It will be interesting to see if "El Nino" become a permanent state rather than just passing phase. If this heat up is followed by more heat instead of cyclic cooling even the least conservative models will be understating the rate of change. So many tipping points and so many feedback loops are at the edge of running away into an exponential chain that it is very hard to grasp how fast this will slide. It seems certain that we aren't going to slow down the rate of growth of our C02 outputs. Methane from Permafrost, reduced reflective white ice, huge ocean temperature increase, boreal and amazon forests in decline. There really isn't any good news on the horizon.
we won't see much as drought and famine collapses civilization soon. I realize that the sea-ice melt is the inevitable of destruction of life on Earth - but in terms of "seeing" we are dependent on human civilization.
@@jeffdunnell6693 normal except the stratosphere is cooling, proving it's definitely not the sun radiation directly heating earth - rather it's what Joseph Fourier in 1824 called "dark heat" (now called infrared radiation). Wow - you're only 200 years behind on your science - even Fourier realized that "increased industrial activity" would increase the "dark heat" and thus heat up Earth even more.
Brilliant about a race to the bottom! I'm one of your faithful youtube-students. Right now I fear a lot of tipping-points are competing and are about to fall together like dominoes. (Rockström et al recently depicted 1.5C as "safe", OMG!) I know there are a lot of factors, but when sea-ice goes in both areas appears to be crucial. If sea-ice around Antarctica reach less than 16 million sqkm in September it'll risk diminishing to zero in February. In an intense El Nino with record-high sea-temperatures that may create the inevitable long-run turning-point in this fight among loosers, with some help from Twaites, Pine et al and once more generate the frequent phrase "sooner than expected" from you scientists. In turn, it may also dramatically slow the world-wide Meriodonal Overturning Circulation. Good luck then, Corrals, The Amazon and modern civilization! However, the wind-driven Gulf-Stream will together with the f**ked-up Jet-stream and overall global heating not give neither The Arctic sea-ice nor Greenland any rest. Let's hope the fight between the ice-masses are more drawn-out. Thanks for your work!
Total nonsense. Do you even think about how much Ice is there? Antarctica is larger than America. Do some real research instead of believing what the media trots out.
Always great to see another fellow "woke" armchair climate nerd! Now, put this into your future-viewer: it takes 344 BTUs to melt ONE GRAM of ice and 1.2 TRILLION TONS of global ice are melting annually, so how much mostly human fossil fuel burning heat generation is being absorbed by the incredible ice melting RIGHT NOW? And, I know you'll get this one, what happens to ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET when ALL of ice melts in the coming century? Venus 2.0?
What’s happening in Antarctica is very alarming. It’s been setting record lows for sea ice every day for months. I worry that we’ve crossed a tipping point.
@@benjamincornia7311 Well funny how this years Artic ice is at a 17 year high. Do some proper research instead of taking onboard what our lying media spews out.
@@benjamincornia7311 it’s strange how we had record low temperatures a couple of years ago and a net gain of ice volume over the last 40 years but that’s not mentioned anywhere. Now we have weather that’s meets the narrative better it’s all over the news
The fossil fuel industry is responsible for an incalculable number of benefits for humanity. Do you even have the slightest idea of the life lottery you have won being born in this time period? The history of humanity prior to fossil fuels is one of malnutrition, starvation, mud huts, and dying from treatable diseases. You literally could not get through your day without fossil fuels and we certainly couldn't feed 8 billion people without them.
There is something problematic and askew when individuals’ of a species don’t have an instinctive desire to ensure the well-being of their offspring…some of their internal “ wiring” has fried! Maybe by greed or selfishness?
@@pohkeee It's simply your misinterpretation. Maybe what you believe that is threatening or harming them, actually isn't. Maybe others are promoting better solutions that are in the best interest of their offspring that you simply don't understand or agree with.
JB & team are to my humble knowledge the most under-rated climate and antarctic scientists I know of. Great video team including heaps of helpful picturesque explanations along the way. However, when it comes to tackle GHG emissions we are running out of options I like to think. Wind, Solar & batteries will not move the needle according to Mark P. Mills (Manhattan Institute). The time span to develop, test & commission new nuclear PP on any significant scale takes 10 probably 15 years if we decide to start today. Also, does nuclear work in times of global conflict and cooling water scarcity ...? Cheers
The answer, surprisingly, is more fossil fuels. Inexpensive reliable energy is paramount for a thriving economy and a modern world. It is economic growth and the modern world that keeps you safe. Fossil fuels mitigate and neutralize threats from warming. Threats from everything. Meanwhile poverty kills millions. Climate policies that deprive humanity of inexpensive reliable energy induce greater poverty and threaten lives. The answer to warming is not more poverty.
@@anthonymorris5084 Analogy... Here's some poison that will make you feel better right now, but in the long run will kill you (and likely everyone else and many other species as well).
Here is the answer. The ice balance on Antarctica is growing. Yes, part of it, esp. the parts over volcanic vents, are melting, but others areas are growing faster.
The long term keeps arriving much faster than expected in Climate Crisis but you didn't mention that we'll be running out of (Summer) Arctic Sea Ice in the mid 2030's which I'd think should keep Greenland ahead for a while.
@@Timlagor Anthony gets most of his information from sensationalist newspaper headlines. Or today's equivalent Click-bait video titles. He doesn't actually read anything or watch anything from good authorities.
