Great talk, great work. Fellow climate warrior here. Not a scientist, but a videographer and support staff for research teams (electrician). 8 months in Antarctica (McMurdo, Shackleton, WAIS Divide). Currently working on a project documenting communities that are about to be lost, from Miami to the Marshal Islands to the people living in the mangrove island and river deltas of S America. Putting a human face on it, and documenting the cultures we are about to lose so my children will know the world we lost.
Five years later: A quick perusal of the tide gauge graphs for Hoek van Holland, New York, Key West, Honolulu, San Diego, et al, shows us the same steady sea level rise (around 1" per decade) for the last 150 years. Despite all the earnest alarmism there has been no change in the rate of sea level rise. If anything, tide gauge graphs hint that sea level rise may be slowing down - but the trend is too short lived to be certain.
Ouch ;) But yeah, i checked around 150 gauges all around the world the other day.. Only a handfull show any form of acceleration, many many more show slowing down or negative (nothern europe for example). Most show a boring slow and steady increase for the past 100-150 years.
@@kirklaird8345 yeah, I stumbled across the satellite data and it said we're experiencing a rapid acceleration. But it also said that the fastest sea level increase was in the Baltic ocean, and I know Sweden/Finland etc all have sea level decrease since thousands of years, so I figured something was off with the satellite data and just kept checking different gauges 😂
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan Ouch yourself. Sea level has in fact risen by 9" since the late 1800's due to anthropogenic climate change. Abrupt climate change does not care if you believe in it or not, it is going to take your life anyway in the next fear years.
In the mid 80s the glaciers in Norway was advancing due to bad summers and lot of precipitation in the winters. Many of them have not receded back to pre 1980 level. One example is Bøyabreen. It is also important to know that for 1000 years ago there was no glaciers in Norway and the tree line was higher.
@@samlair3342 Except there wasn't the pollution then, and, whether global warming is real or not, the pollution of the seas, land and atmosphere surely has to stop, before everything dies, and sea-level rise won't matter then, will it? Time for Humans to clean up their act anyway? I like James Lovelock's idea - Gaia is a self-healing system if it is given a chance.
1988: Maldives in the Indian Ocean with the highest point about 2 meters will be underwater in 30 years due to global warming. Emergency evacuation of 200,000 residents needed! 2018: Maldives, population over 400,000 and growing, no apparent (tiny amount) sea level rise. Real estate prices up, but still Maldives' highest point about 2 meters.
International Airport just built... businesses booming, international business investments booming.. tourism booming, population booming. But I could be wrong... got my info off you tube, just like everybody else !
@@jiritichy7967 Good point. I think the 2 meter mark is above high tide. Since they are around 3 degrees above the equator, the amount of storm activity would be minimal.
Not sure if it was the Maldives or another similar tiny island group that they measured again.. Turns out that most of the islands had grown.. So much for the experts who said the islands would be gone by now..
Why isn't anyone talking about over population and over consumption? That's the core of the issue. Everything mentioned in the video are just symptoms of the underlying problem of population.
@jonny the boy hmmm the idea seems fine...but having a lack of new tax payers to support the aging population will make this not work. The country needs population growth to keep running...the real reason why conservatives want to ban abortion.
@@jbv776 the planet is cooling & has been for the past 5 years, greenpeace went to see & photograph the melting ice sheet, they never got there because their ship got stuck in the ice and all personnel had to be rescued by helicopter. Try listening to a scientist who’s not on the government’s payroll.
of course none of this takes into account the massive mass that has been lifted off the plates cause land rise, like in Sweden where a certain mountain is rising 1 metre per year because of released pressure after ice melt
If the world is compressed in some area then it would bulge in others. If it rises where it was compressed then it will fall where it bulged. The overall volume will be the same.
I have gone to the Atabasca Glacier in Canada, near Banff & Jasper, there were 2 trips about 12 years appart. I can clearly see that the at least 100 Meters of less ice on the Glacier over about a dozen years. This is point for global warming, the glacers is getting smaller. There was a very small musem at the gift shop that had small twisted remains of cedar tree that once grew where the glacier sitting. The tree once grew where there is currently a glacier. So once the earth was much warmer. Therefore you can pick the event that supports your view. There earth does change.
@@davebuchan81 Is faith fact? I though it by nature, couldn't claim as fact as it's a claim alone? Everyone needs to take action man and that also means WHO you vote for. Vote NO to any dinosaur corrupt fossil in power. Far too many of those denying toe-rags in power. Get RID of them.
There is of course many examples of mountain glaciers and coastal glaciers that have tree stumps under them. These glaciers have advanced and receded over the last millennia. Of course this data points to variability as the constant. I an in no doubt of Anthropogenic contribution to the modest warming we are experiencing. I believe the models are wrong and vastly exaggerate warming in their projections. Data has been manipulated to try support a curve that correlates to CO2. There is no crisis there is no emergency. All the weather hype that is contradicted by pre-1950 weather events before CO2 started being appreciably more than the notional PreIndustrial. I have been to Svalbard and skid many glaciers over the years, skied over the alps on the Haut route and seen first hand what is going on and I still ski these areas contrary to AlGores Noble peace Prize warnings.... I live in a town that has been a trading harbour since 1205 when it received its Royal Charter. In all the old and ancient maps, charts and photos there is no evidence of material sea rise. It is at best the gentle rise from exiting the glacial maxima as we are still in. All this alarmism is trying I am amazed how many lemmings follow the alarmism and are unable to judge reality as they live it. It would take 5000 years for Greenland and The Antarctic to melt IF there was significant warming. Personally I believe we will run out of hydrocarbons long before we get to 1000 ppm CO2 a level that C3 photosynthesis evolved in and is optimised for. Nature speaks as to what the correct CO2 level should be.
Its amazing how “climate scientists” are blaming the second most important cycle for life on this planet. The first of course, is photosynthesis. The second, is the carbon cycle. This planet consumes carbon, and emits carbon. It has to. Otherwise, there is no life. As the earth “warms up”, the third most important cycle, comes into play, ( water cycle), more water is saturated into our atmosphere, cooling, and cleansing as it falls. These cycles will continue, glaciers will receed, and grow, in cycles that may make you uncomfortable. Tell that to the people, who built those structures in 165ft of the Mediterranean. They moved. Because it took many decades to rise. Diring these times of rising, the planet gets greener because of more bio-available carbon, and water. Instead of playing the blame game, maybe you should consider the idea of irrigating, and growing an area of land for climate moderation use. Possibly growing food, so the poorer countries can become less violent, and more productive, while becoming more educated. I’m not saying to just let companies pollute, im saying: help these companies become cleaner and productive. We should be as good gardeners: water when needed, fertilize in the minimum amounts, keep making clean cars. Expand our electrical vehicle capabilities. Innovate! Stop fighting!
Absolutely. I had to freeze frame. YOu would think the video editor would realise these things? A Video game scene flash rate are not good for the brain at any age.
If you look at his graph at 13:20, you see that his projection is that sea level rise starts increasing more quickly at around year 2050. I focus on current sea level rise projections in my (Marc Roddis) RUclips clip "Is it too late to solve the climate crisis?", and you can find relevant links in my clip's description.
Do you know how many glaciers are around the world? Don't feel bad if you say no, because nobody really knows, it's in the order of tens of thousands. The hottest year on record (avg) is 1997, and the ground sensors that were placed in the countryside in the 50s and 60s are now surrounded or inside urban areas. His 1st sentence was disingenuous in two instances, that's how you know someone has an agenda.
I remember in the late 60's the global warming zealots were telling us that in 50 years sea levels would rise by 30 feet... We got an inch. It was scaremongering then it is scaremongering now.
Good luck with that 2100 AD thing...expecting linear rise is why we are not going to be prepared for a much more rapid and exponential collapse and ocean displacement
In May 2019 it was reported that the CO2 level is at 415. The graph is too coarse for me to get an accurate measurement but it seems to be very close to a correct prediction. MrRobtwothirds is referring to the Malkovich cycle which has been proven accurate for a million years. And that cycle says glaciers should be creeping across Canada and Northern Europe but they're going the other way which can only be attributed to greenhouse gases caused by man. At sometime in the near future there will be so much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere already that we cannot reverse global warming even if we take our contribution to zero. That is the Tipping Point and human life on this planet will be doomed to extinction. If you have grandchildren or plan to that should be of great concern to you. Donald Trump has taken the U.S. out of the Paris agreement and decreed business as usual.
Two simple questions. One of which alarmists always ignore..... If the Earth warms by two degrees then 1. How much ice melts off Greenland? 2. How much water evaporates from the oceans?
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan.... and the evaporated water will fall as snow on the ice shields. Result: net ice gain. A negative feedback mechanism not detected by the alarmists. Therefore show all tide gauges globally a linear relative sea level rise. The absolut sea level rise, taken in account the vertical land movement, is between 0,00 an 1,0 mm per year. No exception wordwide. With the growing amount of land ice melting the tide gauges should since decades already show accelerating sea level rise. Nothing at all.
@@matthauslill4577 Most of the evaporated water will fall into the ocean, therefore contributing to sea level rise. Sea level rise is not something abstract, destined to happen in the future. No, sea level rise is a fact. We in the Netherlands measure that very stringently because our future depends on it. For us it's a matter of survival as a nation. You can not get any closer to the truth than that.
@@matthauslill4577 As of now sea level rising averages out in centimeters per decade. But the trend is there and given the fact that it is tightly connected to the rising sea temperature it is just a matter of time before we will have to start measuring in decimeters within a hundred year time frame. Today is just the beginning. And we can't afford ourselves to not follow a worst case scenario by wishful thinking because it can mean the end of our existence as an old, proud and leading nation. Lucky for us we've got enough financial headroom to be able to extend our sea defenses to a worst case scenario level and survive. We always survive, you know. For over one thousand years by now. That's four times the existence of your 'United' States of America and everything points towards a total collapse of your union before this century is out. America has just a way too egocentric mindset to be able to survive on the long run. It simply doesn't work that way. Individualistic competition is for chimps, not so much for us humans.
My math indicates you need around 15 to 20 mm per year sea level rise for 5,000 yrs to completely eliminate the ice in Greenland and the poles. My calculations reveal: 29,000 tons of carbon removed for each cubic kilometer of fresh melt water. So 44/12= CO2 conversion. So 29,000 x 44/12 = 106,333,000 tons of CO2 removed:10.63x10 to 7th' . This should create a slow down in global warming. Let me know if you see an error.
Glacier National Park had to take down their signs that said by a certain year the glaciers would be gone. The glaciers are still there. Glaciers actually are growing. But through history glaciers have come and they have gone numerous times. Sea rise has not happened will not happen even though it was absolutely promised.
@@steveschmengle5622 In the natural cycle, glaciers come, in an 80,000 year cycle, and glaciers go, in a 20,000 year cycle. Currently, Greenland is losing ice mass. Various recent headlines are 'twice as fast as previously thought', '6 times', '8 times', and, last week, '100 times'. Similarly with the West Antarctica ice sheet There is some net addition in East Antarctica atm, but not enough to compensate.
08:50 slide shows the Jakobshaven glacier in 2015. Google maps for the same location (it looks as if the most recent image is 2022) seems to show that the glacier has grown. I used two lakes on the upper landmass and a diamond shaped one on the southern one to try and match the scaling.
