Could Climate Change cause an Ocean Tipping Point... Soon..?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- The huge ocean current known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC - not the Gulf Stream!) shifts vast amount of water around the world. But scientists fear that by heating the planet and melting the Greenland ice-sheet, we're already slowing it down, with the risk that it could collapse - a potential tipping point with huge consequences around the world. And a new study (published in 2023) has tried to pin down what could happen, when. So what do we actually known about this current, does it have anything to do with the Gulf Stream, and is there anything we can do to protect ourselves?
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: / climateadam
#ClimateChange #gulfstream #climatecrisis
twitter: / climateadam
facebook: / climateadam
instagram: / climate_adam
==MORE INFO==
The Study: www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
revkin.substack.com/p/behind-...
www.axios.com/2023/07/25/gulf...
www.nature.com/articles/s4301...
www.realclimate.org/index.php...
www.theguardian.com/environme...
/ 1683917521735368704
/ 1684940865498742784
blogs.reading.ac.uk/weather-a...
www.nature.com/articles/s4301...
www.bbc.com/news/science-envi...
theconversation.com/the-gulf-...
Difference between AMOC and Gulf Stream: / 1684468246903132160
==THANKS==
Input from Dr Laura Jackson and Professor Eleanor Frajka-Williams - / eleanorfrajka
Water thrown by Melis Mielchen
==CREDITS==
Geoengineering visuals from Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
Perpetual Ocean by NASA Goddard
Buoy footage by NOAA
SST simulation from MAGS Videos
AMOC simulation: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio The Blue Marble Next Generation data is courtesy of Reto Stockli (NASA/GSFC) and NASA's Earth Observatory.
Heating planet by NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio 
Наука
Huge thank you for the input from scientists Dr Laura Jackson and Professor Eleanor Frajka-Williams - twitter.com/EleanorFrajka
As expected my comment linking to the NASA and NOAA websites showing data that proves the Earth has been cooling since 2016, and that the Arctic ice has been expanding since 2012, and a long list of failed climate predictions got deleted because nobody could argue with the data and the followers of the faith don't like the general public to know the truth.
So Adam, have you got the guts to stand up for the truth, or are you so chicken you lay eggs?
The world has begun the transition away from fossil fuels? How come emissions are still rising then?
@@Timlagorbecause we are still putting out more co2 than the planet can absorb. Plus we have likely tripped a number processes already that are releasing additional co2 that was locked up in. Permafrost.
@ClimateAdam : Why do Europeans omit naming all Greenhouse Gases other than Carbon Di Oxide (CO2)?, a Non Toxic Gas which actually is a coolant of Atmospheric Water Vapour & essential to Cloud Formation.
I have not heard mentioned on DW, France24 or BBC News Broadcasts anything about Carbon Mon Oxide (CO), a Toxic Gas produced when anything organic is burned, which includes Fossil Fuels, Wildfires & Volcanic Activity, all of which also emit various degrees of Solid Carbon particles (C). I always hear them incorrectly state that all those emissions are CO2.
I also keep hearing references to effects which can only result from Methane (CH4) Emissions as being caused by CO2.
CH4 is created during the Decaying Process of everything Organic & is Toxic. Most CH4, the worst Greenhouse gas in relation to Global Warming, is released by flatulence, most of which comes from humans & animal meat livestock, sewage treatment (which also has Ammonia Emissions), waste landfill sites & trapped CH4 is released during Coal Mining.
When Coal is burned, the main emission is CO, NOT CO2 as often publicised these days. In addition to CO, there is also Sulphur Di Oxide (SO2) emitted.
SO2, C, CO & H2O are the main Greenhouse Gases emitted by Volcanic Eruptions. I have heard Documentaries stating the emissions from Eruptions is "All CO2", a very wrong generalisation which must be challenged.
Yes, Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. There is a correllation of that increase in population growth, not only of Humans, but also of our Animal Meat Livestock, and deforestation, not just to supply timber for construction, but also to facilitate Farming & Urban Sprawl, including Industrial Precincts, which is rarely, if ever, blamed for Increased Global Temperatures.
In addition, where our Planetary System is in the Galaxy is another factor, as Scientific Research is leaning towards the discoveries that the last time we were in this part of the Galaxy, Global Warming also happened. There are a number of locations in the Galaxy which cause us to undergo a Warming due to Supernovae Radiated Emissions.
From what I understand the AMOC plays a minor influence on the trans Atlantic gulf current, the earth's rotation is responsible for most of it.
Political support for mitigating climate change will only occur after catastrophe I fear. Businesses have way too much political power via money to fight off profit loss.
I was told the oceans were dying in the 70s. My thoughts. Since the ocean around Florida has been the same temperature as the air temperature. I'm not a scientist. But I think we're screwed.
In the 70's it was "impending Ice Age" as the scare tool, then Acid Rain, then depleted Ozone, then HIV/AIDS, then Global Warming....Fear sells
I think you're wrong. The ocean temp is often the same as the air temp all over the earth. No big deal.
"Reflect upon the Past.
Embrace your Present.
Orchestrate our Futures." --Artemis
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end.
Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins.
Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed.
In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled.
But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain,
We must see all in nothingness...
Before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
That is a big deal. Hot water doesn't hold oxygen, and ecosystems are going to be heavily affected
@@freedomruss
No they are not same. Air warms oceans to 3 micron depth where it instantly evaporates. Evaporating is cooling phenomena.
In 70s we were going to ice age.
And very soon we are going to ice age again.
Our seas have been polluted and overfished and filled with plastic and overheated . This is like the nail on the coffin for our seas.
Overfished, but it's not overfilled with plastic. That's a common myth.
@TheMahayanist
if microplastics are found in every trophic level, i think thats reasonable to believe it's overfilled with plastic regardless of how small the trash islands are compared to the overal volume.
