.
Also the icecaps have enoung mass to exert some gravitational influence on the seas just like the tides, and when they melt that influence will end and the "low tide" near the equator and "high tide" near the poles will average out contributing a greater amount to sea level rise in the tropics than the polar regions.
@@izzycurer1260 intresting note. The southwest of England has some of the highest tides in the world. When the tide come in twice a day the land is pushed down up to 6 inches, and also rebounds twice each day
The extra weight is really because of all the concrete paving on highways.
It's no longer a slow process. This week a new ice sheet in Antarctica is calving, making mammoth amounts of water subject to melting. I would love an update on this please.
Yes it had to happen because Al Gore's predictions are so far behind. He promised that 40 % of Florida would be under water by now, we must push for more melting so that Al Gore does not become the liar that some of us know he really is. (When in danger or in doubt - run in circles scream and shout).
The reemergence of a sea in the CA central valley would be apropos. The agriculture industry that turned this land dry would be facing bigger issues than irrigation!
Sharks!
Lotsa sharks.
There would be a lot more humidity and rain. It would be great.
@@JB-1138 🌭
That would suck more than the damn sharks.
And that's also not how it works because physics.
Increased heat prevents the water vapor in clouds from condensing into raindrops so there would be even less rain.
Because thermal energy increases the scale of molecular vibration of the water molecule, which exceeds the electromagnetic field of attraction and therefore preventing fluid cohesion.
And water molecules have a high thermal energy storage capacity.
And since humans shed excess heat by sweating which evaporates into the air taking some of the excess thermal energy with it, and the air has a limited capacity to absorb moisture, as the water content in the air increases, evaporation decreases.
That's why humidity makes you feel hotter, because you actually are hotter since you are not shedding heat into the air.
So increasing temperature will increase evaporation in the short term but prevent that evaporated water from condensing into rain, until the air becomes saturated with hot water vapor and can no longer hold any more moisture, at which point all evaporation stops and the entire world is blanketed by a super hot cloud of steam.
If you think being cooked like rice is great, you should figure out a way to steam yourself into a ballpark frank.
And let everyone else deal with the sharks.
Good luck.
THIS would make another great "What If" episode... I thought I read somewhere that it could happen with one of the fault lines breaking open and whatever natural barrier that exists could fail and flood it one fell swoop... I.e. the largest disaster in US history and them some...
@@stickynorth That's not at all how fault lines work. Earthquakes are movements of maaaaybe a couple centimeters at greatest. That said, there have been earthquakes powerful enough to cause a tsunami in Lake Tahoe, which would also be a spectacle.
What's not accounted for in these sea level rises is that the ice caps themselves have a gravitational pull and thus they attract the water towards the poles, Antarctica 8X as much as Greenland. As these melt the water starts migrating away from the poles and redistributes itself, meaning sea level rises in places like Boston, Norfolk Virginia, Southern Louisiana and South Florida are easily at least double that of the global average! 😭
If you live 3ft above sea level don't blame me, at 15ft I will take some blame for using carbon. But in both cases I will be dead before that happens.
Awesome video. One minor glitch: there is an iceberg in Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, which may slide into the ocean in the next five (5) years. If it does that, it will raise the sea levels around the world by two feet in a matter of days. If the other glaciers then glide into the ocean, up to 10 more feet of ocean rise very quickly. So, hold onto your hats, and move inland :-)
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Men have carried signs long ago that the sky is falling. Well so far it hasn't,,,,,,,,,,,,,
@@ddyeo503 "Famous last words."
NOPE, most of that ice is ALREADY in the Ocean, wont do SQUAT to Sea levels.
No, it won’t.
@@WAL_DC-6B And we ain’t talkin’ ‘bout the sky neither.
20 years ago, Al gore predicted we’re all supposed to dead by 2021. I might be typing this comment in the afterlife.
That could explain the societal decay...
If the ice at the North Pole melts it will NOT cause a sea level rise as this ice is already in the water. Only melting ice from land-based glaciers will raise the sea level.
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!! Have you seen clouds? Perhaps rain? That water will end up in the atmosphere and then add the the rest ffs.
Ok, hear me out: we relocate the people along the wasatch front in northern Utah and refill lake Bonneville, as well as lake lahontan in Nevada. We build a system like the Panama Canal to lift boats into it from the ocean.
The two major lakes in the mountains will bring a huge increase in winter snowfalls, which will lead to deeper snowpacks and longer melt times, especially when the lakes will lead to cooler summer temperatures across the mountain west. So there should be an eventual increase in year to year snowpack leading to eventual glaciation.
Also, much of the forest in the Rocky Mountains has been destroyed from wildfires over the past couple decades. We can use the water to aid in reforestation efforts which will lead to cleaner air and more precipitation. With these efforts I believe it will help eventually reverse warming and thus reverse sea level rise.