About 120,000 years ago the sea level was about 25' higher than it is today. Doesn't it follow that it will happen again at the peak of this warming cycle?
No, it doesn't. At least not if you can't demonstrate it. Without demonstration it is an empty assertion (and for many a very convenient one). But the Milankovic cycles cannot explain the rapid rise of CO2.
@@Elite7555 Yes. Burning the fossils does though. As no doubt you are aware that the isotope ratio to volcanic co2 to the fossil and tree burning sourced co2 ratio is different and that satellites can tell that difference and the amounts are known, confirming what had been already worked out- by measuring.
Mr Scientist can you please explain to me how the Laurentide, Cordilleran and Eurasian ice sheets melted. Can you please explain how 9300x4300 Kms of Ice 1500 meters thick melted in 10 000 years when their were no cars, factories or any other human activity. What caused all the ice from the last ice age to melt in 10 000 years. Please explain to me how during the Pliocene epoch there was no ice in the North Pole. Please explain what caused ice to form during Pleistocene epoch. Please explain to me what caused all the ice to melt during Holocene glacial retreat. Every grade three student knows we just came out of a 2.5 million long ice age. Obvious we are warming faster all of Canada was covered in ice 11 000 years ago.
Do you know that there can be more than one way for the planet to get warmer? Volcanoes can add CO2 to the atmosphere. The sun’s output can increase. Earth’s orbit and its axis of rotation changes over thousands of years. We’ve simply invented a new way to heat the planet. Feel free to stick your head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening. You could also decide that you don’t need to check for traffic when crossing the street, instead ask 100 people to give their opinion on whether it’s safe or not, wait until 98 people say it’s not safe and 2 say it is, and then cross the street.
@@bartrupel great analogy! With reference to OP, it's these incomplete mental models that hurt us the most. You can survey the sparknotes of climate science and still fall prey to dogma; grade 3 students might be able to recite every geological epoch of ice cover in the past dozen million years but the nuanced current rate of accelerating warming/CO2 accumulation coinciding with the industrial revolution takes the extra five seconds of critical thinking, I'm afraid. Besides, most of this has been known for almost a century and the hard parts have been worked out for you. How nice!! I guess most 'Mr. Non-scientist' types simply "don't have the time" to make that connection while they trust engineers to keep our planes above the ground and doctors to save our family members (weird flex, but OK). As complex as it is, aspects of environmental science shouldn't be weighed under any political stance. The seeds of dogma run deep, however. This is UNACCEPTABLE in 2019 and you really hate to see half-quotes with warped implications. So, read a little more into these things PLEASE so busy folks like us spend less time reframing basic geological ideas you'd realize if you check out PBS Eons or literally anything not put out by the ops ;)
So, should we (government) pay to have people and businesses relocated over the next hundred years? Let's quit arguing about if sea levels rise. What are we going to do when all these places are flooded?
Projections 150 years into the future doesn't concern people. We will ALL be dead as will our children and grandchildren. I'm more concerned with crop failures, famine, disease, loss of water and habitat which has nothing to do with sea level rise. Its not that I dont believe what hes saying. He probably too conservative with his estimates but lets be real even though global climate change is real you cant solve a problem if the food supply vanishes. I think we have more pressing things to worry about NOW rather than focus all our attention on the year 2200.
The estimates are too conservative in my eyes.. The hockey stick is much steeper and we may already have passed the tipping point of the antarctic meltdown.. What about the gigantic meltwater rivers and lakes on the suface of the ice sheets?
im afraid i agree with you. right now we can't even DO anything about the CO2 in the atmosphere and anything we do have would be like emptying a swimming pool with a thumble.
It's NOT that this hasn't happened before it's that we are Not ready for it millions of islands and coastal populations will be displaced and the changing temperature worsens storms and changes what plants can grow where. the earth will be ok Humans will likely be ok but there's going to be a Lot of shit in store for us when it comes full force. i half expect everyone over a certain age (AKA US) will be punched in the fact every time their kids and grandkids see them
Makes we wonder seeing parents taking their kids to after-school programs in huge trucks; just what kind of a future are they creating for these children?
Don't worry Kiki, the levels seem to be dropping, there are new islands appearing so thats a good sign :) news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/new-shelly-island-appears-cape-hatteras-north-carolina-coast/
The big problem with all of this is psychological and motivational. Why make massive sacrifices now for something that isn’t going to have much of an impact on you in your lifetime or your children’s lifetime?
I'm not so worried about what the weather is doing. I'm concerned with the what the corporations are doing to our air quality and drinking water and what they're doing to our food. Let's talk about that for a while. The globe will not cease to exist it will carry on we may not be here but the global keep moving on. Or it won't.
Matt The earth is fine, mankind is fine, the air is fine, the water is fine. We could do better but climate change alarm and what this bozo is saying is BS.
We're being culled ! Australian farmers are being destroyed by government laws and taxes etc. because they want all of our food to be imported from America etc. How do they intend on getting the food here. You can't run a ship or fly a plane on solar ! And they must be aware that the Northern hemisphere is freezing over, and plants won't grow in the cold! Our coal powered generators etc are being destroyed by the government, and solar and wind power is dependent on fossil fuels in their manufacture. In any case... civilization is not being structurally prepared for anything... what is the carbon tax being spent on ?
The best rationale of the oceans not rising feet as prediction is, "Over the past 20 years, ocean basins have sunk an average of 0.004 inches per year. This means that the ocean is 0.08 inches deeper than it was two decades ago." Long before the global warming hysteria, the concept was that the ice cap melting causes increased hydrostatic pressure, which results in increased volcanic activity that caused global cooling and this can be traced back 100 of millions of years.
better check your facts, they are now giving out mortgages, and property values are now being determined by how high above sea level in Miami! lower elevations values dropping like a stone, Banks are not loaning on. damn I hate it when the facts actually jump up and slap you in the face - right EOX?
@@h20bearboy65 lol, I'm a broker and have a construction company in Miami, and you are exaggerating by a wide margin. No one in Miami is even talking about global warming.
I am a total novice in this field, but i am asking myself, how is it possible to measure sea level? the coast is a difficult spot to measure, the tides change everything and especially the movement of the tectonic plates make it kind of impossible to say, whether the sea levels have risen or the plates were sinking?!?! so i am hoping for an explanation. thx in advance.
Why dont you just say out loud, what you want to say? "You cant measure sea levels. -> Sea level rise is a hoax." If you want to know how its done, do the research about it yourself, "dude".
Simply measure high tide and low tide, average it out and get "normal", same way we do it with temperature often. And then you have tide gauges all over the world. So some will show a decrease in sea level, some will show an increase. Some show no trend.
Funny you mention going to a glacier in 1994, that was just about the time I went to see a glacier the last time I was in Alaska. I remember the park rangers they're talking about how glaciers will expand and reseed depending on temperature swings over a period Of a few years but overall they had been receeding for many many years since the end of the Ice Age. This was at the Portage Glacier, and I remember them talking about the large lake there and how it had been all voice shirt and no Lake not that many years before. They mentioned how for a. Of time the glacier had encroached back up on the lake and then received it again. Isn't it funny how that's just how fluctuations in our climate worked back then, but now it's climate change / global warming. Won't it be exciting here in a few years when the glaciers go through another expansion cycle and we'll all be getting ready for the coming Ice Age. I should say getting ready for the coming Ice Age again as we were back in the 1970s. 20 foot sea level rise, I call BS.
Will you pay up for the extra damage inflicted by not acting appropriately, because of your doubts and ignorance ? We were warned 25 years ago. Since then the damage we inflicted has doubled. Will you (and your fellow doubters) pay up for half of the total costs, when the time comes we will finally start the repairing ?
@@bakkerem1967 Indeed, we were warned 25 years ago that there's only 10 years left before total catastrophe and irreversible damage. Then again 10 years later we were warned again total catastrophe and irreversible damage if we didn't act soon then again we were warned just recently that the world will end in 12 years if we don't totally devastate our national economy in solving this problem. And let's not forget how we were warned 40 years ago to prepare for the coming Ice Age. When so much of their data is contradictory, and most all of their predictions have fallen short or proven completely bogus, I'm not taking it terribly seriously. Should we take reasonable steps to protect our environment? Certainly. Should we totally devastate our economies the point of setting us back to the Stone Age just to meet the goals that are put forward by extremist from the climate change religion? Fuk no.
@@reallymysterious4393 obviously you move your measuring sticks every time a change occurs instead of using a fixed point! the statements regarding deniers are pointing at you the denier of natural climate change!
@@rockymntnliberty I find it interesting how people want to use fringe or false statements and hyperbole as if that was the scientific consensus of the time. In reality, scientists have been warning us for 50 years of what was to come - and much of the serious predictions were understated. Have you read the IPCC reports? We have seen the disappearance of arctic sea ice over the past 20 years. We know that the 18 hottest years on record have been over the past 20 years. We know that more places are experiencing droughts and unable to grow food than before, more places are experiencing floods, we are seeing species going extinct at unprecedented rates...but the facts there don't really matter to people who just want to argue against something because of their groundless ideology and contrarianism. How about read something of scientific fact - you know, peer reviewed and grounded in the scientific method.
@@Mrgrweiner Please point out which statement you're alleging are false. I am familiar with the ipcc report and its Reliance on false, misleading and Twisted data. Data that has been used to form various totally wrong prediction models. If we all accept it all the fear-mongering from the climate change religion, we would already be under water or frying in the Sun.
Ted, how does your model compute a leveling out of sea rise at about 15ft if we follow the Paris Accord??? During the Pliocene, CO2 was at 390ppm, and the sea level was 70ft higher than today !!! Your chart shows the Paris accord leading to CO2 levels of 550ppm. How could 550ppm give only 15ft of sea level rise??? The conclusion is not consistent with known facts.
During pliocene - mountain ranges such as alps, rockies & Himalayas were much lower - so not having the cooling effect that it does now, hence the sea level and lack of ice at the poles.
I makes no sense because it's all nonsense. We have steady 8 inch rise/100 years. Nothing we are doing can be proved factually to be the reason. This is a politically corrupt movement, it cannot be trusted.
sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise as it is part of the ocean. when the sea ice goes it allows the glaciers to fall into the sea much quicker. 2020 was the warmest year on record tying with 2016. Sea level rise is now at 5mm per year as opposed to 2mm per year pre 2016.
@@markyoung9497 You are preaching to the choir. Ted talks about receding glaciers and ice sheets on land. The sea level rise is calculated by the University of Colorado financed by NASA. They have added Isostatic Rebound to their model to increase the sea level rise to make it appear that the oceans are rising faster than they really are.
The Earth spins at 1000 miles per hour. Oceans are higher at the equator by 12 miles if I remember correctly, so water will move. The oceans have risen but with that rises you get greater tidal surges and Pacific peoples are seeing their islands slowly being eaten up. Americas gulf coast is eroding. Even I know that. Time for eyes open.
Glaciers are regrowing while some are receding. The Antarctic ice growth is more than making up for the loss of ice in the Arctic. Didn't hear any discussion here of the ice growth at the other pole. Remember this is called global warming. Sea rise has been pretty constant at 1 to 2 mm per year for the past century. BTW the arctic ice since this video was made is growing.