People too often forget that climate is approximately symmetrical about the Equator, and that therefore the meltwater increase that happens near the Arctic Circle in the Northern Hemisphere will happen in roughly the same time frame in the Southern Hemisphere near the Antarctic Circle.
People frequently fret about the effects of ice melt water from the Greenland ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, but often almost ignore the future ice melt water from the much larger Antarctic ice sheet in the Southern Hemisphere.
The melt water that happens in the Southern Hemisphere has a strong potential effect on the worldwide Equator-crossing current loop of which the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC) is but a small fraction.
People should ponder more upon the possibility that during the next 100 years vast amounts of meltwater might enter the ocean both from the Greenland ice sheet and from the Antarctic ice sheet, and that as a result, submergance of cold salty water into the depths will then greatly decrease both in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere.
One nasty trick that ocean water has is that if ocean water near the surface is sufficiently diluted by ice melt, then the law of thermal expansion breaks down near the freezing point temperature, with a result that sinking water can then be slightly warmer than the liquid water near the surface, since when the law of thermal expansion breaks down, liquid water a little bit warmer than the freezing point is denser than liquid water at the freezing point. This breaking down of the law of thermal expansion can have a severe effect on the world system of overturning ocean currents.
In addition, there is a bouyancy effect from dilution by melt water. Ocean water of reduced salinity is more bouyant than normal ocean water that is at the same temperature. Sufficient surface spreading of chilly reduced-salinity meltwater can result in an Atacama Desert effect in various parts of the world. The Atacama Desert in South America is partly the result of the nearby chilly Humboldt Current.
Short version: There are a lot of future potential nasty effects of ice melt that the popular press too much ignores. Excessively diluted water near the ocean surface, if allowed to happen, will cause great changes in ocean circulation, as well as roughly century-scale climate change in some land regions.
The worry is not that the results are too extreme, but that they are too conservative. So far, the actuals when they become real and apparent are worse and moving faster than any prediction. This means that when you place your bets, you should look to sooner and worse as the end result. So, can we panic yet?
You're right, although you mean 'conclusions' instead of 'results'. Results is what we measure, our conclusions of the results can be too conservative.
"Reflect upon the Past.
Embrace your Present.
Orchestrate our Futures." --Artemis
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end.
Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins.
Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed.
In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled.
But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain,
We must see all in nothingness...
Before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Not a scientist, but what I can see and feel is speeding up dramaticly lately. It's 22th of october and we're having 20 degrees celsius in Slovenia. Use to freeze those times. And gets hotter every year.
@@bostjanerjavec4146 The increase in greenhouse gases and average temperature rise are exponential. That is, the rate of change is increasing along with the actual values. So, yeah, it's speeding up.
Not really. There are always multiple scenarios (scenarii).
We only retain the conservative ones, but there are scénarios where our emissions keep rising (what we did and are still doing).
So the modelisations are there, just that we chose to ignore them to focus on the milder scenarios ("if i do something it will be okay, so it s okay to do nothing") 😅
I'm a grad student intern working on a county's Climate Action Framework (literally, right this minute, I'm drumming up some community resilience performance metrics right now while watching RUclips videos about stressful news), and this gives me motivation to go focus on my job and stop watching climate RUclips lol
What country do you work for?
thanks for watching but plz stop watching and develop that famework now k thx bye
Some electric utilities and sewage utilities and farm operate on a 200-year longevity planning basis. In other words, an electric power line is purchased of high enough quality to last for 200 years, a sewage pipe is built to last 200 years, and a farm is operated on the expectation that it will be 200 years before the topsoil has eroded away.
In a coastal region though, sea level rise won't always allow 200 years of operation. For the 280 year time frame from the year 1980 to the year 2260, accumulated level rise is expected to follow a roughly cubic trend, due partly to Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) following a roughly quadratic path for the last 40 years or so. Assuming that the now roughly quadratic EEI path continues for another 60 years or so, below are accumulated sea level rise estimates good enough for longer term planning purposes:
December 1980 +0 meters
December 2120 +4 meters
December 2260 +36 meters
In about 100 years, if that estimate works out, sea level will be about 4 meters higher than now in the year 2023, and in about 240 years, sea level will be more than 30 meters higher than now in the year 2023. An sewage utility operator for example serving a town 3 meters above median high tide level can go a little bit cheap on a new sewage pipe, since in 100 years, it can be expected that the town will have been lost to the sea, and that the sewage line therefore won't be needed anymore.
Climate change is more than just about sea level rise. Winds from sea storms will be stronger, and will too frequently do substantial damage further inland than was typical in the 20th Century. Wind codes for buildings therefore need to be revised upward, to a wind speed building endurance requirement at least 10 kilometers per hour higher than at the end of the 20th Century.
Also, in the Northern Hemisphere is an expected 21st Century pattern of climate zones moving northward. As such, there will be Summers during which Sahara Desert weather stretches northward into England, or during which Great American Desert weather temporarily extends northward into Saskatchewan, an important grain growing region in Canada.
Such northward movement of desert weather events into the traditional agricultural regions of the 20th Century also creates some need for county planners in some regions to develop an irrigation infrastructure plan, and in some regions to develop a plan for just in case grain storage. Typical commercial worldwide food storage in mid-August typically amounts to about 90 days of food. In case of some disastrously low world food harvest some year of only 60% compared to expectation, that's about 39 days of world food shortfall. In addition, there has during the current war in Europe been notable military pillage of stored grain in the war zone in Europe this year in 2023, meaning that some harvested grain now gets blown up by bombs or missiles or the like, rather than remaining as part of the already typically too low mid-August inventory of the world's commercially stored food supply.
I wish you and your county governance council good luck on your climate change planning project.