There might be less sea ice this year but Antarctica is getting colder. The whole of East and West Antarctica is cooling, and has been for 40 years. East Antarctica has cooled by an impressive 0.7°C per decade. Resulting in an overall substantial and statistically significant decline of 2.8°C since 1980. So much for "Global" warming. I am referring to a paper by Zhu et al (2021) that looked at the reanalysed ERA5 satellite dataset. Check out table 4. Furthermore, the Antarctic Peninsula ice has since been shown to be on the increase “The eastern Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet has grown in area over the last 20 years, due to changing wind and sea ice patterns.” (University of Cambridge, May, 2022.) "Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade." (Andreasen et al, 2023). They use MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica from 2009 to 2019.
Excellent, it is nice to get a comparison of the two polar regions. Antarctica is struggling to reform ice at the moment. Is this a serious danger to the Ice Shelfs during the melt season and North Atlantic SST are high at the moment will this effect Greenland ice loss this year.
I am wondering whether you two have thought of doing a public Q&A on these issues for non scientists? I also watched the the artic system climate catastrophe long version and had quite a few basic questions to ask. TBH the hockey stick extension blew my mind. I suppose like many others I move between thinking we can do stuff to at least mitigate this and what on earth can we do to mitigate this - we are stuffed. The question of what do we do it about it would be a separate although obviously crucial discussion as well.
Yes for example the US Army plans to be all electric by 2030. So obviously people are trying to "do stuff." Way too little too late but at least people can dream. hahaha.
That's what we really need to know, which one is going to disappear first? By then we'll mostly be dead, but I'm still going to be checking to see who won the jar!
Wouldn't it be more useful to make this a three-way comparison, separating the West Antarctic ice sheet (resting on an archipelago and more exposed to underwater melting) from the East Arntarctic ice sheet (resting on more solid contental land mass)?
@@monkeyfist.348 As I understand it even the ice lost from all glaciers outside of Greenland and Antarctica does not come close to the ice loss from either of those land masses.
@michaeldeierhoi4096 , sure, but that wasn't the reason to add it. It is the third polar cap in a way, but it may just be the first big loser. The meltwaters there directly impact many millions of people, so the context of melting has more impact. Including the third pole, could draw more people in to hear the overall message.
@@monkeyfist.348 That's a good point. The millions of people in mountains of the Himalayas are indeed at serious risk and not just from the water supply drying up, but also from natural dams that can collapse releasing a flood downstream putting countless people at risk.
I was already subbed to Jason's channel, and I noticed that I was unsubbed. Hmmm. Yes, Greenland is losing bigly now. But with what's happening in the Ross Sea, and it looks like it's cutting across the Nickerson and Thwaites and Pine Island...there is open water where there should be fast ice. And on a clear day with NASA Nighttime layer, one sees open water surrounding the whole continent. This cannot be a good sign. Not to politely disagree, but we might see Antarctica get the hiccoughs very soon.
3:40 Glaciers don't retreat, they can't go uphill. However the front can melt quicker than the ice supply from the rear giving the illusion that it's retreating.
In a literal sense of the word the the glaciers do not retreat, however they do retreat in that the leading edge of the glaciers melts back this 'retreating' up the valley that it descended originally.
Many many thanks. The sea level rise as bad as it is, does not make me nearly as nervous as the collapse of the AMOC. My thought there is that, while the equator regions still gets hotter and more and more inhabitable not only for humand kind (we do not deserve better), an new ice age will come from the north eventually smashing life between hammer and anvil. Cod fish in the Baltic Sea is telling the story in its own version. The surface warming reaches deeper and deeper water levels while the influx of supernutritious rivers by eutrophication of arable land make aerobic microbes in the low levels of the sea use up the oxygen. What I do not get in the AMOC is why the influx of fresh meltwater of Greenland does slow it down. As far as I have learnt, a big driver of the AMOC is the sinking down of the more salty water from the equator reaching "Greenland" where it sinks down compared to the surrounding "fresher" water. If Greenland ice melting adds more fresh water to the surrounding water of the AMOC (I believe so as the melt water will enter the sea at the coast of Grennland and not in the center of the AMOC) the difference in salt concentration increases and the AMOC should not slow down but speed up. Anyone enlighten me please.
Basically the mechanism is that the fresh water flowing down from Greenland and the Arctic is less dense then the salt water. As the Gulf Stream moves east toward northern Europe the lighter resh water interferes in the normal flow of the AMOC. Whether the AMOC could actually stop is up for debate and it is not yet clear either what the consequences of a slowing AMOC would mean. I'm sure Jason Box has more clarity on this subject.
Information is important but how do we change human culture? I was asking this question about climate change in 1987. My polymath conclusion is that we need to upgrade domesticated humans into advanced ones. To begin we need to master human sound. Become an overtone singer. It will take 3 years but then, if others also advance to become overtone singers, we can start a cultural revolution that gives us what we need socially to be humans, while advancing our minds. There are 4 ways to advance. Voice, movement, thought and knowledge. Though my friends and relatives have been educated about climate change for 35 years, they do nothing to prevent it because they believe their contribution is so small it doesn't matter. So a billion people all break the rule because everyone else is breaking it. It is another 'tragedy of the commons. So skill up!
Wow, found a polyphonic overtone singer who was amazing, but I don't know that many people will do this. Very cool, but conscious breathwork is my personal preference for waking up, and it doesn't take nearly as long. Jeru Kabbal in case you're interested.
the only reason Greenland and Antarctica have ice sheets is because we are currently in a major ice age called the Quaternary ice age it has lasted 2.6 million years, so far Greenland and Antarctica used to be tropical covered in forest the best thing that could happen would be for all that ice to melt and the forest to return
The know-nothing wrt science cannot understand it is the rate of change that is the problem. Animals & plants take 10x thousands yrs to evolve, rapid climate change will 1st devastate habitat, crops. Billions will starve from famines, water shortages leading to wars & destroy economies. Massive human suffering.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I hate to say it though, they did indeed state that. Let's go even further back. In Dec 2007 a "climate scientist" by the name Wieslaw Maslowski claimed the ice would be gone by 2013. Look, I get it It feels good to be afraid, to have something to talk about with your friends, and to have that good feeling when you are "doing something" to save the world. Problem is, I'm getting old and I have seen an awfully lot of "end of the world" predictions come and go.