The big thing about sea level rise is not simply how much the average water level increases, via thermal expansion and meltwater, but how this increase will interact with a more unpredictable climate in general, which will produce more frequent severe storm surges. The combination will increase erosion and flooding events much more than simply one or the other effect of overall warming. It is NOT alarmist in the slightest, to state that the next couple of centuries (most definitely the "near future" in many contexts) will be "interesting", in the way that the Chinese curse "May you live in Interesting Times" means it.
What you saw was the light from Venus reflected off a weather balloon and igniting swamp gas. You'll move to the city, fix your hair, and decide you're a lot better off. And if by "Interesting Times" you mean the silver horde (aka, the seven indestructible sages) is going to invade, damn straight, Skippy! on a real science note, I have heard two sides to the changing weather thing. Side one says the weather will become supercharged because there is more energy in the atmosphere. side two says that as climate warms the differences between the polls and the equator will not be as extreme, and that it is the extreme difference that drives extreme weather. Can you point out actual studies on this, or is it something that must be accepted on faith?
all you need to do is to find a sutable bench mark that is permatly fixed or make your owen, at the time of the king tide and note the weather reports at the time and the following king tide take a reading. in otherwords do some atcual recordings and you may even supprise yourselfe. Gerard.
Am i correct in scientists saying that Ice Caps have depressed the Earths Crust beneath them? And if so, is it fair to assume the oceans do the same? is it therefore fair to assume that perhaps all that extra water does as it melts from the ice caps and pours into the oceans is depress the ocean beds further, thus making any correllation between ice melt and sea water rises almost impossible to assess?
Dam, skippy! you is way smart! I thought the whale poop added to the bottom of the ocean was causing the oceans to rise, but you got me stumped there! Seriously, if you ad an inch of water to the surface, it isn't going to do much. If you add a mile of ice sheet to the surface across a continent, that makes a difference, and that does cause the crust to move. There is actual data concerning this. Also, the calculated value of ocean level rise in the last sixteen years of Antarctic ice melt when spread over the surface of the ocean is 0.002", or about the thickness of a human hair. The south poll is losing ice at a rate of 33 cubic miles per year. At that rate it will still have ice in 155,000 years.
all bollocks. Not climate change, but mans abaility to influence it one way or the other. When the Earths bored of us we will be wiped out. As usual. Its nothng new.
well said the whole premise is CO2 is the driver of climate change. I'm sure if he was honest he would admit he never had a Geology class that stated that!
+Hippasus, typical reactionary mentality. Those who aren't pushed around by scare tactics actually use logic and critical thinking. Like: We live in an Ice Age and warmth is a good thing. We live in a period of CO2 starvation and more CO2 is a good thing. Global Warming reduces storms and their strength, because wind depends on temperature differences. Global Warming reduces droughts and deserts, because water never makes it to land without warmth (evaporation).
Like: we and our food sources evolved in an Ice Age and we had better make sure that the climate we evolved in, the climate we NEED, doesn't heat up because we DIE in heat. Thermoregulation is critical to our survival. We can't thermoregulate in 95F. wet bulb temperatures. Roddy, you keep pushing this nonsense with no evidence, ever. So sad. Learn something, will ya?
Thank you Kimmy, for your never-ending supply of one-sided conversations. That truly is sad. I supply lots of evidence, you ignore it, and then claim victory. That's a sign of delusion. Thank you for recognizing that we live in an Ice Age and that recent evolution was in an Ice Age. But biology isn't tied to ice. The population is far more abundant in the tropics. That's where life thrives -- in the warmth -- not in the ice. Evidence: the current populations of tropical Earth. I currently live in the tropics and it's quite nice. If more of the Earth were like this, it would expand the reach of humanity into the polar and sub-tropical deserts. I know you will ignore this or otherwise find some way to sidestep this evidence and again claim victory. But this answer isn't so much for you as the others who might accidentally happen along our one-sided conversation. Until next time...
Roddy, Roddy, Roddy..... our civilization thrives in temperate zones during a cool period. We do not want to see the temps. go up from here, as there is no evidence that humans or our food crops CAN survive in hotter temps. In fact, experiments show that hotter will create a degraded place to live and make life much more difficult. Keep things cool, keep the heat away. Well, it looks like it's too late now, anyway, so I guess it doesn't much matter. The killing heat is on the way and we can't stop it. Prepare for Near Term Human Extinction.... the Sixth Mass Extinction. It's underway. Deal with it. Now go to RUclips and watch potholer 54 climate change vids and then go to Google Images and enter "glaciers then and now".
Sea level changes as recorded at Fort Denison for over 100 years show sea levels generally rising AND falling. The sea level recorded in 2019 as compared to 1914 show sea level falling. These are recorded facts at the most accurate recording station due to its positioning beside the Pacific Ocean, the largest body of water on earth.
Are you talking about avg sea level, or the flood levels, which are what most people tend to memorialize on those markers? Are you saying Ft Denison took accurate levels over a long period of time, and then averaged them out? Because I don't think anybody was doing that then. All they cared about was big events like floods. Now go back to your right wing blog you read that factoid at and look into it. Ask them the same question I asked you. They probably won't know, they read it at another right wing blog that makes up the echo chamber. Go back far enough and I'm sure you'll find the oil lobby. It's a multi-trillion dollar a year business, well worth the investment in some fake articles. But it just feels right in your gut, huh?
Marshal Giggleman the records show monthly mean sea levels since 1914. Not flood levels only but day to day sea levels recorded and averaged out monthly. The data is irrefutable so I don’t understand the hysteria and lies when the data is readily available. You can go to other sites maintained by BOM and find the variations in sea levels are greater in the tropics than the Antartica just as tides are greater in the tropics.
In order to decrease the rising sea levels how about this exotic idea: We terraform some of the ground beneath the sea: explode us into a deeper underwater landscape, some places on earth, and exploit the rock pieces on land, so that the water has more space/ depth for the water to be in, whereby it will decrease in height.
There are very few massive empty underground caverns for us to fill.. But there is something called the "Qattara depression", worlds largest area that is below sea-level. Basically a big chunk of egypt thats far below sea-level and that we could fill with water, that would probably put a dent in global sea-level.
A few questions for you, Jason Briner: 1, What is the time of your experience in the Arctic expressed as a percentage of the life of the Earth? 2, Can your calculator display that number of zeros after a decimal point? 3, All climate prophecies from the past have not just been incorrect, they have all been spectacularly wrong! Why should I believe that your apocalyptic prophecy is going to be any different? 4, If (I would say, when) your doom and gloom prophecy is proven to be totally false, i.e. human beings are having, at most, an insignificant effect on our ever-changing climate…. will you be pleased at this apparent reprieve for humankind? I would guess your response to this fourth question will one day provide ample material for a TED talk on the reasons why so many people are attracted to, and become so easily convinced of, the “truth” of apocalyptic predictions!
Along with sea level rise, get prepared to have days above 120 degrees F in the summer. (Global avg temperature rise doesn't mean it rises a uniform few degrees all over the globe. It means more extremes). How will your wheat and corn like them apples?
We have a lot of unused land and we can stop growing corn for gasoline additive.Bee population collapse is a MUCH bigger problem and may be related to climate change although pesticides are more likely the MAIN cause along with electro-magnetic pollution due to phone cell towers. 5G may make it worse for bees and FOR US! Look at the work of Dr Klinghart (Utube videos avail)
@@johannesschaller5510 Obviously you haven't watched them either because of your vast scientific knowledge and in--depth research of both sides of the argument.
Read this before it's taken down : *EMPIRICAL FACTS on sea levels:* The seas and oceans to the east of Australia forms the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level assessment, since Australia is the oldest and most stable continent on earth. The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data. The data which is at the lowest spring tide recorded *mean sea level at Sydney in 2019 is 6 centimetres lower than the mean sea level at Sydney in 1914 when the Bureau Of Meteorology commenced recording Mean Sea Level.* High Sea Levels during Storm, Cyclone & Low Pressure Events. BBC and ABC commentators have asserted that sea levels may permanently rise by 1 to 2 metres in the next 100 years. *100 years of records on the largest water body on Earth indicates that this is incorrect.* There have always been short period storm and low pressure rises in sea levels. The highest recorded sea level at Sydney occurred during the 1974 low pressure storm. The sea level rose to 30 cm above high spring tide level for one day. During recorded history there has been no indication whatsoever of a 100 to 200 cm permanent rise in sea level. There will always be short period storm, cyclone and low pressure rises in sea levels in close proximity to cyclone and storm centres. These storm centre rises in sea levels are not permanent. Ocean swells and storm waves can exceed 16 metres during major storm surge events. It is these massive waves that have caused significant damage to coastal and island communities in the past. It is certain that huge storm event waves will occur in the future and will cause significant damage to the island and low lying communities. Coastline and flood zone protection is the sane answer to sane answer to storm event damage. *It is polite and essential that the world population should avoid incorrect climate nonsense. We need to divert the alarmist energy to caring for the planet. Cease polluting the oceans. Prevent development of flood prone land and threatened coastal zones that have been, and will always be, subject to flooding.* Daniel Fitzhenry - Hydrographic Surveyor 581 Singleton Road, Laughtondale NSW 2775 Australia
The fact that it is happening fast enough that humans can notice in their life time is catastrophic to say the least when compared to past Arctic/Antarctic/Glacial melts....it's the RATE of change that is so unusual....so much bravado and derision of the experts....often from men
@ The solution is.... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. That's all. I'm one of the lucky ones. I don't just believe ....I know it's true. Don't worry ...be Happy.
Whilst I know we have problems with ice melting and seas rising, I have to ask, Where is the water going that we see disappearing off many coast lines, some as far as the eye can see. Someone must know the answer to this oddity.
Excellent presentation of our greatest threat. You might add that most of the world's nuclear facilities are at sea level. Thank you for your efforts and please continue your work.
I live near a lake that is open to the Gulf of Mexico and subject to ocean tides. I have seen no appreciable rise is average tide (sea level) since my childhood 50 years ago. If the Ice caps have been melting (total volume of ice), should I not see marked and visible evidence here at our sea walls? These are immovable, solid concrete sea walls built as far back as 1938.
Glaciers retreat? Really? Like the glaciers that covers North America over the last 10,000 years? Interesting..... Antarctic growing???? No... we dont want to talk about global balance? Oh, let's stick with our micro climate view to tell our story
The glaciers used to reach down to where New York City is now. They've retreated a long way from NYC. The glaciers used to reach down almost to Africa. They've retreated a long way from Africa. East Antartica is growing slightly. West Antarctica is retreating at an ever-increasing pace. The global land-ice mass is shrinking.
If the ice floating in the Arctic Ocean melts there would be no change in water level because the ice was already floating. Actually, there might be a change. Since the maximum density of water is at 4 deg C, if the water warms from zero to plus 4 the volume of the ocean should decrease.
Unfortunately, New York's tide gauges show the sea level rise is the same slow rise it's been for over a century ... no increase in the rate at all. But, due to building tall buildings, most of the Eastern Seaboard cities, including New York and Boston, are sinking slowly. But no sinking at all on the West Coast, or sea level rise.
The hottest years ever recorded? Unprecedented ice melting? It sounds very impressive, but it is not. Humankind has been recording temperatures on a global scale with some degree of precision for less than 50 years. From before that time there is no reliable data due to limited accuracy and geographical scope of the measurements. So being “the hottest years ever recorded” is not such a big deal! The amount of ice currently melting is not “unprecedented” either. For example, much more ice melted faster than now and for many centuries over the past 15,000 years. This melting eliminates the mile-high layer of ice that covered all of Canada, the northern part of the United States, northern Europe and Asia.