One other bit of advice is that local weather expertise is often by far the best. Some parts of the world have local television station meteorologists. If you can get a local television station (or better yet two or three or four such local television stations) to donate for free some of their meteorologists' time to your town's governance council, a couple of 40 minute or so Skype or Zoom sessions involving you and your town's governance council and some local meteorologists might be in order, with the two sessions spaced about a month apart, in order to give everyone some time to ponder some upon whatever gets discussed in the first Skype or Zoom session.
🔥✨
What a difference an r makes. 🤦♀️😏
Thank you for your work to communicate the sciense here. I've watched most of them. Among other influential people it lead me to:
- Not fly anymore
- Eat much less meat
- Replace my gas heating with a heat pump
- Plan PV on my roof
- Buy PV panels for our company
But what I actually wanted to say:
In my opinion this is by far the best hair cut in all of your videos 😊
ahah that's so lovely to hear! especially the hair bit!
hehe jokes on you thats all oil and chemical derivitaves return to monkey is the only way
😂😂😂 "meet"
Why don't climate scientists talk about unnecessary manufacturing producing CO2 because of planned obsolescence?
eeeeerrrr ruclips.net/video/Izxcpn4JEZ8/видео.html
Line the side of roads with native plants flowers bushes trees and more available soil for these plants in the middle of cities so they don't fill in there box and because drought stressed even with dayley watering.
Also use better insulation in building to reduce energy demand wich will reduce co2 do to less energy needed.
We should also use thirsty concrete or cement to reduce flooding sand mining and reduce noise pollution from car tires by 5 to 15% wich is louder then the engine on 90% of cars at speed.
Ahh we ain’t getting out off this one alive, too many climate tipping points. Too much greed, apathy & stupidity are at play.
Hug the ones you love.
They have been saying the ocean current would be disrupted any day now for over 50 years. In the 1970's they said the disruption of the ocean currents would cause a new ice age.
Take a look at
Maverickstar reloaded
Don't see why that couldn't still happen b/c of the huge amount of melt water due to the temporary warming
@@kevinmurphy5878 The thing is, the earth has warmed this much in the past and never had a problem. Why would we believe that something that has never happened before would suddenly happen now? For one thing, there is no "huge amount of melt water" happening due to global warming. These glaciers are rivers of ice that move all the time. They are not moving any different now than a million years ago. Snow and ice are deposited up stream of the glacier and force the glacier to move downwards. When it hits water, it melts. It is the ocean water that is causing the melt and has for millions, if not billions of years.
I don't feel scared.
I feel like I should be doing more.
Unfortunately I am constrained by circumstances.
I find that knowledge and action drive fear away.
The problems will still happen, but because of my small actions, and those of a good many other people.
The consequences of our past and current actions will still happen, but they might be a little less of a problem than they would be if I had done nothing at all.
The big reason climate change doesn't scare me is because although we are definitely going to have a much different climate,
we will still have a climate.
It won't be the one we had, which allowed us to build a huge civilization over the last 10,000 years,
but it will eventually settle down into a new normal.
Make no mistake that normal could be radically different than what we're used to, but plants and animals have survived such changes in the past.
Will we?
I certainly hope so.
Doing so though means finding the weakest points in our civilization, and finding ways to do it differently so that change doesn't mean disaster.
As many of the deniers like to point out, the climate has changed before.
What they miss, is that it didn't do so at a time when civilization was in existence.
None of them can guarantee that civilization will survive any rapid changes.
I think our weakest elements are (fresh) water, and food.
What can we do to make these less climate sensitive?
Can we store fresh water where it can't evaporate?
Can we grow food in ways that the climate it grows in can be controlled by us?
Water is a hard thing to safeguard.
Food can be grown in climate controlled environments.
That is expensive, but it may become necessary as growing it outside may become impossible.
Think about these issues I'm raising, because they are important to our future as a species.
Very thoughtful comment. I'm with you. I talked with a scared friend today. She had the numbers wrong, like wildly, and she was in total despair. If you're going to pay attention, you have to go to the actual scientists.
Hummans survived the last ice age dont worry
Funnily enough, im just updating my lectures on the THC covering these recent studies - great video.
This paper is pure nightmare fuel. A collapse from 2025-2090 with 95% confidence is horrifying.
With just projection of data?
What about nonlinearities?
@@tobiaszb If you read the paper it also includes the non linearities. Increased variance + instability in measurements of the last 150+ years as well as some of the most cutting edge simulations around. Forward models are fit / calibrated to this data. This means it's a pretty accurate projection: aka we are seriously screwed if we don't cut emissions ASAP. The last time AMOC collapsed was 12,000 years ago when europe was in an ice age.
@@__Wanderer 12k years ago the climate didn’t have to overcome 50% extra co2.
@@christinearmington indeed. Which means this will likely be a far more rapid and extreme collapse.
@@aquamaneo1204 I didn't come up with the figure sadly. Was published in a nature article and yes they predict that anywhere between 2025-2090 the AMOC will collapse with 95% confidence interval. This is scary as hell. And nobody seems to care... insane.
3:00 Your tipping point re-enactment is fabulous, and deserves awards for acting, visual effects and audio effects. PS: Don't drop the Oscars on someone's toes.
I feel like your channel is what climate communication has always been missing! I hope your audience will expand massively quickly.
thank you! ❤
thanks so much - comments like these mean so much to me!
I feel certain that every conservative person in the country has already tuned in. I can't wait for their helpful input. My brother (the one who is still alive, not the one who refused to get vaccinated) told me that people are going to have to change the way they are doing things because of the climate. I asked him who he was thinking of voting for and he said Nicky Hayley. I feel better already. Why you ask? Because I'm 63.