Now, I realize this may never happen. Obviously, there are more than 2 million people who would need to relocate for one of these lakes to come back. Besides that it would cost trillions of dollars just to build the infrastructure for all this. And besides that there may be many micro and some macro eco systems highly disrupted by such a thing. But I think we need to think out of the box for a long lasting solution for our future generations.
With sea water?
Alpine forests don't like sea water and none of that would even have a measurable effect on 2 meters of global sea level rise.
Seems like a fine idea, if you can pump the water that far inland. And a canal would do nicely.
Obviously, you cannot grow crops with salt water, but the sea would elevate humidity and rainfall.
For sure. Also, desalination is already something we can do, we don’t have to invent that technology. And given that there are a few salt mining/processing companies that wouldn’t be able to keep their current place of operating as it would now be under water they could run the desal plants and get their salt from the evaporating brine left over. Then they’d be able to increase their operations rather than lose them.
I live in Boston and I can't wait ,. That map looked great ,. It isn't too bad
Agreed haha. I don’t see a bad in this. Plus a lot of the land now covered in ice will be nice and melted and ready to use. It balances out. Plus I’d be happy to see the rich coastal folks unwillingly be shifting their wealth to others currently less fortunate
I just bought some "beachfront property" 15 miles from the coast
fill up a cup with water and ice and see where the level of water goes after the ice melts.
Basic common sense.
That's not how weather patterns and climate work. Glass of water and ice cube... education is dead in the USA.
@@JerryEledgeno. It's moronic at best.
Ah shit, another earth DLC to look forward to /sigh
But wait, Al Gore said the polar ice would be already melted by 2015.
The only outright lie in the video: "As humans, we constantly underestimated the devastating effects of climate change."
Maybe you're too you to remember bro, but in elementary school in the early 1990's, I was told "if humanity doesn't stop global warming, New York city will be almost completely underwater by the year 2005!". That and countless other doomsday scenarios going back to the 1970's which never came to fruition, and never will. Thankfully, I did something about it. I studied Meteorology/Climatology in college with a focus on Paleo-Climatology and I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt, the issue is not the planet warming. The issue is thousands of politicians and other elites scamming the gullible out of trillions of dollars with a promise to STOP the warming (which is LITERALLY impossible), instead of a focus on adapting to the coming change. You know, what humans have done since humans have existed. Adapt. Overcome. Survive. The science-based report that the sea will rise one to one and a half feet in the next ONE HUNDRED YEARS is the most accurate, as it extrapolates current climate trends with ice-core atmospheric data. I think Humanity can find a way to adapt to that over the next century. Oh, and one last thing, do some research on the mid-Pliocene climate period. Then tell me "the earth is going to et too hot for life!".
So true. Remember the Maldives? They were supposed to be entirely under water 20 or 30 years ago. Also remember the prediction in the 1970's that we were going to die by the next ice age by 1990 or 2000.
The effects of AGW are beginning to express themselves exactly as predicted going back to the 1970's.
Just take a look around.
The predicted timelines for those effects to manifest have been all over the place though.
But now we know precisely when they will start to happen...
It's right f*cking now.
Due to increasing strength of hurricanes, New York City is building a $1.45 billion dollar sea wall to protect against storm surge. The region is also considering a larger $119 billion sea wall for the same purpose. At this time point, it doesn't really matter what people think. If people have the money to fight the sea, they build sea walls. But it they don't, they abandon the city and move further inland to rebuild like what the Indonesians are doing with their capital city. And if the people are even poorer and don't t have the money to do either, they just become economic migrants by the tens of millions like the Bangladeshi... flooding the surrounding regions by the millions.
At current rates of warming we are looking at about 2000 years for Antarctica to entirely melt and about 500 years for Greenland.
Unfortunately, warming rates won’t stay the same and will likely increase…but I still don’t think I’ll need to build an ark just yet.
@Monster Dad By the time we find out if my statement was right or wrong we will all be long dead.
8:30 Japan doesn’t look too bad. Outside of the Tokyo region, the rest seem pretty mild. But yeah, China is screwed in a 60m scenario.
I mean, isn’t Tokyo one of the most populated cities in the world? It would be devastating if it was lost to the sea.
China is screwed even with just 1-2 meters, this would be enough to flood Shanghai which is by far their city with the biggest economic output. Moreover, relocating dozens of millions of people would be a nightmare.
Like I alluded to, in a previous comment, humans are amazing at adaptation. This all seems catestrophic IF it was to happen over night. Well it won't. It's going to be gradual and like I say, humans are the best at adapting.