BTW...if you think New York is in trouble, look at sea level rise map for Shanghai, China. That land must be very low and flat. geology.com/sea-level-rise/
Indeed, and the fact that there's permanent ice at the poles (not to mention at higher altitudes) means that we're still in an ice age (the Quaternary to be exact).
Our species can adapt quickly to change other species cannot. With the increasing computational power we are building we will be able to predict possible outcomes and intervene to minimize damage.
Your kidding right? Do you seriously think humans will survive when our disregard for the natural environment causes the extinction of most other species on the planet? It's called the web of life for a reason. We can't survive if we kill the planet. I guess you think "the spirit in the sky" will carry you away when we've trashed this world.
Based on the volume of ice frozen in Greenland and Antarctica, the sea level will rise 250+ feet if all of the ice melts. Moreover, the rate of thawing, I understand, is increasing exponentially. How did you arrive at a 20 ft rise in 2200?
Good question..in a previous video I watched a women stated her conrad cut out a 100 million year old piece of ice... My question is how do these scientists calculate the age of the ice and is it accurate?
They take the least possible worst case scenario of human development where everyone starts putting liquefied coal into their cars and then take the least possible radiative forcing and mix it up to get high warming which is then assumed to melt a ton of ice.
They're going to have us Dutch build a dam across Hormuz Strait then demand toll from all oil tankers wishing to pass. Yeah it's a bit deep, but not deeper than those highest building are high, and thanks to oil, they got plenty of cash. Piece of cake ! Only problem, Iran has to agree...
The answer is? More wind generators? How many generators would it take to stop the warming? Recently heard we would need the entire land mass of Russia yet even so the production of co2 will not stop. How many solar cells? At what latitudes, swathes of the planet are solar cells impractical? Burn biomass? Biomass which includes the burning of wood, does what % reduction in co2?
My grandson can actually also do this.... Welcome to the real world where change is normal...make more people fearful is exactly what governments want !
If the government wants it so much, why are they doing their best to defund and stop climate change research. Critical thinking is not your strong point I take it?
What? You are saying all this coal and oil has already been burned before? And were recycling it? Did you not notice the connection between carbon and heat? Sheesh.
Basic changes in human behavior; use less fossil fuels, live in smaller dwellings, eat no animal products, purchase products in paper vs plastic. Basically start to say "No.". the internal parent needs to step in and make the child in us-collectively be good. Simple, sure. But it is each one of us that makes change happen, not governments, not industry. We spearhead change for good or bad.
36" / 84Y = .43" (per year) x 3Y (2016 to 2019)=1.29" actual sea level change over that time period = aprox 3/8"....got to love how none of the self styled climate scientists in this comment section can even do basic math.
Pôle shift permanently changes water levels on coastal regions. Edit: The science is the earth is an mhd stator. As charged particles hit the mag field they split into two opposite bands one of electrons and one of positive ions. The ions penetrate deeper into the field than the electrons. This creates bands of electrons way out and bands off ions close that are called van Allen belts. The rotating charges create a magnetic field and an EM field near the surface. This EM field travels westward it's source tied to the earth. This causes a radiation pressure push on the crust. Thus providing a rotational force to counter the gravity lock force of the sun. This force applied to the plates once reversed moves everything in the opposite direction. West coasts are pushed westward into the ocean and east coasts flood due to the extra tidal force of the new EM pressure from the east.
Yes, no one disputes climate changes. We do dispute that CO2 is the cause because there is no evidence of this, correlation does not mean causation. In fact, an increase in CO2 would be a positive benefit to the world's vegetation and agriculture. Plants thrive and do better with more CO2 an increase means it uses less water which would be beneficial in times of drought. Also, you need to explain to me how ice ages have grown and receded in the history of our planet all happening without human intervention at that time. This has happened more than a few times and on a larger scale without humans contributing to the problem. Lastly, climate scientists have been claiming this since Al Gore and their predictions say we should already be 20 feet under water. That has not happened and if this was really true you would not have banks loaning millions of dollars to people buying houses on islands or coastal areas where they have no chance of getting their money back? Also, people would not invest millions and billions of dollars in a beachfront development in Florida or elsewhere if this was the case, if it was, you would have to put disclaimers informing people of this.
We can handle gradual sea level rise. We can't handle a 30 ft per day rise, or a 400 ft sea level rise in a year as happened at the end of the Younger Dryas period. Check under the oceans where the sea level was 400 feet lower 13,000 years ago and we see places where people lived then.
Glacier bay Alaska receeded 60 plus miles north up the sound between 1750 when it was first mapped, and 1950, without any possible human influence. Gee, ya think maybe the same process is producing the same result, and man's pitiful contribution, 30 gigatons/year, compared to 700 gigatons natural positive CO2 flux , 30/700=0.04, is not the global control knob of temperature or climate on this planet.
Industrial revolution started in Britain, 18th century (1750). Industrial revolution used coal burning as heat source to drive steam engines. I think is fair to question how much humans contribute vs nature, but not fair to say we had no influence. This guy is telling us what the physical results will be. Physics doesn't care whether you believe or not.
the little ice age 1670-1870. 1750 is smack in the middle of that. if you look at the sea level rise, it starts 1865, and it's been linear for 150 years. To put an accelerating parabola on the end of straight line data is something that a politician would do. Also, of that 30 G tons/year (a number that I've seen before, as well as the 700 Gt), how much is still in the air, and how much has already become plant food? (this is a shameless plug; I left another comment on plant food.)
As a climate scientist specializing in glaciers, perhaps you can tell us how that ice sheet, about a mile thick, that sat where New York City now sits, 20,000 years ago, could have formed and how it could have melted. Man must have really screwed up to warm the climate that much.
I am sure that windbag Al Gore is responsible for most of the human generated co2 these last few years. Every time he opens his mouth he's exhaling bullsh**.
I have seen a number of photographs from Florida, Canada and elsewere, showing the seal level from for example 1920 and today and there is no visible difference.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Great talk, great work. Fellow climate warrior here. Not a scientist, but a videographer and support staff for research teams (electrician). 8 months in Antarctica (McMurdo, Shackleton, WAIS Divide). Currently working on a project documenting communities that are about to be lost, from Miami to the Marshal Islands to the people living in the mangrove island and river deltas of S America. Putting a human face on it, and documenting the cultures we are about to lose so my children will know the world we lost.
Keep up the good work. All that loss needs to be witnessed.
That is an urgent and important project you've undertaken.
So show us the video from 20 years ago and 50 years ago and 100 years ago and then tout your saving the planet please
Five years later: A quick perusal of the tide gauge graphs for Hoek van Holland, New York, Key West, Honolulu, San Diego, et al, shows us the same steady sea level rise (around 1" per decade) for the last 150 years. Despite all the earnest alarmism there has been no change in the rate of sea level rise. If anything, tide gauge graphs hint that sea level rise may be slowing down - but the trend is too short lived to be certain.
Ouch ;) But yeah, i checked around 150 gauges all around the world the other day.. Only a handfull show any form of acceleration, many many more show slowing down or negative (nothern europe for example). Most show a boring slow and steady increase for the past 100-150 years.
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan It's good to see someone willing to look at the data rather than listen to the pulpit.
@@kirklaird8345 yeah, I stumbled across the satellite data and it said we're experiencing a rapid acceleration. But it also said that the fastest sea level increase was in the Baltic ocean, and I know Sweden/Finland etc all have sea level decrease since thousands of years, so I figured something was off with the satellite data and just kept checking different gauges 😂
Sea level has in fact risen by 9" since the 1800's, directly attributable to anthropogenic climate change. Despite what you want to believe.
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan Ouch yourself. Sea level has in fact risen by 9" since the late 1800's due to anthropogenic climate change. Abrupt climate change does not care if you believe in it or not, it is going to take your life anyway in the next fear years.
In the mid 80s the glaciers in Norway was advancing due to bad summers and lot of precipitation in the winters. Many of them have not receded back to pre 1980 level. One example is Bøyabreen. It is also important to know that for 1000 years ago there was no glaciers in Norway and the tree line was higher.
An interesting anomaly to say the least.
@@samlair3342 Except there wasn't the pollution then, and, whether global warming is real or not, the pollution of the seas, land and atmosphere surely has to stop, before everything dies, and sea-level rise won't matter then, will it? Time for Humans to clean up their act anyway? I like James Lovelock's idea - Gaia is a self-healing system if it is given a chance.
@@samlair3342 glaciers in New Zealand are growing
@@lauriecroad3186 james lovelock - not a believer in AGW
Temperature is not yet back to the time 1000 years ago, we are just getting out of the little ice age.
1988: Maldives in the Indian Ocean with the highest point about 2 meters will be underwater in 30 years due to global warming. Emergency evacuation of 200,000 residents needed!
2018: Maldives, population over 400,000 and growing, no apparent (tiny amount) sea level rise. Real estate prices up, but still Maldives' highest point about 2 meters.
International Airport just built... businesses booming, international business investments booming.. tourism booming, population booming. But I could be wrong... got my info off you tube, just like everybody else !
@@waynebow-gu7wr Sift through the chaff, and you'll find some golden kernels! You might try expanding your search to the whole Internet though. 😉
Regardless whether the seas are rising or not, what insanity to occupy islands with the height of 2 m? What is the average wave height in a calm sea?
@@jiritichy7967 Good point. I think the 2 meter mark is above high tide. Since they are around 3 degrees above the equator, the amount of storm activity would be minimal.
Not sure if it was the Maldives or another similar tiny island group that they measured again.. Turns out that most of the islands had grown.. So much for the experts who said the islands would be gone by now..
Why isn't anyone talking about over population and over consumption? That's the core of the issue. Everything mentioned in the video are just symptoms of the underlying problem of population.
The only sane comment. Axiomatic. If global warming is anthropogenic, reduce population growth before others reduce population per se.
And so whose future do you want to end? How would you propose to thin the flock?
@@beebach4491 I think we have the first 2 volunteers...
@@beebach4491 same 2 people are probably antiabortion too...
@jonny the boy hmmm the idea seems fine...but having a lack of new tax payers to support the aging population will make this not work. The country needs population growth to keep running...the real reason why conservatives want to ban abortion.
Satellite images have shown that while some areas do melt in the arctic, others are freezing. The overall land mass that is frozen stayed the same.
Quit shilling for the oil companies.
@@nobody8328 Trying to deflect from the facts doesn't change them.
deflecting from the facts doesnt change them, neither does taking them out of context
@@jbv776 the planet is cooling & has been for the past 5 years, greenpeace went to see & photograph the melting ice sheet, they never got there because their ship got stuck in the ice and all personnel had to be rescued by helicopter.
Try listening to a scientist who’s not on the government’s payroll.
@@andrewgill2561 getting stuck in the ice is about as reliable of a metric as how much it snowed during a particular winter
of course none of this takes into account the massive mass that has been lifted off the plates cause land rise, like in Sweden where a certain mountain is rising 1 metre per year because of released pressure after ice melt
If the world is compressed in some area then it would bulge in others. If it rises where it was compressed then it will fall where it bulged. The overall volume will be the same.