@@ickster23 The point here is not to take any one person to seriously unless they have a proven track record of being accurate. Even then that individual could be wrong because nobody is perfect. So I don't too attached to anyone says. I listen to a lot of different sources to get better informed.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I agree. Unfortunately many in power, the media, and our institutions do take them seriously. So seriously that they then codify their views and opinions in law. The other interesting thing is that when they are wrong and do great harm through their legislation, they are not held accountable. We saw this with forced sterilizations, forced lobotomies, Indian reservation, the "child scoop" of the 1970s in Canada, forced residential schools, the vast sums of money misappropriated for Y2K, etc. Most of humanities greatest tragedies are "justified" by the "expert opinions" of the time. For some reason, our current regimes, and those that support them, believe they are very much smarter than previous generations. You saw that with "quantitative easing" during the pandemic response. Printing money has always resulted in high inflation, yet somehow our current regimes, and those that support them, believe they could "do it better". What's amazing to me is that they aren't even bright enough to realize this is a key contributor to our inflation issues now. Yet somehow this same bunch of rulers, and their supporters, is going to "fix the planet"? If that doesn't sound warning bells, then I don't know what will.
@@ickster23"He became well known in 2007 for stating that the Arctic Ocean might be nearly ice free in the summer as early as 2013. " Wikipedia He's an oceanographer, who studied Greenland, and who made a controversial prediction on a topic he's not an expert in. Why did the media or you pay any attention to him? Science is a process of expert concensus based on data and its analysis. It's not a perfect process, if for no other reason than because humans are imperfect, but it's the best process we know of to understand the world around us. The scientific community concensus is clear that climate change is happening, and it's impacts are being and will continue to to be significant unless we address it's causes.
When folks ask why the ice capes are melting, their not. There never was a Ice breaker 150 years ago, now there are 1000's that never let the polar caps reharden. Think about it.
My predictions for 2033. An Antarctic glacier will enter the sea as fast as Usain Bolt can run. Greenland will have a river equal to the Amazon flowing into the sea. Any comment?
@@-LightningRod- Easy to imagine. When there were no humans around were there fires? Who put them out? They grew and burned until there was torrential rain, winter arrived, or they came up against a massive lake.
@@anthonymorris5084 Well,..friend gigantic fires like we are seeing today leave fingerprints that are easy to identify, ...where on Earth do you know of any fires ever being recorded of this size? There are very few fire incidences on Earth that leave marks like the fires of today will leave. It's just science.friend.
Volcanism wasn't mentioned because it isn't an issue melting ice to any significant degree in Antarctica and none at all in Greenland. In Antarctica there are only two active volcanoes. Mt Erebus on an island in the Ross Sea which is only occasionally active and not for very long. The other is on an island off the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. That volcano hasn't erupted since 1970. As for Greenland there has been no volcanic activity on the island since BEFORE the Pliocene which began 5.3 million years ago. There is large mantle plume beneath Greenland, but it is too far below to influence any melting of glaciers. That was according to NASA.
This is excerpt is from an article dated April 4, 2023. "A total of 270 million tons of lost glaciers terminating into lakes in the greater Himalaya between 2000 and 2020 was not measured in the previous estimation, an underestimation of approximately 6.5%, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience on Monday". Now compare that to the estimated average 290 BILLION tonnes lost from Greenland EVERY YEAR in the last 20 years. There is no comparison in total ice loss. That figure doesn't show the high level of ice loss from Greenland which occured in 2019 when it lost over 600 billion tonnes in one year.
I'm not suggesting what Jason is saying is incorrect. All I'm suggesting is that research funding will be significantly greater if he points out negatives and links them with man made emissions. It has now reached a point where it is very difficult to believe anyone. The scientific community appears compromised. Otherwise, why are so many scientists scared to speak up and so many others have been cancelled by social media and others contracts terminated at many universities. Because healthy debate has been stifled, believing people like Jason Box becomes harder every day.
Climate change not only refers to global warming but global cooling too. Most people wouldn't know global cooling if it was happening around them. Look at the real world data. La Nina causes drought and record snow packs. We have had La Nina 50% of the time last 25 winters. Climate models never predict La Nina only El Nino. Or maybe it's predicting La Nina rather than El Nino. El Nino the crops grow good. El Nino its dry and snowy winters. Mammoth mountain still has 500% of it's snow pack. Antarctica and Siberia just set record cold temps for July. The coldest temperature ever recorded July 14. So all the moisture is evaporating from the equator and going where? Record low sea ice shows the fresh water at poles aren't melting. These means glaciers are growing and so are deserts. Antarctica and Arctic are biggest deserts on the planet.
Humans must be wired to more appreciate male-female presentation couplings. It is so commonplace as to fly beneath the radar of the awareness of it's significance. Male-male and female-female can work, but famale-male seems to work best and appeal to most. Has DrGilbz and Jason Box ever been on the same continent at the same time? May your paring go on to many more RUclips views, subscriptions, comments and likes. You and your editor do great work.
Your right Al Gore said ice free artic by 2013 then 14 then 2015 and got given his Nobel prize plus his book sales are ok as well. You both going to write the follow book?