Right, we will have plenty of time to move to higher ground there isn't a tsunami coming. Some people who used to live inland will have ocean front property is the only difference there will be.
They already fixed this in Futurama. You put a big mirror in space and reflect the sun away from the planet. Just make sure it does not flip over.
I take it those fools caught earth on fire I blame bender lol
I know you're joking, but I've always been a little dubious about any sun blocking proposals. Plants need sunlight. If sunlight gets reduced, it will reduce plant growth, and we need those plants for carbon capture. People are doing all these things to invent some magical new carbon capture device when we already have them everywhere in the form of plants. A little less sunlight wouldn't actually kill the plants, but as someone who owns a lot of houseplants, I'm well aware of how minor changes in sunlight affect foliage output and total growth. Anyone seriously putting ideas out there about giant mirrors (which is something I have actually heard before) has obviously never done any gardening. I'm all for better and fancier carbon capture devices, but until then, we shouldn't cripple the ones we already have.
Also, all new construction must be white - to help reflect sunlight back out into the atmosphere. This is what polar ice does.
What I don't understand, landmarks like Plymouth Rock are exactly the same distance above sea level as it was in 1620? There are piers in Florida were the water markings are the same since the 1700's.
💯 percent
@@seameologywell jeez you just stopped all the floods there.
What if they don't melt? I totally blew up your theory.
another important thing to remember: if the ice is already detached from the land, it's displacing the water, so it doesn't really matter if it melts at that point.
@@macriggland6526 ice is ice it's going to create same rise as it did before breaking because said chunk still weighs the same ONLY melting adds water
@@josephfuller6229 no it doesn't. melting doesn't add water. if you pour a glass of water half full and fill the other half up with ice, and let it melt, then it's just going to be a regular full glass of water. it's not going to spill over the edge.
the thing that matters is that the ice breaks off from the land.
@@macriggland6526 frozen it's on the water and not in the water so how do you figure it adds no water when it melts seriously stop drinking the Kool aid from the republikkkan terrorist party
That's why the topic was the melting ice caps, not sea ice.
The ice caps are on land and aren't displacing existing sea water.
They are however already melting and adding to the volume of sea water, so it isn't even a matter of "what if it happens", it's a matter of "it is happening"..
Congratulations on blowing up your attempt at being clever.
Do pay attention and try to keep up.
Places like California’s Central Valley, Portland, Montreal, and the Mediterranean might be possible to protect from sea level rise as the sea cuts through a narrow strait of highlands whether it’s the Golden Gate, the Colombia River, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and the Straits of Gibraltar respectively are all narrow enough to build some massive sea level control infrastructure on. Atlantropa was a bad idea for land reclamation but for sea level preservation it is the best yet
There are also a number of other factors to take into account:
- these dams would have to be maintained perfectly for thousands of years without a single fault because their failure would kill dozens of millions of people,
- they would have to resist earthquakes of magnitude 9
- they would require billions of tons of earth and cement, steel, etc which would require massive CO2 emissions, thus further compounding the global climate drift
Moreover, peak conventional oil was reached around 2008 and peak all-types oil is on the horizon so we have a limited amount of fossil fuel to use for such mega projects. It would be better to use them to properly transition away and as quickly as possible from fossil fuel.
A few corrections to my post:
- earthquake protection would be needed for sismic zones, not everywhere
- as you mentioned, if built in narrow areas,the amount of cement and steel needed may not be too high so the emissions are less of a concern.
However, in areas like Montreal, the issue would be that there is a massive river (the St Lawrence, which is the main outflow of the Great Lakes) which still needs to find its way to the ocean.
Closing the St Lawrence would thus also result in flooding the entire area behind the damn, including much of Montreal.
This issue is likely with all other places as well as most of them have rivers which currently flow into the ocean.
I remember being able to find a sand bar that could walk on when I was a little kid at the beech now as a grown adult I can never find a sand bar that can walk on.
Sounds like Corona Del Mar, as a little Boy I would walk like a 100 feet out and find sand Dollars. That was in 74 ish.
well, if the polar caps melt, the extra freshwater in the ocean raises the freezing temperature of the oceans and disrupts the ocean currents ... and we slide into the next Ice Age
... which will expose more land, not less
And is that any better?
Europe will drift into an ice age because the gulf stream will be slowed down/ stopped, while other parts of the world will experience higher temperatures than usual, heat waves, droughts and floods near the coastline.
All in all, extreme weather phenomenona will occur more often and that's a bad thing, no matter how much land we (well, only Europe) might gain in the process.