@@simplethings3730👍😏
Climate communication is nothing more than a lot of parrots who are singing the same song. No facts, NO knowledge No research...just blaaahhh blaaahhh blaaahhh
We haven’t been studying the AMOC, but they are able to see Greenland melts 100,000 years from ice cores. If they’re able to correlate these two then they very well may be correct….
i like your positive attitude, but there is really little we can do as individuals, we can only adapt to whatever will happen, if we manage to adapt, otherwise we will be obliterated by reaction of the planet to our stupid and blind behaviour.
Hi Adam - great video. Tx
How much does Antartica contribute to the strength of the AMOC? Sea-surface water also sinks there - so essentially (as I understand it) there are two drivers of the AMOC (one at Antartica and the second by Greenland). If both "engines" are being impacted, doesn't this increase the liklihood & pace of the AMOC slowdown?
It is entirely possible to build a mechanical climate machine that will halve the rate of global warming. But unfortunately, “climate activists” are more concerned with making money than solving the climate crisis.
No the poles are getting bigger and colder so why is everyone having a meltdown over supposed sea level rises ? that have not happened in my life time and do not look like happening any time soon contrary to what some very well paid people claim with their fabricated hockey stick nonsense.
Love your haircut! Also, your wonderful way of informing us about these important issues!
Its surprising how scientists are surprised again and again climate change is going much faster then expected, while tipping points are allready well known, they somehow forget to calculate the consequences of those tipping points they will rapidly speed up global warming, which is allready rapidly changing. At the edge of extinction only love remains
Thanks for explaining this clearly-very informative. Love your hair equally both ways!😁
We are all going to die!😢
Your new hair looks great! Anyway, good video, very informative as usual.
I saw a post online that summed it up pretty well.
"Even if this had next to no chance of happening, do we really want to take the risk?"
for sure - the climate scientists I've heard speaking about it make clear that we want to rule it out as thoroughly as we possibly can.
We can´t change oceans currents. Global warming is turning global cooling. That´s not good.
"What can we do about the seas running amoc(k)" - YES! Zinger!
p.s. nice haircut :)
ahah! I'm definitely not the first to use that line, but I _will_ take credit for it!
And on a serious note: thanks for a typically clear, informative and fun video on a very important topic!
Wait. So you *aren't* responsible for the hair? I figured you did it while you were there.
Cahm aaahn@@timinclimate , if I *was* responsible, Adam would have something a bit more off-the-wall than this! Maybe... purple zebra stripes? Feel like this would suit you @ClimateAdam ;)
Ignore people like this nugget in the video first, then do research for yourself and you will see that this is fake rubbish
I just discovered your channel. A great presentation of what’s to come, sooner rather than later I think. Subscribed. BTW. I think the short hair looks much better. I used to have long hair too, but I got sick of the upkeep. Short hair is so much easier. And no doubt you’ve been told this many times, but you resemble the late actor Roddy McDowell.
Thank you as always for explaining things :)
Sorry if this is a silly question, but is there a way to get sea water from the sea onto the continents and use it for irrigation etc? (And thus perhaps make up for the huge imcrease in water volume coming from the melting glaciars). I remember reading that the areas in Indonesia that were submerged under seawater by the tsunami had amazingly abundant crops the following season. Apparebtly sea water is excellent for crops. So couldn't we move large amount of sea water onto land and use it for irrigation? especially in locations that have a huge need for more water.
My family farms in California. We have to be careful how much groundwater we use because of the salinity. Salt water will stunt and kill the cops. During the tsunami, the water probably washed nutrients onto the land, but most of the water itself probably cascaded over the land and back into the ocean. If the land had absorbed a great deal of the saltwater, it would be much less arable.
All that takes more energy so...
Irrigating crops with incoming seawater will not help, in fact, likely make the problem even worse as it will increase groundwater levels even if cities are sea-walled off. The runoff from irrigation would be like trying to take a bucket of water in the ocean and putting it elsewhere in the ocean
I dont know about everyone else, but I feel like the consequences to this happening are so severe that we should just assume the worst case scenario and START PANICKING. Panicking in the calmest way possible and actually start doing things faster lol
Australia needs to get fresh water inland.. why we have not developed desalination plants is beyond me.. we could make fresh water.. pump it inland.. grow foods and crops.. use the salt and dump it back into the ocean at certain locations to undo the changes being made by so much fresh water going into the ocean.
In the end it is likely to be the rate of fresh water that affects that current. If the water doesn't disrupt the flow too much, 'we' might not need to worry. Or am I very optimistic? I'm usually a pessimist, but am trying to change.
I think that this El Nino period will be followed by rather exceptionally calm and cool La Nina years. People will smile about all the "hysteria"until the next El Nino which will be really devastating. Isn't this what is "very likely" to happen??
2:48 You say here that the surge of sea level on the east coast of NA would be a problem. I'm sorry if this question might sound dumb, but wouldn't the surge of sea level be worldwide? Doesn't the sea level raise uniformely?
super interesting question and maybe a topic for a future vid, but no! surprisingly sea level rise is not uniform, partially because of shifts in gravity, and partly also due to shifts in circulation. here's a good, clear discussion of the topic:
sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/9/are-sea-levels-rising-the-same-all-over-the-world-as-if-were-filling-a-giant-bathtub/
So glad I stumbled upon your channel, Adam! I'm aspiring to be science writer/journalist, and I'm learning a lot from your content. Keep 'em coming!!
We were going into the ice age in the 70's and it was wrong. My guess is we are wrong again. What you need to worry about is what happens when we run out of fertilizers and what hungry people are capable of.
What's your opinion on the artificial cooling caused by sulphur dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and the argument that we need to draw down any emissions from animal agriculture faster and before fossil fuel emissions to avoid a quickening of the warming in the initial stages of or emission drawdowns? I saw this argument from Dr Shailesh Rao and on the Climate Healers web page.