Funny how climate deniers like yourself repeatedly quote Al Gore even though he is not a climate scientist. And actually it was not an unreasonable claim because his statement came on 2009 two years after the Arctic hit a low of 4.16 km². And this was over a million km² lower then the average of the previous century. The point here is predicting the future is hard. You also are ignoring the dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice and lastly when you repeatedly cite only one source you have proven how little you understand climate change nor are you aware of your own observation bias!! Isn't it great when someone points out your short comings free of charge!?
Point to ponder. I reside in South Africa, 🌍👈, at the bottom, and have noticed a shift in both the🌞and🌕s orbit. The moon rises from my South South East and sets to my Southwest West whereas the sun rises from East Southeast and sets to the North Northwest. I have this idea that the poles are now affecting both moon and sun. South pole regulating the moon, and North pole the Sun. Just a theory at this point, though having seen the sun set from Australia as its mid day for me.
I'd encourage you to learn about the orbits of the earth, sun, and moon relative to each other. The moon orbits on a 5 degree offset, which is in no significant way affected by the ice sheets in the poles.
On July 10, 1913, Oscar Denton, a U.S. Weather Bureau observer stationed at Greenland Ranch, in Death Valley, California, claimed the mercury hit an astonishing 134 degrees Fahrenheit, Don't fear the fear mongers
Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is about 90 Gt/yr (Otosaka et al, 2023). It's total mass is 24 million Gt, so it loses less than 0.0004% of its mass annually. It contributes 0.36mm to sea-level rise per year (that's pitiful). At the current rate it will take well over ¼ million years to melt, but we are due for two more glacial periods in that time. The ice is here to stay.
@artstation707 Yes, but my wants and desires vanish into insignificance in the face of the forces involved. Observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade. (Andreasen et al, 2023). So you could calculate the volume of the ice gained using the formula: Volume = Mass ÷ Density (assume Density of glacier ice 0.9167 Gt/km³). This would give you (well not you obviously) an Ice Gain Volume ≈721km³. That's how much extra of the lovely white stuff there is around Antarctica. Imagine standing in the centre of this extra ice. It would stretch beyond the horizon in all directions and would be 45 storeys high.
And at this very moment in another RUclips thread I'm trying to convince some climate deniers that data beats their feelings every day and twice on Sundays... Denial is a heluva drug.
@@TopHour Meleanted is not a word though melanated is, but what does that and natural selection have to do with the context of this video?? Also what is going back to normal? It's not Greenland which is losing ice at an accelerated rate. Nor Antarctica which is now realizing the lowest sea ice extent on record for reasons not yet clear.
Everyone is blaming cars for the weather...dogs darting. Lol .To me it is something else!! Oceans warming up from oil spills and volcanoes increasing...and the solar flares increasing. There is more here than car fumes!!
Allow me to unpack that for you. Oil spills pollute the environment. They do not contribute to climate change. Volcanoes do produce CO2 but it is usually marginal compared to the SO2 that they produce. It still takes an enormous amount of SO2 injected high into the atmosphere to cause a cooling of the climate such as happened with Mt Pinatubo in 1991 which cooled the climate 1 F for a year. As for the CO2 produced by volcanoes that is minuscule compared to amount produced by human activity. Volcanoes produce 100-400 million tonnes of CO2 in a given year while all human activity produced 36 BILLION tonnes of CO2!! That is like as much as 100 times as much. Human burning of oil, coal, natural gas, gasoline, kerosene or Diesel all produce CO2. There is more, but that is the basics. Now you know!
Hahahaha, that's a lot of disinformation for one video, ever hear of tidal gauges, over 150 years of global data - no extreme or rapid sea level rise 🤣😂
It will be interesting to see if "El Nino" become a permanent state rather than just passing phase. If this heat up is followed by more heat instead of cyclic cooling even the least conservative models will be understating the rate of change. So many tipping points and so many feedback loops are at the edge of running away into an exponential chain that it is very hard to grasp how fast this will slide. It seems certain that we aren't going to slow down the rate of growth of our C02 outputs. Methane from Permafrost, reduced reflective white ice, huge ocean temperature increase, boreal and amazon forests in decline. There really isn't any good news on the horizon.
its a done deal friend
we won't see much as drought and famine collapses civilization soon. I realize that the sea-ice melt is the inevitable of destruction of life on Earth - but in terms of "seeing" we are dependent on human civilization.
Solar maximum in play,normal.
@@jeffdunnell6693 normal except the stratosphere is cooling, proving it's definitely not the sun radiation directly heating earth - rather it's what Joseph Fourier in 1824 called "dark heat" (now called infrared radiation). Wow - you're only 200 years behind on your science - even Fourier realized that "increased industrial activity" would increase the "dark heat" and thus heat up Earth even more.
@@jeffdunnell6693If that's the case we're doubly fucked
Brilliant about a race to the bottom! I'm one of your faithful youtube-students. Right now I fear a lot of tipping-points are competing and are about to fall together like dominoes. (Rockström et al recently depicted 1.5C as "safe", OMG!) I know there are a lot of factors, but when sea-ice goes in both areas appears to be crucial. If sea-ice around Antarctica reach less than 16 million sqkm in September it'll risk diminishing to zero in February. In an intense El Nino with record-high sea-temperatures that may create the inevitable long-run turning-point in this fight among loosers, with some help from Twaites, Pine et al and once more generate the frequent phrase "sooner than expected" from you scientists. In turn, it may also dramatically slow the world-wide Meriodonal Overturning Circulation. Good luck then, Corrals, The Amazon and modern civilization! However, the wind-driven Gulf-Stream will together with the f**ked-up Jet-stream and overall global heating not give neither The Arctic sea-ice nor Greenland any rest. Let's hope the fight between the ice-masses are more drawn-out. Thanks for your work!