@@___________________________._ the clue is in the title Josh ... "Extreme Sea Level Rise"
i didn't comment on worse or preferable outcome - just the topic of "Extreme Sea Level Rise"
... call me crazy, but i suspect the major contributors to the climate on our planet are #1 the sun, #2 the rest of the universe, #3 whatever life is on earth at any given time (because i have heard some crazy conspiracy theories that suggest that the climate has always changed - even before human use of fossil fuel ... and much more rapid change than we are currently experiencing ... maybe one day i'll go look to see if there is any scientific validity to this position (wink)
It would have if we had only released the amount of CO2 we did in the 1980s. However since than we have massively increased CO2 production. So the sea current stop. Heat from the equator does not get to the poles. However the amount of CO2 release is so massive, the poles also heat up along with the entire earth. We will not return to the ice age cycle. We have release carbon that was last seen in the biosphere 300 million years ago, during the carboniferous period.
@@nickl5658 i'll begin to entertain your fantasy when you can show us the data that supports CO2 and temperature align
@@owenbarnes773ya....those whales dying from being loaded with plastic were always dying that way. Ffs ppl are mental
You ever heard of Y2K ??? That was a load of poles that the computer guys sold to the USA. The government and large companies went to the computer experts and said ----- "OK, if Y2K is something to be concerned about then you have a high paying job for several years working out a solution. If it's of no concern then good bye and good luck with the rest of your life." To which the computer experts replied ---- "Let us see, why yes, we believe this is a major problem and we'll be employed for years finding a solution." This is the biggest of my concerns about global warming. So, scientist and researchers, if global warming is something to be concerned about then you have a high paying job for for the rest of your life working out a solution. If it's of no concern then good bye and good luck with the rest of your life.
I don't necessarily believe the ice age ended 10,000 years ago. I think it's possible that we're still coming out of it. An ice age relapse got Napoleon at Waterloo and probably the Germans at Moscow. I have lots of other question about this. Our politicians made billionaires out of a lot of computer guys and millionaires out of themselves while the Russians and Chinese said "it's nonsense" and did nothing about it.
Y2K left a bad taste in my mouth and I don't trust scientist and researchers any more than I trust computer guys or the WHO, the CDC, the FBI and most of all the White House in 2022.
Lots of misinformation here. The 30s and 50s were record breaking warm. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere caps out and can’t keep increasing. Climate alarmism lives but we must educate ourselves on the real climate situation.
If the North Pole sea ice melts, sea levels will rise by exactly zero. By definition, it already floats on the sea and displaces the amount of water it weighs. It will turn into water and nothing happens. I am pretty sure you meant to speak about the ice shields of Greenland and the rest of the arctic that are currently on land. Errors like this make it too easy for people to dismiss you and the very valid point you are trying to make.
This was a lot of BS.
For the last 800 million years the average temperature has been 10 degrees c. warmer than the current average. For most of this time there were no polar ice caps, so sea levels were as high as estimated in this video. The co2 levels were also higher. All this happened with no human input.
If the polar ice caps melt, you can use the water to transform the SW desert back to agriculture and you would not have to tap the Great Lakes, either.
There is no climate crisis. The earth goes through cycles. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to say or believe that. All hell will come down on you if you do. 🙄
Global Warming.Not in New England. It's been one cold winter and has lasted most of the spring.
New England has wet-bulb temperatures in all of the non-winter seasons. They could be deadly in the future. Sealevel rise too, Cape Cod could disappear.
Just a fact to chew on. There is a rock that has been at Plymouth rock since 1620. In the 400 years since it was placed there, it is still above water. There has been no rise in the water.
Obama, Gore and Biden laughing from their oceanfront mansions after yet another production like this from their godless automatons.
it's not "What if..." It's more like "When..."
Celsius, using that word than using Fahrenheit make you sound so foolish here in the USA!
What if worms carried Guns.??? Birds wouldn't fuck with em. What If.?? Get Real.
Ask to subscribe at the end. If your video is good, you really don’t have to suggest it at all.
so humankind made entire countries into the lost city of atlantis ... when historian uncover them what will they think of us?
They never mention anything about the undersea volcanoes that have been erupting under the oceans and ice caps.8:42
Why would that be mentioned? We all know what we're doing.
My, Al Gore bought a mansion on the Cali coast.
EVEN IF this were to happen, it would not be for several hundred years and it would most likely not be all of the world’s ice. Also, a warmer earth (by a few degrees, 1-3) is better for life overall. See the comparisons between the medieval warm period and the little ice age for example.
Yeah, all the wildfires, extreme weather events, wide spread draughts with intermittent flooding are awesome
Much better than wearing a sweater.
Oops!
I misspelled 'droughts'.
The oceans get acidic and forest and food get scorched by the time your deserts become usable well be long dead. Also great to know you don't consider any life besides human. Disgusting.
And 7 months later it's 7 below in Arkansas..........
how is plymouth rock still not under water?