I have gone to the Atabasca Glacier in Canada, near Banff & Jasper, there were 2 trips about 12 years appart. I can clearly see that the at least 100 Meters of less ice on the Glacier over about a dozen years. This is point for global warming, the glacers is getting smaller. There was a very small musem at the gift shop that had small twisted remains of cedar tree that once grew where the glacier sitting. The tree once grew where there is currently a glacier. So once the earth was much warmer. Therefore you can pick the event that supports your view. There earth does change.
@@davebuchan81 Is faith fact? I though it by nature, couldn't claim as fact as it's a claim alone?
Everyone needs to take action man and that also means WHO you vote for. Vote NO to any dinosaur corrupt fossil in power. Far too many of those denying toe-rags in power. Get RID of them.
There is of course many examples of mountain glaciers and coastal glaciers that have tree stumps under them. These glaciers have advanced and receded over the last millennia. Of course this data points to variability as the constant. I an in no doubt of Anthropogenic contribution to the modest warming we are experiencing. I believe the models are wrong and vastly exaggerate warming in their projections. Data has been manipulated to try support a curve that correlates to CO2. There is no crisis there is no emergency. All the weather hype that is contradicted by pre-1950 weather events before CO2 started being appreciably more than the notional PreIndustrial.
I have been to Svalbard and skid many glaciers over the years, skied over the alps on the Haut route and seen first hand what is going on and I still ski these areas contrary to AlGores Noble peace Prize warnings....
I live in a town that has been a trading harbour since 1205 when it received its Royal Charter. In all the old and ancient maps, charts and photos there is no evidence of material sea rise. It is at best the gentle rise from exiting the glacial maxima as we are still in. All this alarmism is trying I am amazed how many lemmings follow the alarmism and are unable to judge reality as they live it. It would take 5000 years for Greenland and The Antarctic to melt IF there was significant warming. Personally I believe we will run out of hydrocarbons long before we get to 1000 ppm CO2 a level that C3 photosynthesis evolved in and is optimised for. Nature speaks as to what the correct CO2 level should be.
"Therefore you can pick the event that supports your view." I agree. This is what the climate alarmist are doing.
Be safe and in good health.
Glaciers get smaller... and then they grow again. It is a natural cycle. There is no man made global warming.
Its amazing how “climate scientists” are blaming the second most important cycle for life on this planet. The first of course, is photosynthesis. The second, is the carbon cycle. This planet consumes carbon, and emits carbon. It has to. Otherwise, there is no life. As the earth “warms up”, the third most important cycle, comes into play, ( water cycle), more water is saturated into our atmosphere, cooling, and cleansing as it falls. These cycles will continue, glaciers will receed, and grow, in cycles that may make you uncomfortable. Tell that to the people, who built those structures in 165ft of the Mediterranean. They moved. Because it took many decades to rise. Diring these times of rising, the planet gets greener because of more bio-available carbon, and water. Instead of playing the blame game, maybe you should consider the idea of irrigating, and growing an area of land for climate moderation use.
Possibly growing food, so the poorer countries can become less violent, and more productive, while becoming more educated. I’m not saying to just let companies pollute, im saying: help these companies become cleaner and productive. We should be as good gardeners: water when needed, fertilize in the minimum amounts, keep making clean cars. Expand our electrical vehicle capabilities. Innovate! Stop fighting!
Good talk. I just wish that the camera had spent more time on the graphs and annotated photos. They left the screen too fast.
Absolutely. I had to freeze frame. YOu would think the video editor would realise these things? A Video game scene flash rate are not good for the brain at any age.
Christ, your not supposed to analyse them.
And yet the tide gauge at lower Manhattan shows no change in sea level from 20 years ago?
And yet, Manhattan has begun flooding in the past 20 years.
The fearmongering is strong with this one.
Looks like six years now since this video. Might be a good time for a review of the forecast against current observational data?
If you look at his graph at 13:20, you see that his projection is that sea level rise starts increasing more quickly at around year 2050.
I focus on current sea level rise projections in my (Marc Roddis) RUclips clip "Is it too late to solve the climate crisis?", and you can find relevant links in my clip's description.
Do you know how many glaciers are around the world? Don't feel bad if you say no, because nobody really knows, it's in the order of tens of thousands. The hottest year on record (avg) is 1997, and the ground sensors that were placed in the countryside in the 50s and 60s are now surrounded or inside urban areas. His 1st sentence was disingenuous in two instances, that's how you know someone has an agenda.
I remember in the late 60's the global warming zealots were telling us that in 50 years sea levels would rise by 30 feet... We got an inch. It was scaremongering then it is scaremongering now.
Not calling him a liar, but sea level in Sydney Harbor has went up less than an inch in the last 120 years.
So it's gone up. The oceans must be rising then.
Good luck with that 2100 AD thing...expecting linear rise is why we are not going to be prepared for a much more rapid and exponential collapse and ocean displacement
All the predictions so far have been way off, guesswork would do a better job. And without the extra CO2 we would now be in the depths of an ice age.
@@MrRobtwothirds lol, what does that have anything to do with this video...even if you calculation was real?
@@VitalyMack Seriously? Expecting logic from a conservatroll?
@@mikelouis9389 right, he probably got his info from Alex Jones or Glenn Beck...
In May 2019 it was reported that the CO2 level is at 415. The graph is too coarse for me to get an accurate measurement but it seems to be very close to a correct prediction.
MrRobtwothirds is referring to the Malkovich cycle which has been proven accurate for a million years. And that cycle says glaciers should be creeping across Canada and Northern Europe but they're going the other way which can only be attributed to greenhouse gases caused by man. At sometime in the near future there will be so much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere already that we cannot reverse global warming even if we take our contribution to zero. That is the Tipping Point and human life on this planet will be doomed to extinction. If you have grandchildren or plan to that should be of great concern to you. Donald Trump has taken the U.S. out of the Paris agreement and decreed business as usual.
I don't care. I have a boat and a DVD of 'Waterworld'.
LOL x'P Any electricity?
Two simple questions. One of which alarmists always ignore..... If the Earth warms by two degrees then
1. How much ice melts off Greenland?
2. How much water evaporates from the oceans?
1: Very little. 2: Probably a fair amount.
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan.... and the evaporated water will fall as snow on the ice shields. Result: net ice gain. A negative feedback mechanism not detected by the alarmists. Therefore show all tide gauges globally a linear relative sea level rise. The absolut sea level rise, taken in account the vertical land movement, is between 0,00 an 1,0 mm per year. No exception wordwide. With the growing amount of land ice melting the tide gauges should since decades already show accelerating sea level rise. Nothing at all.
@@matthauslill4577 Most of the evaporated water will fall into the ocean, therefore contributing to sea level rise. Sea level rise is not something abstract, destined to happen in the future. No, sea level rise is a fact.
We in the Netherlands measure that very stringently because our future depends on it. For us it's a matter of survival as a nation.
You can not get any closer to the truth than that.
@@FrankHeuvelman and what do your measure? What are the sea level rise trends of the tide gauges closest to you?
@@matthauslill4577 As of now sea level rising averages out in centimeters per decade. But the trend is there and given the fact that it is tightly connected to the rising sea temperature it is just a matter of time before we will have to start measuring in decimeters within a hundred year time frame.
Today is just the beginning. And we can't afford ourselves to not follow a worst case scenario by wishful thinking because it can mean the end of our existence as an old, proud and leading nation.
Lucky for us we've got enough financial headroom to be able to extend our sea defenses to a worst case scenario level and survive. We always survive, you know. For over one thousand years by now. That's four times the existence of your 'United' States of America and everything points towards a total collapse of your union before this century is out.
America has just a way too egocentric mindset to be able to survive on the long run. It simply doesn't work that way. Individualistic competition is for chimps, not so much for us humans.
My math indicates you need around 15 to 20 mm per year sea level rise for 5,000 yrs to completely eliminate the ice in Greenland and the poles. My calculations reveal: 29,000 tons of carbon removed for each cubic kilometer of fresh melt water. So 44/12= CO2 conversion. So 29,000 x 44/12 = 106,333,000 tons of CO2 removed:10.63x10 to 7th' . This should create a slow down in global warming. Let me know if you see an error.
Ted-Talker if a BS-Scientist!!!
Glacier National Park had to take down their signs that said by a certain year the glaciers would be gone. The glaciers are still there. Glaciers actually are growing. But through history glaciers have come and they have gone numerous times. Sea rise has not happened will not happen even though it was absolutely promised.
In Iceland, they've started putting up signs where glaciers have *already* gone.
@@riggald9864 glaciers come and glaciers go. I thought I read somewhere the Greenland ice sheet is growing...
@@steveschmengle5622 In the natural cycle, glaciers come, in an 80,000 year cycle, and glaciers go, in a 20,000 year cycle. Currently, Greenland is losing ice mass. Various recent headlines are 'twice as fast as previously thought', '6 times', '8 times', and, last week, '100 times'.
Similarly with the West Antarctica ice sheet
There is some net addition in East Antarctica atm, but not enough to compensate.
@@riggald9864 I'm told we're coming into a solar min.
I've heard it also said that we're going towards the mini ice age again.
@@steveschmengle5622 We've just been through a solar min. Temperatures went *up*.
No-one has been talking about imminent glaciation since the '70s
08:50 slide shows the Jakobshaven glacier in 2015. Google maps for the same location (it looks as if the most recent image is 2022) seems to show that the glacier has grown. I used two lakes on the upper landmass and a diamond shaped one on the southern one to try and match the scaling.
97% agree....can you please provide that reference?
Try google...it is easy to find. Don't rely on the comment section to do your work for you.
Dirt Flyer my mind just exploded.
@@gmoney5947 Why?
2019 and waiting...
About 120,000 years ago the sea level was about 25' higher than it is today. Doesn't it follow that it will happen again at the peak of this warming cycle?
No, it doesn't. At least not if you can't demonstrate it. Without demonstration it is an empty assertion (and for many a very convenient one). But the Milankovic cycles cannot explain the rapid rise of CO2.
@@Elite7555 Yes.
Burning the fossils does though. As no doubt you are aware that the isotope ratio to volcanic co2 to the fossil and tree burning sourced co2 ratio is different and that satellites can tell that difference and the amounts are known, confirming what had been already worked out- by measuring.
Did you notice that there was less ice in 2010 in the picture then there was in 2015?
You're confused.
Hahaha, nice catch!
Mr Scientist can you please explain to me how the Laurentide, Cordilleran and Eurasian ice sheets melted. Can you please explain how 9300x4300 Kms of Ice 1500 meters thick melted in 10 000 years when their were no cars, factories or any other human activity. What caused all the ice from the last ice age to melt in 10 000 years. Please explain to me how during the Pliocene epoch there was no ice in the North Pole. Please explain what caused ice to form during Pleistocene epoch. Please explain to me what caused all the ice to melt during Holocene glacial retreat. Every grade three student knows we just came out of a 2.5 million long ice age. Obvious we are warming faster all of Canada was covered in ice 11 000 years ago.
Milankovitch cycles, bud. This isn't news
@@PremonitionSociety Agred 100% and one day the ice will come back I presume'
Do you know that there can be more than one way for the planet to get warmer? Volcanoes can add CO2 to the atmosphere. The sun’s output can increase. Earth’s orbit and its axis of rotation changes over thousands of years. We’ve simply invented a new way to heat the planet. Feel free to stick your head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening.