Total nonsense. Do you even think about how much Ice is there? Antarctica is larger than America. Do some real research instead of believing what the media trots out.
Well....that all sounds very Alarming....
Always great to see another fellow "woke" armchair climate nerd! Now, put this into your future-viewer: it takes 344 BTUs to melt ONE GRAM of ice and 1.2 TRILLION TONS of global ice are melting annually, so how much mostly human fossil fuel burning heat generation is being absorbed by the incredible ice melting RIGHT NOW? And, I know you'll get this one, what happens to ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET when ALL of ice melts in the coming century? Venus 2.0?
Thank you both for your research and videos.
Excellent series! Well done to you and @DrGilbz!
Antarctica really seems to be catching up to Greenland this year. The lack of sea ice recovery is startling !
What’s happening in Antarctica is very alarming. It’s been setting record lows for sea ice every day for months. I worry that we’ve crossed a tipping point.
@@benjamincornia7311 Ha Ha Ha.
@@paulwilson2651 We are over six standard deviations away from the 45 year average. To say that this is unprecedented would be a vast understatement.
@@benjamincornia7311 Well funny how this years Artic ice is at a 17 year high. Do some proper research instead of taking onboard what our lying media spews out.
@@benjamincornia7311 it’s strange how we had record low temperatures a couple of years ago and a net gain of ice volume over the last 40 years but that’s not mentioned anywhere. Now we have weather that’s meets the narrative better it’s all over the news
Thank you so much! I’ve been working for clean energy for nearly 20 years - the fossil fuel industry is simply evil.
The fossil fuel industry is responsible for an incalculable number of benefits for humanity. Do you even have the slightest idea of the life lottery you have won being born in this time period? The history of humanity prior to fossil fuels is one of malnutrition, starvation, mud huts, and dying from treatable diseases. You literally could not get through your day without fossil fuels and we certainly couldn't feed 8 billion people without them.
There is something problematic and askew when individuals’ of a species don’t have an instinctive desire to ensure the well-being of their offspring…some of their internal “ wiring” has fried! Maybe by greed or selfishness?
@@pohkeee It's simply your misinterpretation. Maybe what you believe that is threatening or harming them, actually isn't. Maybe others are promoting better solutions that are in the best interest of their offspring that you simply don't understand or agree with.
JB & team are to my humble knowledge the most under-rated climate and antarctic scientists I know of. Great video team including heaps of helpful picturesque explanations along the way. However, when it comes to tackle GHG emissions we are running out of options I like to think. Wind, Solar & batteries will not move the needle according to Mark P. Mills (Manhattan Institute). The time span to develop, test & commission new nuclear PP on any significant scale takes 10 probably 15 years if we decide to start today. Also, does nuclear work in times of global conflict and cooling water scarcity ...? Cheers
The answer, surprisingly, is more fossil fuels. Inexpensive reliable energy is paramount for a thriving economy and a modern world. It is economic growth and the modern world that keeps you safe. Fossil fuels mitigate and neutralize threats from warming. Threats from everything. Meanwhile poverty kills millions. Climate policies that deprive humanity of inexpensive reliable energy induce greater poverty and threaten lives. The answer to warming is not more poverty.
@@anthonymorris5084🙄
@@anthonymorris5084 Analogy... Here's some poison that will make you feel better right now, but in the long run will kill you (and likely everyone else and many other species as well).
When Thwaites and Pine Island get going, when mountains of ice are collapsing into the sea at a go...what a glorious time to be alive.
im Excited
Not gonna happen
@@tmahe28 That's possible as well, Darn.
Love this idea! Thanks for this.
Here is the answer. The ice balance on Antarctica is growing. Yes, part of it, esp. the parts over volcanic vents, are melting, but others areas are growing faster.
The long term keeps arriving much faster than expected in Climate Crisis but you didn't mention that we'll be running out of (Summer) Arctic Sea Ice in the mid 2030's which I'd think should keep Greenland ahead for a while.
I have it on good authority that the Arctic will be completely free of ice by 2012. Um, wait.
@@anthonymorris5084 No you have it from a sensationalist newspaper headline
@@Timlagor Anthony gets most of his information from sensationalist newspaper headlines. Or today's equivalent Click-bait video titles. He doesn't actually read anything or watch anything from good authorities.
There might be less sea ice this year but Antarctica is getting colder. The whole of East and West Antarctica is cooling, and has been for 40 years. East Antarctica has cooled by an impressive 0.7°C per decade. Resulting in an overall substantial and statistically significant decline of 2.8°C since 1980. So much for "Global" warming. I am referring to a paper by Zhu et al (2021) that looked at the reanalysed ERA5 satellite dataset. Check out table 4. Furthermore, the Antarctic Peninsula ice has since been shown to be on the increase “The eastern Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet has grown in area over the last 20 years, due to changing wind and sea ice patterns.” (University of Cambridge, May, 2022.)
"Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade." (Andreasen et al, 2023). They use MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica from 2009 to 2019.
Excellent, it is nice to get a comparison of the two polar regions. Antarctica is struggling to reform ice at the moment. Is this a serious danger to the Ice Shelfs during the melt season and North Atlantic SST are high at the moment will this effect Greenland ice loss this year.
It’s summer ice melts
I am wondering whether you two have thought of doing a public Q&A on these issues for non scientists? I also watched the the artic system climate catastrophe long version and had quite a few basic questions to ask. TBH the hockey stick extension blew my mind. I suppose like many others I move between thinking we can do stuff to at least mitigate this and what on earth can we do to mitigate this - we are stuffed. The question of what do we do it about it would be a separate although obviously crucial discussion as well.