Hey man, nice vid. Scary though. I would love to find a map (well, hate, but you know what I mean) which shows more clearly the state of South Carolina after that 60-meter rise. Is there a way you can point me in the right direction, or do a video devoted solely to showing geographic what-if-scenario maps with varying level of sea rise? I saw SC on the east coast 60-meter map, but it was a bit far away and it was hard to get a sense of where the water was in relation to individual counties, which I am most interested in. Thanks so much for any other info you can provide.
If you add all of the melting and thawing tundra and all of the gasses being released from all of that biomatter biomatter that never decomposed all of a sudden decomposing that feedback loop is already out of hand. Everyone is talking about we need to get off of ice cars and buy electric vehicles but what about all of the air travel which is way more polluting than the cars on the road.
Did Anybody Else Notice He Confused Meters with Feet? The NOAA Chart @6:56 is In Feet Not Meters...
So - The Worse Case Scenario Based on the North Pole Melting Is a Sea Level Rise of 7 Feet (2.3 Meters) Refer to Chart @6:56, Not 7.5 Meters (25 Feet) As Stated @ 7:09.
The Worse Case Scenario Based on Both Poles Melting Is a Sea Level Rise of 19.7 Feet (6 Meters) Refer to Chart @6:56, Not 60 Meters (196 Feet) As Stated @ 7:57.
So the Damage in The Worse Case Scenario Would Not Be Pretty But Not As Bad As Confusing Imperial & Metric Systems Make It Seem...
What temperature is the earth supposed to be?
Geoff, you failed to differentiate between Polar Ice Caps and the Greenland Ice sheet which is on Land as is Antarctica's. The North Pole sea Ice is virtually completely gone. maybe 20% of it's original size from 200 years ago. Also, Antarctica is melting far faster than you lead on. This is fresh water Ice, Not sea Ice. So we're talking about major Sea Level Rise, say in Miami and Manhattan of at least 2 meters by 2040. Manhattan and Miami would be completely flooded. The data shows that the Greenland and Antarctica Ice sheets are melting exponentially, not gradually. If you live near a coastal City on the eastern US seaboard, I suggest you move inland at least 100 miles from the coast. This is going to be far worse than Geoff lets on.
I hate winter, I can’t wait. I’ll be almost to the ocean too. Win win.
Can anyone articulate the international transition plan to convert from fossil fuel to electric power?
Hardest question is: How do we get Russia and China onboard? Without their full cooperation our efforts will only delay the inevitable. Are we, as a world population, willing to expend the resources necessary to effect regime change in these countries?
Also understand there are nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
Studies from MIT and private organizations have identified the current infrastructure cannot support the future electric energy demand, and projected wind and solar technologies are incapable of bridging the energy gap.
Also understand there are nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
Grid protection against cyber-attack, physical attack, and electromagnetic pulse are other concerns. Do we have a plan to protect our energy generation and transmission capabilities from these threats?
Nuclear power is probably a thing of the past and hydro-electric generation is significantly constrained by environmental issues and drought conditions; what other sources of electricity generation can we expect?
Do we have a plan for the safe and environmentally sound disposal of spent batteries from these vehicles and other devices once they’ve reached the end of their useful life?
After the 2000 presidential election, the one decided by “hanging chads” in Florida, I saw a bumper sticker in Orange County, California, that read, “Good News About Global Warming, No More Florida”.
you got my sub/ notification bell.. no one talking about tsunamis.. hell I knew this at 10 years of age back in 2010 😂🤣 hell what happens when u drop a heavy ass ice cube into a glass of water? hell no one watch Titanic or learn about whirlpools and density? 😂
Need to be careful with your wording. You say things gleefully that would be perceived as negative to someone from a rural area. However someone from a rural area is who would get the most benefit from your videos
Keep in mind people who live in rural areas raise their own chickens so when you criticize meat you are insulting dinner. Same with coal. I agree. But that's also some people's way of life for generation. Its a sensitive topic.
The content is great. I just wanted to let you know my rural blind spot was triggered lol 😆
The Ice cap melting will make no difference to sea levels, Ice floats because water expands as it freezes therefore becoming less dense. an iceberg has a much larger proportion of its size underwater and the very small portion above the surface is the amount it has expanded by, this means that if it melts it shrinks down to exactly the same space below surface level it occupied when it was frozen. This is a Physics fact that cant be changed.
I was hoping you'd show "before and after" images of these geographical locations... otherwise they don't mean much to me, or other people I would think? Then at the end you said "right now..." '3' times in a row?
So what happened to the ice age we were supposed to have in the 1970's?
Whoever said that didn't know what they were talking about.
@@satanicmicrochipv5656 Scientists said it and they still don't know what they are talking about.