Are you aware that SO2 emissions decreased by 94% between 1980-2020? The PPB went from 173.9 ppb down to 9.9 ppb in that 40 year time frame (EPA bulletin 5/23). Leave the cows alone, they have been doing their thing for 10,000 years from the time they were domesticated from aurochs. If climate crazies spent more time educating themselves and working proactively and methodically on global warming etiology, conservatives would have more respect. Sorry, but a vegan electrical engineer whose PhD thesis was on “processor arrays” does not constitute an authority in this arena.
@@eyeugrad1 I was not aware, I'll have a think about how that effects the argument and look at the data on it. Though I want an ethical as well as sustainable society so if we were really leaving the cows alone, we would not be artificially and forcibly impregnating them into existence and killing them and their children for needless taste pleasure.
@@eyeugrad1 I miss quoted the climate healers paper though it does factor in SO2 which your are correct in that it's a small aspect and dropped, they also do not consider it to be a driving factor in the artificial cooling I mentioned, but brings to light a lot of the miscalculations implemented in the IPCC reports and raises concerns with their public affiliations with the large meat and dairy industries and highlights the miscalculations they have made and refusal to continue an open dialogue about the critique of said miscalculations and measurement methodology, though they have been raised repeatedly. I didn't consider Dr. Rao an authority on the matter but to date I've not seen anyone convincingly refute their arguments to focus on ending the animal agriculture (the killing machine) industries as a priority over drawing down fossil fuel emissions ('the burning machine') though would like to see such a refutation if it's out there. Have you read the paper in full?
Initiatives to improve ruminant digestion and reduce methane production are nice. Initiatives to prevent the destruction of forests and jungles to create pasture and cropland are obviously essential. But ultimately, the carbon released into the air by livestock is only the carbon removed within the last 1-2 years by the plants those livestock are eating. After the livestock have eaten the tops off the grasses, the grasses grow back, capturing the same amount of carbon over again in a net-zero cycle - or in a carbon capture cycle if the farmer is engaged in regenerative agriculture.
It's the carbon that was removed from the atmosphere either millions of years ago in the case of fossil fuels, or tens of thousands of years ago in the case of permafrost, that is going to kill billions of people. We need to stop the release of fossil carbon already.
thanks
Adam, has anyone ever told you that you look like the late British-American actor, Roddy McDowall? Appreciate your efforts to reach a younger audience about climate change.
Ahah that's a new one!
Didn't scientists use to call the amoc the "deep salty"?
loool I've never heard that, but I'm gunna start using it!
I got super annoyed at these headlines when the paper came out. They are super misleading and make people distrust science even more.
“…huge consequences for the world’s weather, which means huge consequences for all of us.”
I’m a new subscriber and really enjoy your videos! But your comments tend to bias towards human well-being. I mean that makes sense since you’re human, but these potential changes will have huge consequences to all life on earth, not just us. I think the distinction has merit. Anyway, keep up the amazing work!
I just want to know, are we going to be ok in the next few decades? Am I going to have to fight for my food? Am I going to be stuck in my house due to weather? Will I have to watch my friends and family die?I do live in California and I have to take an Antidepressant because of Climate Doom and what I’ve read in the past and just am scared.
Perspective - thank you 💛
Haircut looking fresh 👌🏻 Thank you for this video, I was wondering!!
Thank you for this. Another vindication of the value of the precautionary principle.
Unless the precautionary principle has huge negative consequences.
Example: You don't want to have a serious auto accident so you don't go to work or do shopping or visit friends. If you don't do all these things the consequences on your life would be extreme. If you don't want to accidentally choke to death, you could avoid eating. We all take risks every day. Life is a risk.
@@dzcav3 have you read up about the precautionary principle? It is different to the concept of risk-reward, and certainly nothing like the examples you provide. In the case of climate change, there are no further benefits to increasing emissions, because we have renewable technology we can deploy, and we already consume far more than is needed for our well-being, with ours being a distribution aka inequality problem. I recommend going and having a read of the precautionary principle in the context of the Rio 1992 Earth Summit.
@@kaputfretudy Go to Africa and talk with the mothers who lost their babies because the local hospital didn't have an ultrasound machine or incubator due to the lack of cheap, reliable electricity. They don't think there are no benefits to increasing emissions. On a similar note, many in Africa have lung problems due to breathing smoke from burning animal dung indoors to cook their food. The introduction of propane stoves literally saves lives.
You talk about an inequality problem. All starvation is an inequality problem. Equality sounds nice in theory, but it's impossible in practice. Humans are going to act like humans.
Can richer nations make ECONOMICALLY SOUND moves to minimize emissions? Sure, and they should, as long as the ECONOMICALLY SOUND part doesn't get overlooked. The problem is that it usually DOES get overlooked. People often talk about solar and wind having lower LCOE than fossil fuels. What they almost always ignore is the added costs of additional transmission lines and backup power generation that solar and wind require. When you look at the total picture, it's often very different. Germany had the highest electrical rates in Europe BEFORE the Ukraine war due to its use of solar and wind. It couldn't survive without its neighbors to buffer its supply and demand.
Poverty is the main cause of premature death around the world. When you overlook the economics and increase poverty, even marginally, you kill people.
I just became aware of this paper (Chengfei He et al. “A North Atlantic Warming Hole Without Ocean Circulation.” Geophysical Research Letters. 2022.) that pretty much destroys the ASSumptions of the Ditlevsen paper on which this video is based. Another vindication of NOT taking expensive actions which will definitely harm poor people when we don't have a high degree of certainty that those actions are necessary.