Yes for example the US Army plans to be all electric by 2030. So obviously people are trying to "do stuff." Way too little too late but at least people can dream. hahaha.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I'll believe that when I see it.
Great idea it balances your site and provides information breakup to digestible portions
That's what we really need to know, which one is going to disappear first? By then we'll mostly be dead, but I'm still going to be checking to see who won the jar!
Great concept and execution, thanks!
You are so good at these things!
Wouldn't it be more useful to make this a three-way comparison, separating the West Antarctic ice sheet (resting on an archipelago and more exposed to underwater melting) from the East Arntarctic ice sheet (resting on more solid contental land mass)?
Good point. We get into East vs West Antarctica here in Ep 4 ruclips.net/video/QP70wcJ-VLU/видео.html
@JasonBoxClimate , would it make it any better to include yet another by including the Himalayas?
@@monkeyfist.348 As I understand it even the ice lost from all glaciers outside of Greenland and Antarctica does not come close to the ice loss from either of those land masses.
@michaeldeierhoi4096 , sure, but that wasn't the reason to add it. It is the third polar cap in a way, but it may just be the first big loser. The meltwaters there directly impact many millions of people, so the context of melting has more impact. Including the third pole, could draw more people in to hear the overall message.
@@monkeyfist.348 That's a good point. The millions of people in mountains of the Himalayas are indeed at serious risk and not just from the water supply drying up, but also from natural dams that can collapse releasing a flood downstream putting countless people at risk.
I was already subbed to Jason's channel, and I noticed that I was unsubbed. Hmmm.
Yes, Greenland is losing bigly now. But with what's happening in the Ross Sea, and it looks like it's cutting across the Nickerson and Thwaites and Pine Island...there is open water where there should be fast ice. And on a clear day with NASA Nighttime layer, one sees open water surrounding the whole continent. This cannot be a good sign.
Not to politely disagree, but we might see Antarctica get the hiccoughs very soon.
Excellent,....please put the last five seconds on at the end for a Full Minute
Cool ear rings
3:40 Glaciers don't retreat, they can't go uphill.
However the front can melt quicker than the ice supply from the rear giving the illusion that it's retreating.
In a literal sense of the word the the glaciers do not retreat, however they do retreat in that the leading edge of the glaciers melts back this 'retreating' up the valley that it descended originally.
Many many thanks. The sea level rise as bad as it is, does not make me nearly as nervous as the collapse of the AMOC. My thought there is that, while the equator regions still gets hotter and more and more inhabitable not only for humand kind (we do not deserve better), an new ice age will come from the north eventually smashing life between hammer and anvil. Cod fish in the Baltic Sea is telling the story in its own version. The surface warming reaches deeper and deeper water levels while the influx of supernutritious rivers by eutrophication of arable land make aerobic microbes in the low levels of the sea use up the oxygen.
What I do not get in the AMOC is why the influx of fresh meltwater of Greenland does slow it down. As far as I have learnt, a big driver of the AMOC is the sinking down of the more salty water from the equator reaching "Greenland" where it sinks down compared to the surrounding "fresher" water. If Greenland ice melting adds more fresh water to the surrounding water of the AMOC (I believe so as the melt water will enter the sea at the coast of Grennland and not in the center of the AMOC) the difference in salt concentration increases and the AMOC should not slow down but speed up.
Anyone enlighten me please.
Basically the mechanism is that the fresh water flowing down from Greenland and the Arctic is less dense then the salt water. As the Gulf Stream moves east toward northern Europe the lighter resh water interferes in the normal flow of the AMOC. Whether the AMOC could actually stop is up for debate and it is not yet clear either what the consequences of a slowing AMOC would mean. I'm sure Jason Box has more clarity on this subject.
Information is important but how do we change human culture? I was asking this question about climate change in 1987. My polymath conclusion is that we need to upgrade domesticated humans into advanced ones. To begin we need to master human sound. Become an overtone singer. It will take 3 years but then, if others also advance to become overtone singers, we can start a cultural revolution that gives us what we need socially to be humans, while advancing our minds. There are 4 ways to advance. Voice, movement, thought and knowledge. Though my friends and relatives have been educated about climate change for 35 years, they do nothing to prevent it because they believe their contribution is so small it doesn't matter. So a billion people all break the rule because everyone else is breaking it. It is another 'tragedy of the commons. So skill up!
Okay, I bite. How do I become an overtone singer? Why only 3 years? Is there a book? RUclips channel?
Wow, found a polyphonic overtone singer who was amazing, but I don't know that many people will do this. Very cool, but conscious breathwork is my personal preference for waking up, and it doesn't take nearly as long. Jeru Kabbal in case you're interested.
Gosh I sure hope Greenland and Antarctic don't get covered in insects, plants, birds and mammals. Oh the horror.
looking forward to the data extrapolation coherent to potential solar forcing.
the only reason Greenland and Antarctica have ice sheets is because we are currently in a major ice age
called the Quaternary ice age
it has lasted 2.6 million years, so far
Greenland and Antarctica used to be tropical
covered in forest
the best thing that could happen
would be for all that ice to melt
and the forest to return
Hope you don't live in a flood plain and many cities underwater but if your OK with that.
It’s the Anthropocene now since at least the fossil fuel era started
The know-nothing wrt science cannot understand it is the rate of change that is the problem. Animals & plants take 10x thousands yrs to evolve, rapid climate change will 1st devastate habitat, crops. Billions will starve from famines, water shortages leading to wars & destroy economies. Massive human suffering.