You could also decide that you don’t need to check for traffic when crossing the street, instead ask 100 people to give their opinion on whether it’s safe or not, wait until 98 people say it’s not safe and 2 say it is, and then cross the street.
@@bartrupel great analogy! With reference to OP, it's these incomplete mental models that hurt us the most. You can survey the sparknotes of climate science and still fall prey to dogma; grade 3 students might be able to recite every geological epoch of ice cover in the past dozen million years but the nuanced current rate of accelerating warming/CO2 accumulation coinciding with the industrial revolution takes the extra five seconds of critical thinking, I'm afraid. Besides, most of this has been known for almost a century and the hard parts have been worked out for you. How nice!! I guess most 'Mr. Non-scientist' types simply "don't have the time" to make that connection while they trust engineers to keep our planes above the ground and doctors to save our family members (weird flex, but OK). As complex as it is, aspects of environmental science shouldn't be weighed under any political stance. The seeds of dogma run deep, however. This is UNACCEPTABLE in 2019 and you really hate to see half-quotes with warped implications. So, read a little more into these things PLEASE so busy folks like us spend less time reframing basic geological ideas you'd realize if you check out PBS Eons or literally anything not put out by the ops ;)
So, should we (government) pay to have people and businesses relocated over the next hundred years? Let's quit arguing about if sea levels rise. What are we going to do when all these places are flooded?
Projections 150 years into the future doesn't concern people. We will ALL be dead as will our children and grandchildren. I'm more concerned with crop failures, famine, disease, loss of water and habitat which has nothing to do with sea level rise. Its not that I dont believe what hes saying. He probably too conservative with his estimates but lets be real even though global climate change is real you cant solve a problem if the food supply vanishes. I think we have more pressing things to worry about NOW rather than focus all our attention on the year 2200.
The estimates are too conservative in my eyes.. The hockey stick is much steeper and we may already have passed the tipping point of the antarctic meltdown.. What about the gigantic meltwater rivers and lakes on the suface of the ice sheets?
im afraid i agree with you. right now we can't even DO anything about the CO2 in the atmosphere and anything we do have would be like emptying a swimming pool with a thumble.
It's NOT that this hasn't happened before it's that we are Not ready for it millions of islands and coastal populations will be displaced and the changing temperature worsens storms and changes what plants can grow where. the earth will be ok Humans will likely be ok but there's going to be a Lot of shit in store for us when it comes full force. i half expect everyone over a certain age (AKA US) will be punched in the fact every time their kids and grandkids see them
Makes we wonder seeing parents taking their kids to after-school programs in huge trucks; just what kind of a future are they creating for these children?
Don't worry Kiki, the levels seem to be dropping, there are new islands appearing so thats a good sign :)
news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/new-shelly-island-appears-cape-hatteras-north-carolina-coast/
Kiki Lula I
The big problem with all of this is psychological and motivational. Why make massive sacrifices now for something that isn’t going to have much of an impact on you in your lifetime or your children’s lifetime?
I'm not so worried about what the weather is doing.
I'm concerned with the what the corporations are doing to our air quality and drinking water and what they're doing to our food. Let's talk about that for a while. The globe will not cease to exist it will carry on we may not be here but the global keep moving on. Or it won't.
Matt The earth is fine, mankind is fine, the air is fine, the water is fine. We could do better but climate change alarm and what this bozo is saying is BS.
We're being culled ! Australian farmers are being destroyed by government laws and taxes etc. because they want all of our food to be imported from America etc. How do they intend on getting the food here. You can't run a ship or fly a plane on solar ! And they must be aware that the Northern hemisphere is freezing over, and plants won't grow in the cold! Our coal powered generators etc are being destroyed by the government, and solar and wind power is dependent on fossil fuels in their manufacture. In any case... civilization is not being structurally prepared for anything... what is the carbon tax being spent on ?
The best rationale of the oceans not rising feet as prediction is, "Over the past 20 years, ocean basins have sunk an average of 0.004 inches per year. This means that the ocean is 0.08 inches deeper than it was two decades ago." Long before the global warming hysteria, the concept was that the ice cap melting causes increased hydrostatic pressure, which results in increased volcanic activity that caused global cooling and this can be traced back 100 of millions of years.
Banks still giving out 30 year mortgages in Miami, it's August 2019.
God bless Republicans in their infinite stupidly.
better check your facts, they are now giving out mortgages, and property values are now being determined by how high above sea level in Miami! lower elevations values dropping like a stone, Banks are not loaning on. damn I hate it when the facts actually jump up and slap you in the face - right EOX?
@@h20bearboy65 Total Liar! FEMA still doesn't even risk assess any properties there. Let's see the link, buffoon.
@@h20bearboy65 Another chithead, no problem lying to his ignoramus audience.
@@h20bearboy65 lol, I'm a broker and have a construction company in Miami, and you are exaggerating by a wide margin. No one in Miami is even talking about global warming.
I am a total novice in this field, but i am asking myself, how is it possible to measure sea level? the coast is a difficult spot to measure, the tides change everything and especially the movement of the tectonic plates make it kind of impossible to say, whether the sea levels have risen or the plates were sinking?!?! so i am hoping for an explanation. thx in advance.
Why dont you just say out loud, what you want to say? "You cant measure sea levels. -> Sea level rise is a hoax."
If you want to know how its done, do the research about it yourself, "dude".
Simply measure high tide and low tide, average it out and get "normal", same way we do it with temperature often. And then you have tide gauges all over the world. So some will show a decrease in sea level, some will show an increase. Some show no trend.
i was told sea levels would rise and engulf florida back in 1989 at UF. i live in Daytona, nothing has changed. the shoreline hasn't budged an inch.
That's because you don't live in Miami.
Funny you mention going to a glacier in 1994, that was just about the time I went to see a glacier the last time I was in Alaska. I remember the park rangers they're talking about how glaciers will expand and reseed depending on temperature swings over a period Of a few years but overall they had been receeding for many many years since the end of the Ice Age. This was at the Portage Glacier, and I remember them talking about the large lake there and how it had been all voice shirt and no Lake not that many years before. They mentioned how for a. Of time the glacier had encroached back up on the lake and then received it again. Isn't it funny how that's just how fluctuations in our climate worked back then, but now it's climate change / global warming. Won't it be exciting here in a few years when the glaciers go through another expansion cycle and we'll all be getting ready for the coming Ice Age. I should say getting ready for the coming Ice Age again as we were back in the 1970s.
20 foot sea level rise, I call BS.
Will you pay up for the extra damage inflicted by not acting appropriately, because of your doubts and ignorance ? We were warned 25 years ago. Since then the damage we inflicted has doubled. Will you (and your fellow doubters) pay up for half of the total costs, when the time comes we will finally start the repairing ?
@@bakkerem1967
Indeed, we were warned 25 years ago that there's only 10 years left before total catastrophe and irreversible damage. Then again 10 years later we were warned again total catastrophe and irreversible damage if we didn't act soon then again we were warned just recently that the world will end in 12 years if we don't totally devastate our national economy in solving this problem.
And let's not forget how we were warned 40 years ago to prepare for the coming Ice Age.
When so much of their data is contradictory, and most all of their predictions have fallen short or proven completely bogus, I'm not taking it terribly seriously. Should we take reasonable steps to protect our environment? Certainly. Should we totally devastate our economies the point of setting us back to the Stone Age just to meet the goals that are put forward by extremist from the climate change religion? Fuk no.
@@reallymysterious4393 obviously you move your measuring sticks every time a change occurs instead of using a fixed point! the statements regarding deniers are pointing at you the denier of natural climate change!
@@rockymntnliberty I find it interesting how people want to use fringe or false statements and hyperbole as if that was the scientific consensus of the time. In reality, scientists have been warning us for 50 years of what was to come - and much of the serious predictions were understated. Have you read the IPCC reports? We have seen the disappearance of arctic sea ice over the past 20 years. We know that the 18 hottest years on record have been over the past 20 years. We know that more places are experiencing droughts and unable to grow food than before, more places are experiencing floods, we are seeing species going extinct at unprecedented rates...but the facts there don't really matter to people who just want to argue against something because of their groundless ideology and contrarianism. How about read something of scientific fact - you know, peer reviewed and grounded in the scientific method.
@@Mrgrweiner
Please point out which statement you're alleging are false. I am familiar with the ipcc report and its Reliance on false, misleading and Twisted data. Data that has been used to form various totally wrong prediction models. If we all accept it all the fear-mongering from the climate change religion, we would already be under water or frying in the Sun.
Hello! The glaciers in Alaska have been retreating for 150 years! It started long before SUVs were invented.
Oh, by the way, the seas have not risen. And the antarctic ice cap, which contains 90% of all land ice, has expanded.
Ted, how does your model compute a leveling out of sea rise at about 15ft if we follow the Paris Accord???
During the Pliocene, CO2 was at 390ppm, and the sea level was 70ft higher than today !!!
Your chart shows the Paris accord leading to CO2 levels of 550ppm.
How could 550ppm give only 15ft of sea level rise???
The conclusion is not consistent with known facts.
Craig Dillon it takes up to a 1000 years to reach equilibrium. But I agree with you that inertia is not our friend!
During pliocene - mountain ranges such as alps, rockies & Himalayas were much lower - so not having the cooling effect that it does now, hence the sea level and lack of ice at the poles.
I makes no sense because it's all nonsense. We have steady 8 inch rise/100 years. Nothing we are doing can be proved factually to be the reason. This is a politically corrupt movement, it cannot be trusted.
It is now the end of October 2020. If the ice was, in 2016, melting at "unprecedented rates," why hasn't sea level risen at those same rates?
sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise as it is part of the ocean. when the sea ice goes it allows the glaciers to fall into the sea much quicker. 2020 was the warmest year on record tying with 2016. Sea level rise is now at 5mm per year as opposed to 2mm per year pre 2016.
@@markyoung9497 You are preaching to the choir. Ted talks about receding glaciers and ice sheets on land. The sea level rise is calculated by the University of Colorado financed by NASA. They have added Isostatic Rebound to their model to increase the sea level rise to make it appear that the oceans are rising faster than they really are.
The Earth spins at 1000 miles per hour. Oceans are higher at the equator by 12 miles if I remember correctly, so water will move. The oceans have risen but with that rises you get greater tidal surges and Pacific peoples are seeing their islands slowly being eaten up. Americas gulf coast is eroding. Even I know that. Time for eyes open.
@@Mcfreddo Dream on.
@@jameswest4819 Go ask anybody who sails the oceans.
Glaciers are regrowing while some are receding. The Antarctic ice growth is more than making up for the loss of ice in the Arctic. Didn't hear any discussion here of the ice growth at the other pole. Remember this is called global warming. Sea rise has been pretty constant at 1 to 2 mm per year for the past century. BTW the arctic ice since this video was made is growing.
antarctic west has broken off and heading to open water. there is melt not growth in western Antarctica
The big thing about sea level rise is not simply how much the average water level increases, via thermal expansion and meltwater, but how this increase will interact with a more unpredictable climate in general, which will produce more frequent severe storm surges. The combination will increase erosion and flooding events much more than simply one or the other effect of overall warming. It is NOT alarmist in the slightest, to state that the next couple of centuries (most definitely the "near future" in many contexts) will be "interesting", in the way that the Chinese curse "May you live in Interesting Times" means it.