@@opossumlvr1023
What scientists?
And what qualifications do you have that allow you to know more than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying and understanding the complex processes of cause and effect?
By what mechanisms did you arrive at your conclusions regarding the topic and what these "scientists" do or don't know?
Hopefully they're more substantial than emotion and wishful thinking.
@@satanicmicrochipv5656 For science to advance we must have an open mind so we can accept any idea that the evidence supports. If the consensus was never questioned science would not advance. The climate alarmists claim absurd things such as "CO2 is a pollutant". The truth is that CO2 is a gas that exists naturally in the atmosphere and is vital for life to exist and the present levels are for lower than optimal for plants. More CO2 means more plant biomass thus more oxygen and plants for animals to eat and the whole biosphere benefits. If you wish to know what scientists predicted global cooling look it up for yourself. Either the media was pedaling fake news or the scientists were wrong.
@@opossumlvr1023
Sure, the carbon cycle.
It regulates the seasons of our temperate climate.
It's a necessary component of photosynthesis.
It's 12 and 13 isotopes are commonly released through volcanism along with trace amounts of 14 where vents pass through coal, shale or other petroleum seams.
But CO² is not far below optimal for plants.
It's approaching levels that will begin over saturating many plants like coniferous trees, causing photosynthesis to shut down.
The Carboniferous plants died off with the dinosaurs.
Many went down due to atmospheric particulate from the impact event blocking sunlight and even more went down as the horribly hot interglacial period temperatures plummeted, but a lot of them survived the two or so years of lower temperatures that may have hit freezing in certain places at night for a couple of weeks, if at all.
The surface life that existed at that time had all evolved in the searing heat and high humidity of the IP.
Of those plants that did survive those events, along with the some of the avian dinosaurs and our ancestors, the diaspids, very few survived the thousands of years of flood volcanism most likely triggered by the impact, that covered northern Asia and large parts of north American under a kilometer of basalt lava and released large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, shutting down photosynthesis in all but the most simple grasses, mosses and scrub and caused a global warming event that extended the searing IP for couple million years.
By the time carbon levels dropped off enough for the current Glacial Period to get a late start, very few of the pre-impact land habitating life forms were left, and those were filtered even further by the freezing environment of the GP's glacial maximums.
All of the plants and animals alive today evolved from the very few plants and animals that survived the series of catastrophes that closely followed the initial impact event, during the first 40+my of the current GP.
The energent evolution of the first modern humans occurred during the last g-max, 250tya.
And the entire development of human civilization has happened during the current g-min we call the Holocene, that began at the end of the last g-max, that we consider the last "ice age", 12tya.
While there are a few regions that are cold or hot enough to be hostile to most life other than extremophile bacteria, we consider the Holocene climate to be generally comfortable, because it's the climate we evolved to survive in.
And though we may not like the cold, we are better equiped by natural selection to survive in freezing ice age climates, than we are for surviving in anything even approaching the heat of the last IP that the dinosaurs thrived in.
Atmospheric carbon levels are currently the highest they've been since the flood volcanism and it took volcanism of that scale thousands of years to produce that carbon level.
Humans are currently emitting more carbon into the atmosphere every day, than the flood volcanism did in a year.
Get your head around that point of data, then spin up your capacity for deductive reasoning and follow that evidence to the conclusion it leads to.
The Holocene is coming to an end and the climate should be cooling as we approach the next g-max, but it's not.
The average global temps have been ramping up over the last 100years and have gone almost vertical over the last 20years.
An amount of average global temp increase that would take 2,000 years to occur by natural processes.
The only variable that has changed is the amount of atmospheric carbon.
And the average global temp increase graphs precisely with the graph of atmospheric carbon increase, albeit with a 35 year lag.
If the temp graph is extrapolated out 35years to match the current carbon graph, we're looking at a nightmare.
Perhaps I am an alarmist , but if the evidence is is objectively followed where ever it leads, then there is extreme cause for alarm.
The evidence is undeniably confirmed by the worlds planetary scientists that have dedicated their entire lives to studying and understanding these complex processes of cause and effect, independently arriving at the same conclusion.
No amount of emotion based wishful thinking by the scientifically illiterate is going to change the effects of cause.
Objective reality is under no obligation to conform to anyone's likes, dislikes, wants or needs.
But everyone is absolutely subject to the effects of objective reality.
Nobody likes the implications of AGW, but burying your head in the sand won't put out the fire, your brain will just be the last part of you to burn.
I'm pretty sure the claim of 1970's ice age, is from an early 2000's TIME Magazine cover about penguins that was photoshopped to be a 1970's cover about an ice age.
Ask yourself... If a position can only be promoted, justified and defended by logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty and blatant deception, why would anyone support that position?