@@PhillipMoore-m5p
*you’re
@@JasonBoxClimateFossilocene
Wait, I thought the ice caps were gone in 2020. That's what I'd been told for years back in the 2000's.
Nobody ever said that ice caps would be gone by 2020. Definitely no climate scientists said that.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I hate to say it though, they did indeed state that. Let's go even further back. In Dec 2007 a "climate scientist" by the name Wieslaw Maslowski claimed the ice would be gone by 2013.
Look, I get it It feels good to be afraid, to have something to talk about with your friends, and to have that good feeling when you are "doing something" to save the world. Problem is, I'm getting old and I have seen an awfully lot of "end of the world" predictions come and go.
@@ickster23 The point here is not to take any one person to seriously unless they have a proven track record of being accurate. Even then that individual could be wrong because nobody is perfect. So I don't too attached to anyone says. I listen to a lot of different sources to get better informed.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I agree. Unfortunately many in power, the media, and our institutions do take them seriously. So seriously that they then codify their views and opinions in law. The other interesting thing is that when they are wrong and do great harm through their legislation, they are not held accountable. We saw this with forced sterilizations, forced lobotomies, Indian reservation, the "child scoop" of the 1970s in Canada, forced residential schools, the vast sums of money misappropriated for Y2K, etc. Most of humanities greatest tragedies are "justified" by the "expert opinions" of the time. For some reason, our current regimes, and those that support them, believe they are very much smarter than previous generations. You saw that with "quantitative easing" during the pandemic response. Printing money has always resulted in high inflation, yet somehow our current regimes, and those that support them, believe they could "do it better". What's amazing to me is that they aren't even bright enough to realize this is a key contributor to our inflation issues now. Yet somehow this same bunch of rulers, and their supporters, is going to "fix the planet"? If that doesn't sound warning bells, then I don't know what will.
@@ickster23"He became well known in 2007 for stating that the Arctic Ocean might be nearly ice free in the summer as early as 2013. " Wikipedia
He's an oceanographer, who studied Greenland, and who made a controversial prediction on a topic he's not an expert in. Why did the media or you pay any attention to him?
Science is a process of expert concensus based on data and its analysis. It's not a perfect process, if for no other reason than because humans are imperfect, but it's the best process we know of to understand the world around us. The scientific community concensus is clear that climate change is happening, and it's impacts are being and will continue to to be significant unless we address it's causes.
When folks ask why the ice capes are melting, their not. There never was a Ice breaker 150 years ago, now there are 1000's that never let the polar caps reharden. Think about it.
Shes a Champion..
Count me in that looserville census 😁👍🏻
Antarctic sea ice is off the charts - on the low side
My predictions for 2033.
An Antarctic glacier will enter the sea as fast as Usain Bolt can run.
Greenland will have a river equal to the Amazon flowing into the sea.
Any comment?
could you repeat that,... currently running for my life in front off "The Largest Fires on Earth recorded by Mankind"
@@-LightningRod- The key being "recorded".
@@anthonymorris5084 hard to imagine a fire larger under any circumstances except maybe a giant space rock hurtling into the Planet
@@-LightningRod- Easy to imagine. When there were no humans around were there fires? Who put them out? They grew and burned until there was torrential rain, winter arrived, or they came up against a massive lake.
@@anthonymorris5084
Well,..friend gigantic fires like we are seeing today leave fingerprints that are easy to identify, ...where on Earth do you know of any fires ever being recorded of this size?
There are very few fire incidences on Earth that leave marks like the fires of today will leave. It's just science.friend.
So interesting that you can cover these two without even a mention that there is volcanic activity beneath the areas that are melting. ?????
Volcanism wasn't mentioned because it isn't an issue melting ice to any significant degree in Antarctica and none at all in Greenland.
In Antarctica there are only two active volcanoes. Mt Erebus on an island in the Ross Sea which is only occasionally active and not for very long. The other is on an island off the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. That volcano hasn't erupted since 1970.
As for Greenland there has been no volcanic activity on the island since BEFORE the Pliocene which began 5.3 million years ago. There is large mantle plume beneath Greenland, but it is too far below to influence any melting of glaciers. That was according to NASA.
We are the biggest looser here!
I heard that mountain glaciers are the biggest losers of ice. Especially the Himalayas and the Alps.
This is excerpt is from an article dated April 4, 2023. "A total of 270 million tons of lost glaciers terminating into lakes in the greater Himalaya between 2000 and 2020 was not measured in the previous estimation, an underestimation of approximately 6.5%, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience on Monday".
Now compare that to the estimated average 290 BILLION tonnes lost from Greenland EVERY YEAR in the last 20 years. There is no comparison in total ice loss. That figure doesn't show the high level of ice loss from Greenland which occured in 2019 when it lost over 600 billion tonnes in one year.
I wonder if this year's Antarctic ice sheet surface melting accelerated phase?
I'm not suggesting what Jason is saying is incorrect. All I'm suggesting is that research funding will be significantly greater if he points out negatives and links them with man made emissions.
It has now reached a point where it is very difficult to believe anyone. The scientific community appears compromised.
Otherwise, why are so many scientists scared to speak up and so many others have been cancelled by social media and others contracts terminated at many universities.
Because healthy debate has been stifled, believing people like Jason Box becomes harder every day.
Oh well, build your home in the mountains.