So lets get this straight then . The UK produces 1% of the co2 that is 0.4% of the Earth's atmosphere so that's 0.004% and of that 0.1% comes from breathing , that makes 0.000004% of the Earth's total co2 ! Please correct me if my maths is wrong but surely that is such an infinitesimal amount as to be totally insignificant ! PLUS with all the trees , flowers , plants and crops that we grow that amount would NOT even provide only about 0.001% of the co2 to sustain the said trees etc ! Somebody's having a larf methinks !
So if AMOC breaks down, Europe would have not a relatively warm climate anymore , but a climate that’s usual for that geographic latitude? A climate like southern Canada, which 25°C in summer and -20°C in Winter? And rising due to climate warming still going on?
Well, it would certainly be bad. But getting in Europe a climate like southern Canada is not exactly the stuff of catastrophe movies?
Good report with nice visuals. Its concise and short enough to make this a sharable video for our short attention span friends and adult children,: ) We shall see...
*Ps, Hair looks good/better Adam. Just use a wig when your singing for your 80's rock cover bands 😮
I wondered when you would cover this. The wording in the study was a concern after first look
Comparing the ice age to a bad haircut is genius. Every female can relate to that one.
Thanks for explaining this so well. I was getting quite confused about the reporting on AMOC (especially vs the Gulf Stream).
Don't count on any geoengineering. It is far too expensive with no ROI (return on investment). That's because, in economic terms, extinction is more economically profitable than survival. Until we give up seeing everything as an economic problem, we cannot afford to survive.
Would it help to off load several tankers worth of very salty brine near Greenland and refill them with fresh water to go to the Middle East or where ever else the brine comes from? Sorry if this is a completely mad suggestion, I don't know anything about the costs or practicalities etc.
Thank you, that was really helpful
So two climate phenomena seem to be in tension with each other- the Alps’s winter sports being on, ahem, thin ice at lower elevations, and the AMOC shutting down possibly causing very local cooling in Europe despite continued warming elsewhere.
So would the AMOC shutting down save Alpine skiing?
nice prospects - btw 1:18 what's a "blob of water"?
No regrets to have about the old hair cut; this one is perfect. And please keep doing what you are doing: it’s perfect too
You and Ella meet in person for the first time, and suddenly you lose all your hair! 😳
Mate, you’re brilliant. Thank you som much for your videos! 🙏🏻
good info. [10:05] I also recommend considering putting some of your savings into a B. Corp rated bank. In America big banks are using our savings to fund dirty energy. Source: youtuber Climate Town has a good entertaining (with sources to follow) video.
It's not only about fossil fuels you know conventional agriculture is also a huge factor regarding greenhouse emissions and climate change. We need to produce and consume local food. For example avocado is not sustainable in most parts of the world. They need a lot of water. Also it's not sustainable for it to be shipped thousands of kilometers just so you can have it on your breakfast toast. Be smart consume local. That's the best way to reduce greenhouse emissions. Problem is most of the people even when they care they just forget about it. We are constantly being programmed to consume. The real problem is money and the responsible are the couple of guys controlling the industry. Just do a little research about BlackRock and where it is located. Then just connect the dots.
i love the zoom ins and the way you play with your eyebrows.
Make a video about Barbie being an inspiring Barbieland steampunk masterpiece!
so general consensus is that the amoc is slowing down, and might be at its weakest point in a while. as for a full and complete shut down, while unable to be ruled out based on current trends, it's still a very low likelihood. with that being said, the likelihood of total collapse by 2100 increases the more emissions rise, correct?
When will you do a video on trains / public transit and their relationship with climate change?
We need to quit burning gasoline in urban areas and highways and replace it with tethered electric with roofs over the roads and parking lots and cover with grass and storm water control systems fueled by solar panels. Cars should go home through central control. Power the system with small nuclear.
We can do all if this now except for oil companies power. Because we have passed the tipping point, temperature in the south may get better some years, but will trend badly, killing people and ruining farm belt crops, until we do change the heat profile of coastal cities.
It's not carbon, its heat. We don't have the luxury of labor or carbon reduction virtue signalling. The tipping point is in the rearview mirror.
If the north atlantic conveyor stops, another mini ice age in that area will begin and last a thousand years!
hurricane Harvey in 2017 dumped as much fresh water on Eastern Texas in a little over a week as melts off of Greenland in a year. almost all of that water flowed back down into the Gulf of Mexico and there were no massive long ter environmental effects. the Gulf of Mexico is much smaller than the Atlantic Ocean, how does the same amount of water have a huge effect on the Atlantic Ocean when it did not have much of an effect on the Gulf of Mexico?
The water is also more saline in Texas if this were to actually have an impact, the South Atlantic Upwell is just the last leg of the AMOC once the current passes between Cuba and the Yucatan it does a gyre, it's not exactly the same further up north. Hurricane Harvey is trivial, 77% of global rainfall, falls directly into the ocean. 5% of rain that hits land actually runs back off into the oceans.
It's weird, I had a few classes on it in college. It's still way above my pay grade, to be honest, I am amazed I remembered anything.
Good channel and very informative
Welcome!
Hi. What impact do you the 42% drop in heavy water in Antarctic is going to have on tha Atlantic AMOC?
keep up the good work
Thanks for keeping up the good work Adam. If we could have taught the children about climate change and the earth's systems 20 years ago this conversation might look different. We still need to teach the children. Unfortunately the big issues (this being the biggest) get swept under the rug. Somehow, this smartest of animals fails to see it is bleeding the life out of it's own existence.
Society cannot bend enough in the next two years without breaking, and after that no landmass will have a stable enough weather to get crops to yield food.
The end will be brutal.