SCIENCE PREVAILS!!!
🤘🤓🥃
bring on the global warming!
Will tax payers have to cover these costs versus the shareholders of fossil fuel companies? Scientists have been in top of this problem from the beginning. Politicians have been complicit in catering to corporations that have intentionally obfuscating the problem.
so you totally contradict your hole video about how pollution is the reason for the polar ice caps melting at 57 seconds in cause if pollution was really the cause of it it would have started in 1760 during the industrial revolution cause that is when you had coal burning every thing so the truth is Antarctica was once with out ice the Sahara desert was once a tropical climate and Florida and death valley were once covered in ice like Antarctica this is very normal were just witnessing the climate shift irl that's all it is the earth is not a prefect round shape so its not going to spin a prefect spin either what ended the last ice age was when the earths axis tilted cause of that reason that was no were in the video left that all out also and how the axis is tilting and moves and that will cause climate change but naw what if geography don't want to talk about geography they want to bash you for driving your car or running your ac or having a bond fire they wont tell you how much pollution it causes making there video cause all that lights and computers and cams causes pollution that's not including all the pollution caused by the power company's make to power all that stuff to so how much green piece pay you to make this trash video of lies
Nope.
Look up the Melankovitch Cycles.
You're incorrect on every subject you touched upon.
I'm not saying you're stupid, just that...
...Never mind.
@@satanicmicrochipv5656 41 million years ago the Earth's axis tilt was 22.1 degrees right now it's at 24.5 before 1940 the Earth's axis tilt was 23.5 degrees you got a computer in your hand you can look this up I'm not saying your stupid but I am a card carrying member of Mensa so.......
@@dflkfhgpoidsfhg
Yep, 41mya is when the last interglacial period ended and the current glacial period we're in the middle of began.
The current glacial minimum we've been experiencing for the last 12ty (the Holocene) is just one of many fluctuating glacial minimum's and glacial maximum's within the greater GP, with what we consider the last "ice age" being one of the many g-max's.
All of mammal evolution from diaspids has happened during this GP, with the emergence of modern humans only 250+tya and the entire development of human civilization having occurred during the Holocene g-min.
The last IP saw the evolution of land based life from primitive photosynthesisizing plants to the dinosaurs and our ancestors, the synapspids that were capable of regulating their body temps, allowing them to survive the impact event that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs.
Modern humans would be very hard pressed to survive and limited to the uncomfortably hot polar regions during the last IP that the dinosaurs thrived in.
What we consider to be a generally comfortable climate globally, even with it's uninhabitable regions of deadly heat and deadly cold, is just a less cold fluctuation within a more often than not, freezing cold GP.
There are 3 variables that contribute to GP's, IP's and the min, max fluctuations...
Axial tilt, eccentricity and precession.
Axial tilt is the variance in the tilt of the axis, as you said.
Eccentricity is the variance in earths orbital distance from the sun.
And precession is the variance in the direction the axis is pointing.
All of which have subtle effects on the amount of UV radiation that reaches the earth.
Materials suspended in the atmosphere, such as sulfer compounds and surface conditions effect albedo and how much UV is reflected into space and how much makes it to earths surface where it's absorbed and stored as thermal energy until it's released as IR radiation.
UV doesn't interact with carbon and passes through the atmosphere regardless of atmospheric levels of carbon saturation.
However, IR radiation does interact with atmospheric carbon.
The IR emitted from the surface toward space will be absorbed by any carbon it encounters end route, converting it to stored energy and eventually emitting it spherically as IR, sending a percentage back down to earths surface, to start the process over again.
The more atmospheric carbon, the more IR being returned back down to earth.
At a specific level of saturation a positive feedback loop develops and the amount of IR radiation trapped in that loop increases relative to increases of atmospheric carbon.
The more complex a system is, the greater that systems sensitivity to to initial conditions is, resulting in minor fluctuations within the variables to produce drastic effects.
Xn+1=Rxn(1-Xn)
@@satanicmicrochipv5656 yea humans never lived with dinosaurs homie dinosaurs were gone 65 million years ago before any human was on this planet
@@dflkfhgpoidsfhg
Who said anything about humans living with dinosaurs, homie?
I'm well aware that the Flintstones isn't a documentary.
Is Mensa cool with low reading comprehension now days?
If you want to turn off the cartoons and take another run at it, I'll withhold judgment on your reading skills.
You've already botched the science though, but I'll give you another chance.
However, I won't be as forgiving as Mensa next time.
A photon checks into a hotel.
The bellhop asks the photon if it has any luggage.
The photon replies...
"No, I'm traveling light."
Your map is pretty convincing evidence of where the sea levels will be when the ice caps melt by 2137 according to time traveller AL Bielek.