What you saw was the light from Venus reflected off a weather balloon and igniting swamp gas. You'll move to the city, fix your hair, and decide you're a lot better off.
And if by "Interesting Times" you mean the silver horde (aka, the seven indestructible sages) is going to invade, damn straight, Skippy!
on a real science note, I have heard two sides to the changing weather thing. Side one says the weather will become supercharged because there is more energy in the atmosphere. side two says that as climate warms the differences between the polls and the equator will not be as extreme, and that it is the extreme difference that drives extreme weather. Can you point out actual studies on this, or is it something that must be accepted on faith?
This came out before NASA discovered that antarctica is melting 3x as fast as first thought
@James Passmore he had conservative data and projections from 2016. NEW data and models based on those show seal levels could rise by 70 ft by 2100!
No it is not.
@Jim P My reply was aimed at IDNeon not you Jim.
@Jim P, there's a few extra letters in your Apophis.😉
CO2 rise always follows warming, by the way.
@Jim P, that's *really* close. I hope it decides to become a moonlet rather than an ELE.😜
It's hard to believe that people still deny our effect on our planet. Our entire atmosphere is the thickness in ratio to a skin on an apple.
Outdated already. New data predicts the sea level rise will be 6.5 feet. I suspect in 3 more years we will revise this again to over 12 feet by 2100.
all you need to do is to find a sutable bench mark that is permatly fixed or make your owen, at the time of the king tide and note the weather reports at the time and the following king tide take a reading. in otherwords do some atcual recordings and you may even supprise yourselfe.
Gerard.
NASA studies of polar ice refutes this.
Excellent presentation. Thanks for the upload
Am i correct in scientists saying that Ice Caps have depressed the Earths Crust beneath them? And if so, is it fair to assume the oceans do the same? is it therefore fair to assume that perhaps all that extra water does as it melts from the ice caps and pours into the oceans is depress the ocean beds further, thus making any correllation between ice melt and sea water rises almost impossible to assess?
Dam, skippy! you is way smart! I thought the whale poop added to the bottom of the ocean was causing the oceans to rise, but you got me stumped there!
Seriously, if you ad an inch of water to the surface, it isn't going to do much. If you add a mile of ice sheet to the surface across a continent, that makes a difference, and that does cause the crust to move. There is actual data concerning this.
Also, the calculated value of ocean level rise in the last sixteen years of Antarctic ice melt when spread over the surface of the ocean is 0.002", or about the thickness of a human hair. The south poll is losing ice at a rate of 33 cubic miles per year. At that rate it will still have ice in 155,000 years.
@@geraldfrost4710 Good, so i was right then? Its all bollox.
If they are paying you minimum wage you are being overpaid.
The US is out of the Paris Agreement and those still in it are not actually complying with it.
Why is his whole talk based on the presumption that the warming is solely due to CO2? The correlation isn’t there!
I start holding my breath right now.
Please do, no cheating.
Okay, but don't pass no methane!
Wow , the smoking gun! Because a glacier is melting carbon must be the culprit, genius. I might fall for it if i was two.
all bollocks. Not climate change, but mans abaility to influence it one way or the other. When the Earths bored of us we will be wiped out. As usual. Its nothng new.
well said the whole premise is CO2 is the driver of climate change. I'm sure if he was honest he would admit he never had a Geology class that stated that!
@@solidstate99 Isn't the sun the driver of climate change? just a thought.
@@geraldfrost4710 yes CO2 is a result of Climate change not the cause!
Unfortunately, the sea level rises also in regions that use SI units...
Tell people something will happen after they're dead and they won't care. Tell them it's going to happen NOW, and they panic...
+Hippasus, typical reactionary mentality. Those who aren't pushed around by scare tactics actually use logic and critical thinking. Like: We live in an Ice Age and warmth is a good thing. We live in a period of CO2 starvation and more CO2 is a good thing. Global Warming reduces storms and their strength, because wind depends on temperature differences. Global Warming reduces droughts and deserts, because water never makes it to land without warmth (evaporation).
Like: we and our food sources evolved in an Ice Age and we had better make sure that the climate we evolved in, the climate we NEED, doesn't heat up because we DIE in heat. Thermoregulation is critical to our survival. We can't thermoregulate in 95F. wet bulb temperatures.
Roddy, you keep pushing this nonsense with no evidence, ever. So sad. Learn something, will ya?
Thank you Kimmy, for your never-ending supply of one-sided conversations. That truly is sad. I supply lots of evidence, you ignore it, and then claim victory. That's a sign of delusion.
Thank you for recognizing that we live in an Ice Age and that recent evolution was in an Ice Age. But biology isn't tied to ice. The population is far more abundant in the tropics. That's where life thrives -- in the warmth -- not in the ice. Evidence: the current populations of tropical Earth. I currently live in the tropics and it's quite nice. If more of the Earth were like this, it would expand the reach of humanity into the polar and sub-tropical deserts. I know you will ignore this or otherwise find some way to sidestep this evidence and again claim victory. But this answer isn't so much for you as the others who might accidentally happen along our one-sided conversation. Until next time...
Roddy, Roddy, Roddy..... our civilization thrives in temperate zones during a cool period. We do not want to see the temps. go up from here, as there is no evidence that humans or our food crops CAN survive in hotter temps. In fact, experiments show that hotter will create a degraded place to live and make life much more difficult. Keep things cool, keep the heat away.
Well, it looks like it's too late now, anyway, so I guess it doesn't much matter. The killing heat is on the way and we can't stop it. Prepare for Near Term Human Extinction.... the Sixth Mass Extinction. It's underway. Deal with it.
Now go to RUclips and watch potholer 54 climate change vids and then go to Google Images and enter "glaciers then and now".
Or, because their next promotion or campaign contribution depends on it, they simply deny that it is happening.
Sea level changes as recorded at Fort Denison for over 100 years show sea levels generally rising AND falling. The sea level recorded in 2019 as compared to 1914 show sea level falling. These are recorded facts at the most accurate recording station due to its positioning beside the Pacific Ocean, the largest body of water on earth.
Are you talking about avg sea level, or the flood levels, which are what most people tend to memorialize on those markers? Are you saying Ft Denison took accurate levels over a long period of time, and then averaged them out? Because I don't think anybody was doing that then. All they cared about was big events like floods. Now go back to your right wing blog you read that factoid at and look into it. Ask them the same question I asked you. They probably won't know, they read it at another right wing blog that makes up the echo chamber. Go back far enough and I'm sure you'll find the oil lobby. It's a multi-trillion dollar a year business, well worth the investment in some fake articles. But it just feels right in your gut, huh?
Marshal Giggleman the records show monthly mean sea levels since 1914. Not flood levels only but day to day sea levels recorded and averaged out monthly. The data is irrefutable so I don’t understand the hysteria and lies when the data is readily available.
You can go to other sites maintained by BOM and find the variations in sea levels are greater in the tropics than the Antartica just as tides are greater in the tropics.
Interesting topic but why did he list his CV in the first 3-4 min xD
wonderLust, the world is facing a major problem, mass extinction, and all you are concerned about is his CV ????
In order to decrease the rising sea levels how about this exotic idea: We terraform some of the ground beneath the sea: explode us into a deeper underwater landscape, some places on earth, and exploit the rock pieces on land, so that the water has more space/ depth for the water to be in, whereby it will decrease in height.
Plenty of aquifers need refilling around the world they were underground seas and can be so again.
There are very few massive empty underground caverns for us to fill.. But there is something called the "Qattara depression", worlds largest area that is below sea-level. Basically a big chunk of egypt thats far below sea-level and that we could fill with water, that would probably put a dent in global sea-level.
@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan Probably put a big dent in the Egyptians as well.
@@markrainford1219 not really, the few hundred people who are living there are probably intelligent enough to move a few km to one side or the other
IF THIS WERE TRUE REALESTATE WOULD NOT BE MORGAGED AT ALL !
A few questions for you, Jason Briner: 1, What is the time of your experience in the Arctic expressed as a percentage of the life of the Earth? 2, Can your calculator display that number of zeros after a decimal point? 3, All climate prophecies from the past have not just been incorrect, they have all been spectacularly wrong! Why should I believe that your apocalyptic prophecy is going to be any different? 4, If (I would say, when) your doom and gloom prophecy is proven to be totally false, i.e. human beings are having, at most, an insignificant effect on our ever-changing climate…. will you be pleased at this apparent reprieve for humankind? I would guess your response to this fourth question will one day provide ample material for a TED talk on the reasons why so many people are attracted to, and become so easily convinced of, the “truth” of apocalyptic predictions!
2019 now. USA Crops are failing. 1/3 of stockpile of Grain was lost in Flood. Sea Level rise is of no concern when there is no food to eat.
No food to eat? Really? Keep drinkin da Kool Aid Peter.
We have so much food we put in our cars and burn it. But we have so much oil we don't need to. I'd call that a surplus.
Along with sea level rise, get prepared to have days above 120 degrees F in the summer. (Global avg temperature rise doesn't mean it rises a uniform few degrees all over the globe. It means more extremes). How will your wheat and corn like them apples?
We have a lot of unused land and we can stop growing corn for gasoline additive.Bee population collapse is a MUCH bigger problem and may be related to climate change although pesticides are more likely the MAIN cause along with electro-magnetic pollution due to phone cell towers. 5G may make it worse for bees and FOR US! Look at the work of Dr Klinghart (Utube videos avail)
@@iamcrispy7004 go wear your tinfoil hat. I'll grow organic. Together we will stop the Republicans
The TV preachers that I've listened to sounded much the same as Jason Briner.
This guy never watched a Tony Heller video.
Why would he? He seems like he has a brain.
@@johannesschaller5510 Obviously you haven't watched them either because of your vast scientific knowledge and in--depth research of both sides of the argument.
Read this before it's taken down : *EMPIRICAL FACTS on sea levels:*
The seas and oceans to the east of Australia forms the largest body of water on Earth. This broadly connected vast body of water presents a genuine sea level assessment, since Australia is the oldest and most stable continent on earth.
The Sydney Fort Denison Recording Station provides stable, accurate and genuine mean sea level data. The data which is at the lowest spring tide recorded *mean sea level at Sydney in 2019 is 6 centimetres lower than the mean sea level at Sydney in 1914 when the Bureau Of Meteorology commenced recording Mean Sea Level.* High Sea Levels during Storm, Cyclone & Low Pressure Events. BBC and ABC commentators have asserted that sea levels may permanently rise by 1 to 2 metres in the next 100 years. *100 years of records on the largest water body on Earth indicates that this is incorrect.* There have always been short period storm and low pressure rises in sea levels. The highest recorded sea level at Sydney occurred during the 1974 low pressure storm. The sea level rose to 30 cm above high spring tide level for one day. During recorded history there has been no indication whatsoever of a 100 to 200 cm permanent rise in sea level. There will always be short period storm, cyclone and low pressure rises in sea levels in close proximity to cyclone and storm centres. These storm centre rises in sea levels are not permanent. Ocean swells and storm waves can exceed 16 metres during major storm surge events. It is these massive waves that have caused significant damage to coastal and island communities in the past. It is certain that huge storm event waves will occur in the future and will cause significant damage to the island and low lying communities. Coastline and flood zone protection is the sane answer to sane answer to storm event damage. *It is polite and essential that the world population should avoid incorrect climate nonsense. We need to divert the alarmist energy to caring for the planet. Cease polluting the oceans. Prevent development of flood prone land and threatened coastal zones that have been, and will always be, subject to flooding.* Daniel Fitzhenry - Hydrographic Surveyor 581 Singleton Road, Laughtondale NSW 2775 Australia
You are making a mistake in talking about this all happening too far in the future. I think we will have huge issues well before 2050.