The psychology behind our apparent inability to cope with climate change is interesting and not particularly encouraging. As I understand it (based on a lecture a couple of decades ago) the flow of warm water across the Atlantic has an alternate stable arrangement where the water flows more easterly than northerly. At the time of the lecture there was a contention that this might explain the famine and weather issues that precipitated the Bronze Age Collapse (around 1170 BC or thereabouts). Hence we do have some idea about what it would involve on a human scale and we could, in the absence of a plan for preventing it, look at mitigation methods. You could for example write to your MP pointing out that it is hardly fair for the rate payers in the higher ground to be expected to pay for the refugee camps for those displaced from the estuary areas, surely we should be adding a sea-level tax to coastal dwellers community charge to be sequestered and later used for the building of the camps and associate sewerage, water and power requirements. It is unlikely to have any immediate effect but historically talking about money has captured the imagination of the political industry better than just about anything else.
Yes this very summer was sure the hotest ever and still not over. Winters in europe are gone. I remember 2002 we had trouble getting with the car somewhere due to too much snow. And today clear streets. At least for 6 years haven't seen real snow. We have weather like in Los Angeles now. And as a scientist I bring bad news, nobody is trying to invent anything new. Well, I published a new AC unit that works with water. It doesn't produce any heat.
I know it‘s inadequate to comment on looks but red looks sooooo good on you!!
Your new hair cut looks better than the old one!
So if I’m relatively wealthy, I should stop using fissile fuels, but if I’m poor, I should t and if I’m very wealthy, I should continue flying private jets, running my mega yacht and living is huge house? Maybe the us president should lead by example.
To save you looking: Not exactly 4.5 billion but!
It's not can it happen but when it will happen again?
The age of the oldest glacier ice in Antarctica may approach 1,000,000 years old.
The age of the oldest glacier ice in Greenland is more than 100,000 years old.
The age of the oldest Alaskan glacier ice ever recovered (from a basin between Mt. Bona and Mt. Churchill) is about 30,000 years old.
Ridiculous or not The Day After Tomorrow is my favourite movie.
Apocalyptic thinking has always plagued humanity. The stoics and other sages showed us how to overcome that bad thinking. Please let's act like adults by quelling this panic. Let us start by thinking for ourselves and viewing risks objectively. That means not outsourcing our thinking to the mass media, and not blindly following authorities who may be biased. In science, we must now follow the money trail and scrutinise the power-wielding influencers.
Human activity has never seen these levels, 8billion people burning 100 million barrels of oil per day. She canny take any more captain!
Step into direct action! That's the only thing that's going to work at this stage. As many of us as possible need to do it and disrupt disrupt disrupt
Why don’t you glue yourself down to the highway in protest causing a massive traffic jam while increasing CO2, CO, Hydrocarbons, and NOx emissions based on MPG? Have you thought about volunteering to work at companies who are legitimately researching alternative fuels? Of course you haven’t!
I've never glued myself to a road but I have campaigned for years in many different ways and my paid work is about technical solutions (retrofitting homes). Unfortunately there's no point having expertise and solutions if they are ignored by those in power. We need structural change, which can only come through mass direct action and people deciding they won't stand for it. If you don't step up, you are complicit in this terrible situation - being passive is a choice too and far more questionable one than gluing yourself to a road @@eyeugrad1
I've read most of the paper on which this video is based. It reminds me of a thorough and correct mathematical analysis of chicken entrails. In other words, garbage in equals garbage out. The analysis may be flawless, but the underlying assumptions aren't. Chicken entrails don't predict the future, and neither do very limited and inadequate models of extremely complex fluid systems (e.g. the weather and overturning ocean currents). If you disagree with my analysis, please provide an ACCURATE forecast of the weather for one year from today. No one can do that. No one can come anywhere close.
Here's some of the particular flaws with the paper:
1. The AMOC has only been studied in detail since 2004. That is far too short a period to get an understanding of its natural variations. There are known climate phenomenon such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), El Nino, and La Nina that happen on longer time scales.
2. The use of sea surface temperatures (SST) as a proxy for AMOC. Again, due to the short amount of time AMOC has been studied, we don't know the long-term correlation of these two.
3. The historical record of SST in the "fingerprint" area of AMOC is almost nonexistent prior to the use of satellite measurements in the 1980s. The "fingerprint" is in a very remote part of the ocean with very little commercial shipping traffic. Prior to satellite data, the intake water temperature of commercial ships was used to estimate ocean surface temperatures. The paper assumes we have an accurate record of the "fingerprint" area going back to 1880. This is laughable.
4. Complex fluid systems are essentially impossible to model. We can somewhat model very simplified situations such as jet engines, airplane wings, and combustion chambers of engines. but that's about it. Weather forecasts are only good for a few days, and pretty much just extrapolate current trends. Climate models are political garbage, and greatly overestimate actual global warming. Their main purpose is to support the mainstream narrative, get funding/prestige/tenure, and increase government control. MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE. Finite element analysis "models" are used in engineering, but material stresses are not nearly as complex as fluid flows, and the models are well verified by empirical data. That is NOT the case with climate models, which FAIL to accurately hindcast known historical temperatures.
Bottom line: fear mongering is alive and well.
I just became aware of this paper (Chengfei He et al. “A North Atlantic Warming Hole Without Ocean Circulation.” Geophysical Research Letters. 2022.) that pretty much destroys the ASSumptions of the Ditlevsen paper on which this video is based. It also affirms some of the points I made in my previous reply.
Stop burning fossil fuels? Gee whiz. Why didn't we think of this before?
why did literally nobody ever suggest that?!?!?
I seem to be getting confused. I was under the impression that the gulf stream was driven by the earth's spin, and was largely independent from the AMOC.