Are you sure the water doesnt fill in the dried up waterways. There are a lot of sried up waterways. Not just one area but everywhere. What is the thinking to move the water from melting ice to these areas that are drying upnor dried up. Challenging with salt versus fresh.
If the polar Ice Caps. the elevation of my home changes from 900' to 700' and my brother and his family join us.
Well I'm safe 882 feet above sea level. Won't bother me much. Good thing it won't happen till pigs fly I guess.
If the ice all melts, I’m sure it would negatively impact many things, flooding won’t be one of them tho!!! lol
10,000 years ago my house would have been a mile under a glacier. What is the correct temperture of the earth?
People are still talking about this today lmao its the main issue scientists are still working on
Correct pronunciation of the Nigerian city is LAY-goesss. Rhymes with Legos.
Waterworld
In Louisiana the nations Prime farmland will be destroyed less food more famine
Well. I guess it’s a good thing I can’t afford ocean front property.
Dang the Central Valley would become an inland sea!
If the bay area of California is expected to flood... cant be all that bad.
I always thought the melting off ocean and polar ice lowers sea level as it takes up less volume as it melts, and land locked ice is what causes the sea levels to rise?
Are you joking?
um, this video is disproven by the incredibly accurate documentary "Water World" Nearly the whole planet will be under water. please do your research next time
He doesn't talk of Venice because they are already under water...
Please learn correct pronunciation of places that are not in the US.
This channel is underrated, not like the overrated junk of CENSORING NOW, however, the right pronnunciation is URUWAY, and not URUWEY, however, this deserves 10 000 subscribers
Doomsday... we turn into Atlantis.. it's in the damn comics..
solar flares can cause energy facilities to blow up aswell..
The 3 trillion trees on the planet more than look after the carbon
Yeah! Beachfront property. Melt glaciers! Melt!
Look Philly get a Coast line
So I’m happy 😃
The USA needs to move its national capital.
If they melt I wonder if it'll help California
We don't have a good record of overestimating I am afraid... When do we realize we have an obligation to future generations? I guess people don't think like that anymore
OMG OMG OMG! What if you die of old age? OMG OMG OMG!
Heres another idea after the flood Noah jr and whoever made it off the arc, make a note to self, do not build citys on the coast a few feet above sea level even if it has a great harbor
It's amazing how many people believe we live on a stagnant Rock. We live on a wonderfully Dynamic Ever Changing planet of course the climate is going to change
This climate change isn't a natural cycle though.
🧊 has to melt and 🌊sea level has to rise before or after 2050. Good info I love it...
Oh please - central valley flooded? I don't think so. The Golden Gate will be dammed and the SF bay and delta will become huge freshwater reservoirs that will provide water to the entire state.
Where will all that fresh water come from, the drought stricken west and midwest U.S.?
Can the Great Lakes be considered a coast line
Although some of the ate deeper than sea level, their shores are higher, so no.
They're independent.
when you look at the arctic in the north, the ice comes and goes through the seasons, so if you're going to include that ice onto the equation, you have to use the minimum of that, as with the Antarctic you have to only take the ice that is on a land mass, as floating ice can not be used in the equation as floating ice displaces more water than it mass, when you use all the ice that is on land or above sea level you end up with a very small amount of ice, which equates to very little sea level rise,
to not use all of the green house gasses and only use 1 gas, you do your self an injustice as , it show the ignorance of your hypothesis, there are many variables in what drives our climate, carbon is just one of them and a fairly small one at that,
if you believe in your hypothesis, show the calculations that prove what your saying about the amount of sea level rise, none of the scientist have ever done this, they just expect us to believe their word, with no proof, are you one of these or just another that spreads the untruths, ?
Omg you ppl are fd
neat, my hometown will be a nice 20 minute drive from a new inland sea in a hundred years, probably driving up property value with it 10/10 would recommend.
Meh no real loss
What if geography I HAVE to know what your intro song is
This i don't believe.
HA HA HA HA.... "if"... sigh.
Welcome to the New Panem
One thing that bothers me is that every time a new report on the rate of ice melt on Greenland or West Antarctica comes out, it is higher and faster than the one before. If that kind of thing keeps showing up, we maybe looking at sea level rises of 20 to 30 feet by 2100.
That the rate of melting would increase was actually predicted but what is really concerning is that so far the melting rates and their effects exceed all our best predictions : melting is occurring much faster than we thought and in more places.
What is particularly concerning is that the glaciers which protect central Antarctica from melting entirely (that area is below the sea level) seem to be also melting faster than we thought. If those fail, we can say goodbye to all coastal cities around the world within a very short time span.
@@nekononiaow Exactly my thinking. 👍
I broke the dam.