Climate change not only refers to global warming but global cooling too. Most people wouldn't know global cooling if it was happening around them. Look at the real world data. La Nina causes drought and record snow packs. We have had La Nina 50% of the time last 25 winters. Climate models never predict La Nina only El Nino. Or maybe it's predicting La Nina rather than El Nino. El Nino the crops grow good. El Nino its dry and snowy winters. Mammoth mountain still has 500% of it's snow pack. Antarctica and Siberia just set record cold temps for July. The coldest temperature ever recorded July 14. So all the moisture is evaporating from the equator and going where? Record low sea ice shows the fresh water at poles aren't melting. These means glaciers are growing and so are deserts. Antarctica and Arctic are biggest deserts on the planet.
Over the last 40 years has Antarctic ice grown or shrunk?
I can answer this question all of them eventually if we are still here interacting with nature
Humans must be wired to more appreciate male-female presentation couplings. It is so commonplace as to fly beneath the radar of the awareness of it's significance. Male-male and female-female can work, but famale-male seems to work best and appeal to most.
Has DrGilbz and Jason Box ever been on the same continent at the same time?
May your paring go on to many more RUclips views, subscriptions, comments and likes. You and your editor do great work.
Your right Al Gore said ice free artic by 2013 then 14 then 2015 and got given his Nobel prize plus his book sales are ok as well. You both going to write the follow book?
Funny how climate deniers like yourself repeatedly quote Al Gore even though he is not a climate scientist. And actually it was not an unreasonable claim because his statement came on 2009 two years after the Arctic hit a low of 4.16 km². And this was over a million km² lower then the average of the previous century.
The point here is predicting the future is hard. You also are ignoring the dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice and lastly when you repeatedly cite only one source you have proven how little you understand climate change nor are you aware of your own observation bias!! Isn't it great when someone points out your short comings free of charge!?
Ok, but which will be the biggest loser in the long term?
The slightly annoying backing music sounds likes it's been plagiarised from _Running up that Hill_
Point to ponder. I reside in South Africa, 🌍👈, at the bottom, and have noticed a shift in both the🌞and🌕s orbit. The moon rises from my South South East and sets to my Southwest West whereas the sun rises from East Southeast and sets to the North Northwest. I have this idea that the poles are now affecting both moon and sun. South pole regulating the moon, and North pole the Sun. Just a theory at this point, though having seen the sun set from Australia as its mid day for me.
I'd encourage you to learn about the orbits of the earth, sun, and moon relative to each other. The moon orbits on a 5 degree offset, which is in no significant way affected by the ice sheets in the poles.
More doom forecasts but not one has actually materialised
On July 10, 1913, Oscar Denton, a U.S. Weather Bureau observer stationed at Greenland Ranch, in Death Valley, California, claimed the mercury hit an astonishing 134 degrees Fahrenheit, Don't fear the fear mongers
I love a good fiction story 😅
Trick question, right. 😂
She said "Ocea"
Ha!
Antarctic ice sheet mass loss is about 90 Gt/yr (Otosaka et al, 2023). It's total mass is 24 million Gt, so it loses less than 0.0004% of its mass annually. It contributes 0.36mm to sea-level rise per year (that's pitiful). At the current rate it will take well over ¼ million years to melt, but we are due for two more glacial periods in that time. The ice is here to stay.
Don't you want to see what's under there?
@artstation707 Yes, but my wants and desires vanish into insignificance in the face of the forces involved. Observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade. (Andreasen et al, 2023). So you could calculate the volume of the ice gained using the formula: Volume = Mass ÷ Density (assume Density of glacier ice 0.9167 Gt/km³). This would give you (well not you obviously) an Ice Gain Volume ≈721km³. That's how much extra of the lovely white stuff there is around Antarctica. Imagine standing in the centre of this extra ice. It would stretch beyond the horizon in all directions and would be 45 storeys high.
@@OldScientist A simple, yes, but my wild pedantic assumption precludes it, would suffice. Garbage in, garbage out, they say.
And at this very moment in another RUclips thread I'm trying to convince some climate deniers that data beats their feelings every day and twice on Sundays... Denial is a heluva drug.
This has to be getting shadow banned
Ice melting is a good thing
In a cold drink yes, but not from a glacier when it melting at a record rate!!
@michaeldeierhoi4096 yes, it's going back to normal, natural selection picks meleanated individuals
@@TopHour Meleanted is not a word though melanated is, but what does that and natural selection have to do with the context of this video??
Also what is going back to normal? It's not Greenland which is losing ice at an accelerated rate. Nor Antarctica which is now realizing the lowest sea ice extent on record for reasons not yet clear.
Im also a loser wooohooo
SHIESTER
SuperShiester
🍿🍿🍿
None.
Everyone is blaming cars for the weather...dogs darting. Lol
.To me it is something else!!
Oceans warming up from oil spills and volcanoes increasing...and the solar flares increasing.
There is more here than car fumes!!
Allow me to unpack that for you. Oil spills pollute the environment. They do not contribute to climate change. Volcanoes do produce CO2 but it is usually marginal compared to the SO2 that they produce. It still takes an enormous amount of SO2 injected high into the atmosphere to cause a cooling of the climate such as happened with Mt Pinatubo in 1991 which cooled the climate 1 F for a year.
As for the CO2 produced by volcanoes that is minuscule compared to amount produced by human activity. Volcanoes produce 100-400 million tonnes of CO2 in a given year while all human activity produced 36 BILLION tonnes of CO2!! That is like as much as 100 times as much.
Human burning of oil, coal, natural gas, gasoline, kerosene or Diesel all produce CO2. There is more, but that is the basics. Now you know!
Hahahaha, that's a lot of disinformation for one video, ever hear of tidal gauges, over 150 years of global data - no extreme or rapid sea level rise 🤣😂
is that true?
liar
bull crap...sea levels are the same today as 1850