Wait on a moment. If the Gulf Stream 'won't shut down even if the AMOC does' then the chill over Europe won't happen. The heat from the Gulf will still be transmitted northward. On the other hand if the surface water no longer becomes salty enough when it cools due to the input of fresh water from Greenland as it moves northward, then it won't sink down and head south deeper down in the ocean. Then there will be no place for the surface water from the south to go. It can only pile up so much and then the current will stop. If we add to this a lack of freezing of ocean water in the Arctic ocean which also produces heavy salty water which plunges into the abyss and flows south then the second mechanism which sucks water up from the south disappears. So which is it. Will the Gulf Stream shut down or won't it. If it does, we should see more intense freezing of Arctic waters, re-powering the AMOC. In other words, we might be in a situation of a bunch of cold years in Europe followed by a bunch of warm years. The climate will flick flack back and forth until it settles down into a new regime.
I'm grateful that we know whatever we know about the AMOC. It's going left. We just have to get good at adaptation. Be nimble. That thing we suck at. Onward!
You cut your hair! I like it but that doesn’t it didn’t look good long!
Thanks for the great vids Adam.
Hi Adam, What's your response to Prof James Hansen and team's paper "Global Warming in the Pipeline please? It appears to me it's far closer to the mark than the endless banter of the consensus science broadcasted by the IPCC in which so much of importance is excluded and future drawdown of co2 is assumed as a given. A podcast or two devoted to a rational assessment of 'Global Warming in the Pipeline' would be greatly appreciated, thanks
Their paper is about what would happen if co2 and methane stayed at constant concentrations for many centuries in the atmosphere... Which is not what would happen if we stopped emitting. I plan to make a more detailed video on what happens when we stop emitting soon, which will touch on this paper. Hansen himself has made clear that his study is not about committed warming.
I also think your representation of the ipcc is not giving the organisation full credit. While some important info may be left out the Summary for Policymakers, the reports themselves cover the full range of our scientific understanding.
The sea is dying. Time is running out
On balance it seems inconclusive. I think the heat will finish us off first. As the temperature goes up plants lose their nutritional value so food shortages and collapse seem closer than any AMOC action.
Short hair is back ✌️
RIP the long hair 😢
@@ClimateAdam- You youngsters always overestimate how long (subjectively!) it takes hair to grow back.
I’ve had mine long (middle and bottom of shoulder blades) twice in my life, have it quite close to yours now, and am not ruling anything out for the future (I’m 57).
Actually, my future hair length is one of the only things I _don’t_ have qualms about!
2:54
Parts of southeastern Norway right now!
Professor Dame Jane Francis, director of the British Antarctic survey has just said she thinks the Greenland ice sheet has reached the point of no return.
Everyone talks about Europe freezing.. NOBODY is mentioning that the heat will still be there, but in a different place.. aka the east coast, Florida, Caribbean, and back down the chain. We already have 100 degree water on Florida.. it’s just beginning to slow
That is a strong haircut, Adam! The content is excellent too, as ever.
Roughly 30 a 40% of all human caused carbon pollution is absorbed via global vegetation so stopping deforestation and replanting trees on all available lands will improve climate ratios much faster than electric cars or renewable power. Yet we still continue to open lithium and cobalt mines renewable adds a 60. % overall increase in mining! Unfortunately us humans are always late to take action which often leads us to rush to equally unsustainable solutions. Nuclear energy is our only option like it or not!
Given the energy levels involved the AMOC may change course rather than stop completely. When the climate regains stability, where the AMOC flows is not predictable.
This is actually one of the caveats of the paper which I didn't have time to get into - there may be such a thing as a partial collapse of the amoc, so it would have multiple tipping points not 1. At the moment we don't have the info we'd need to tell.
@@ClimateAdam
If the AMOC stopped transporting heat northward, wouldn't that heat end up somewhere else?
Yes.@@fromnorway643
I've read most of the paper on which this video is based. It reminds me of a thorough and correct mathematical analysis of chicken entrails. In other words, garbage in equals garbage out. The analysis may be flawless, but the underlying assumptions aren't. Chicken entrails don't predict the future, and neither do very limited and inadequate models of extremely complex fluid systems (e.g. the weather and overturning ocean currents). If you disagree with my analysis, please provide an ACCURATE forecast of the weather for one year from today. No one can do that. No one can come anywhere close.
Here's some of the particular flaws with the paper:
1. The AMOC has only been studied in detail since 2004. That is far too short a period to get an understanding of its natural variations. There are known climate phenomenon such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), El Nino, and La Nina that happen on longer time scales.
2. The use of sea surface temperatures (SST) as a proxy for AMOC. Again, due to the short amount of time AMOC has been studied, we don't know the long-term correlation of these two.
3. The historical record of SST in the "fingerprint" area of AMOC is almost nonexistent prior to the use of satellite measurements in the 1980s. The "fingerprint" is in a very remote part of the ocean with very little commercial shipping traffic. Prior to satellite data, the intake water temperature of commercial ships was used to estimate ocean surface temperatures. The paper assumes we have an accurate record of the "fingerprint" area going back to 1880. This is laughable.
4. Complex fluid systems are essentially impossible to model. We can somewhat model very simplified situations such as jet engines, airplane wings, and combustion chambers of engines. but that's about it. Weather forecasts are only good for a few days, and pretty much just extrapolate current trends. Climate models are political garbage, and greatly overestimate actual global warming. Their main purpose is to support the mainstream narrative, get funding/prestige/tenure, and increase government control. MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE. Finite element analysis "models" are used in engineering, but material stresses are not nearly as complex as fluid flows, and the models are well verified by empirical data. That is NOT the case with climate models, which FAIL to accurately hindcast known historical temperatures.
Bottom line: fear mongering is alive and well.
I just became aware of this paper (Chengfei He et al. “A North Atlantic Warming Hole Without Ocean Circulation.” Geophysical Research Letters. 2022.) that pretty much destroys the ASSumptions of the Ditlevsen paper on which this video is based. It also affirms some of the points I made in my previous reply.
This was for a school project, but tbh im really interested
same lol