Thank God for your expertise in this matter, I will sell all valuables and live on a boat...
Yes, and those huge issues will, if history is any guide, not be what we expected.
The fact that it is happening fast enough that humans can notice in their life time is catastrophic to say the least when compared to past Arctic/Antarctic/Glacial melts....it's the RATE of change that is so unusual....so much bravado and derision of the experts....often from men
Revelations 11:18
@
The solution is....
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. That's all. I'm one of the lucky ones. I don't just believe ....I know it's true. Don't worry ...be Happy.
Whilst I know we have problems with ice melting and seas rising, I have to ask, Where is the water going that we see disappearing off many coast lines, some as far as the eye can see. Someone must know the answer to this oddity.
You don't see water disappearing off many coast lines. Jesus.
Excellent presentation of our greatest threat. You might add that most of the world's nuclear facilities are at sea level. Thank you for your efforts and please continue your work.
I live near a lake that is open to the Gulf of Mexico and subject to ocean tides. I have seen no appreciable rise is average tide (sea level) since my childhood 50 years ago. If the Ice caps have been melting (total volume of ice), should I not see marked and visible evidence here at our sea walls? These are immovable, solid concrete sea walls built as far back as 1938.
Glaciers retreat? Really? Like the glaciers that covers North America over the last 10,000 years?
Interesting..... Antarctic growing???? No... we dont want to talk about global balance? Oh, let's stick with our micro climate view to tell our story
The glaciers used to reach down to where New York City is now. They've retreated a long way from NYC.
The glaciers used to reach down almost to Africa. They've retreated a long way from Africa.
East Antartica is growing slightly. West Antarctica is retreating at an ever-increasing pace.
The global land-ice mass is shrinking.
Glacier National Park in the USA used to have 150 glaciers (in 1850). Most were still there, 100 years ago. It now has 26 remaining.
If the ice floating in the Arctic Ocean melts there would be no change in water level because the ice was already floating. Actually, there might be a change. Since the maximum density of water is at 4 deg C, if the water warms from zero to plus 4 the volume of the ocean should decrease.
if NY city ends up under water, that is a good thing
Unfortunately, New York's tide gauges show the sea level rise is the same slow rise it's been for over a century ... no increase in the rate at all. But, due to building tall buildings, most of the Eastern Seaboard cities, including New York and Boston, are sinking slowly. But no sinking at all on the West Coast, or sea level rise.
So over the next 300 years a lot of people not born yet will live in other areas
The hottest years ever recorded? Unprecedented ice melting? It sounds very impressive, but it is not. Humankind has been recording temperatures on a global scale with some degree of precision for less than 50 years. From before that time there is no reliable data due to limited accuracy and geographical scope of the measurements. So being “the hottest years ever recorded” is not such a big deal! The amount of ice currently melting is not “unprecedented” either. For example, much more ice melted faster than now and for many centuries over the past 15,000 years. This melting eliminates the mile-high layer of ice that covered all of Canada, the northern part of the United States, northern Europe and Asia.
We have no Idea what the temperature is doing because we no longer have any proper measuring equipment!
Buy beach front property in Colorado.
Lol good one
You only need to go 73metres up (238feet) to be safe.
Somebody needs to tell Al Gore, he's bought a house near the sea.
If the money were used to clean up all the junk in the ocean, level might not seem so high.
No...thats absurd
@@norml.hugh-mann
Lol. Of course it's absurd. But it's a good place to start.
Most of the junk is plastic. And it floats on top. So does not affect sea level.
BTW...if you think New York is in trouble, look at sea level rise map for Shanghai, China. That land must be very low and flat.
geology.com/sea-level-rise/
news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/new-shelly-island-appears-cape-hatteras-north-carolina-coast/
Co2 is plant food,plant more trees, trees will cool the planet
we should be planting 2 of the same for every one we destroy...sounds simple...
Nono no. Earth has had hotter periods several time across geologic time. For most of earths history there were NO ice caps, north or south.
Indeed, and the fact that there's permanent ice at the poles (not to mention at higher altitudes) means that we're still in an ice age (the Quaternary to be exact).
Our species can adapt quickly to change other species cannot. With the increasing computational power we are building we will be able to predict possible outcomes and intervene to minimize damage.
Your kidding right? Do you seriously think humans will survive when our disregard for the natural environment causes the extinction of most other species on the planet? It's called the web of life for a reason. We can't survive if we kill the planet. I guess you think "the spirit in the sky" will carry you away when we've trashed this world.
Based on the volume of ice frozen in Greenland and Antarctica, the sea level will rise 250+ feet if all of the ice melts. Moreover, the rate of thawing, I understand, is increasing exponentially. How did you arrive at a 20 ft rise in 2200?
Good question..in a previous video I watched a women stated her conrad cut out a 100 million year old piece of ice... My question is how do these scientists calculate the age of the ice and is it accurate?
They take the least possible worst case scenario of human development where everyone starts putting liquefied coal into their cars and then take the least possible radiative forcing and mix it up to get high warming which is then assumed to melt a ton of ice.
@@maryjankowski9032 There is no ice on this planet thats been around 100 million years.. Maybe you meant 100 thousand years?
If sea level rise is such a huge threat why are cities like Abu Dhabi and Dubai being built at sea level?
Cause they're shortsighted and not looking at the long term.
They're going to have us Dutch build a dam across Hormuz Strait then demand toll from all oil tankers wishing to pass.
Yeah it's a bit deep, but not deeper than those highest building are high, and thanks to oil, they got plenty of cash. Piece of cake !
Only problem, Iran has to agree...
The answer is? More wind generators? How many generators would it take to stop the warming? Recently heard we would need the entire land mass of Russia yet even so the production of co2 will not stop. How many solar cells? At what latitudes, swathes of the planet are solar cells impractical? Burn biomass? Biomass which includes the burning of wood, does what % reduction in co2?
My grandson can actually also do this.... Welcome to the real world where change is normal...make more people fearful is exactly what governments want !
Change is not the problem. Severe, extremely rapid change is the issue.
If the government wants it so much, why are they doing their best to defund and stop climate change research. Critical thinking is not your strong point I take it?
@@zoeherriot you believe what you like...i still love you for what you are
@@pietduizend3300 I love you too piet, but you're gonna kill us all.
fear is exactly what they want and you reacted to this. Dont be afraid but smile and don't worry (Meher Baba)
Your model is wrong. The Antarctic ice sheet is increasing and SEA LEVEL WILL NOT INCREASE!
The tilt of the earth has changed ,it's cylicial.
Wrong because people like you believe the Earth is flat.
What? You are saying all this coal and oil has already been burned before? And were recycling it? Did you not notice the connection between carbon and heat? Sheesh.
Basic changes in human behavior; use less fossil fuels, live in smaller dwellings, eat no animal products, purchase products in paper vs plastic. Basically start to say "No.". the internal parent needs to step in and make the child in us-collectively be good. Simple, sure. But it is each one of us that makes change happen, not governments, not industry. We spearhead change for good or bad.
36" / 84Y = .43" (per year) x 3Y (2016 to 2019)=1.29" actual sea level change over that time period = aprox 3/8"....got to love how none of the self styled climate scientists in this comment section can even do basic math.
In addition to the receding glaciers, we need to accept the aerosol masking effect/ the McPherson paradox .
Listen to Guy McPherson for the details .
I was at one of his public lectures he gave.
We all need to give in to 50% tax and start paying to save my property.
Jeff Matthews. LOL, why just 50% tax?
the short tax form
line one: how much did you make?
line two: send it in.
Pôle shift permanently changes water levels on coastal regions.
Edit:
The science is the earth is an mhd stator. As charged particles hit the mag field they split into two opposite bands one of electrons and one of positive ions. The ions penetrate deeper into the field than the electrons. This creates bands of electrons way out and bands off ions close that are called van Allen belts. The rotating charges create a magnetic field and an EM field near the surface. This EM field travels westward it's source tied to the earth. This causes a radiation pressure push on the crust. Thus providing a rotational force to counter the gravity lock force of the sun. This force applied to the plates once reversed moves everything in the opposite direction. West coasts are pushed westward into the ocean and east coasts flood due to the extra tidal force of the new EM pressure from the east.
The effects of Global Warming will cause sea levels to rise regardless of whether we have a pole shift or not.
Yes, no one disputes climate changes. We do dispute that CO2 is the cause because there is no evidence of this, correlation does not mean causation. In fact, an increase in CO2 would be a positive benefit to the world's vegetation and agriculture. Plants thrive and do better with more CO2 an increase means it uses less water which would be beneficial in times of drought.
Also, you need to explain to me how ice ages have grown and receded in the history of our planet all happening without human intervention at that time. This has happened more than a few times and on a larger scale without humans contributing to the problem.
Lastly, climate scientists have been claiming this since Al Gore and their predictions say we should already be 20 feet under water. That has not happened and if this was really true you would not have banks loaning millions of dollars to people buying houses on islands or coastal areas where they have no chance of getting their money back? Also, people would not invest millions and billions of dollars in a beachfront development in Florida or elsewhere if this was the case, if it was, you would have to put disclaimers informing people of this.
The animations prove everything, like always.
We can handle gradual sea level rise. We can't handle a 30 ft per day rise, or a 400 ft sea level rise in a year as happened at the end of the Younger Dryas period. Check under the oceans where the sea level was 400 feet lower 13,000 years ago and we see places where people lived then.
Glacier bay Alaska receeded 60 plus miles north up the sound between 1750 when it was first mapped, and 1950, without any possible human influence. Gee, ya think maybe the same process is producing the same result, and man's pitiful contribution, 30 gigatons/year, compared to 700 gigatons natural positive CO2 flux , 30/700=0.04, is not the global control knob of temperature or climate on this planet.
Industrial revolution started in Britain, 18th century (1750). Industrial revolution used coal burning as heat source to drive steam engines. I think is fair to question how much humans contribute vs nature, but not fair to say we had no influence. This guy is telling us what the physical results will be. Physics doesn't care whether you believe or not.
Frank Parsons and computer models don’t care what really happens.
the little ice age 1670-1870. 1750 is smack in the middle of that. if you look at the sea level rise, it starts 1865, and it's been linear for 150 years. To put an accelerating parabola on the end of straight line data is something that a politician would do.
Also, of that 30 G tons/year (a number that I've seen before, as well as the 700 Gt), how much is still in the air, and how much has already become plant food? (this is a shameless plug; I left another comment on plant food.)
Looks like the new fake hockey stick
The good thing with "major sea level rise" is that it will always take place in the future.
It's now 2022, still waiting..................
As a climate scientist specializing in glaciers, perhaps you can tell us how that ice sheet, about a mile thick, that sat where New York City now sits, 20,000 years ago, could have formed and how it could have melted. Man must have really screwed up to warm the climate that much.
...what in the world does this have anything to do with this speech?
Anyone can raise sea level by 3 feet on paper. Al Gore melted the whole arctic in 10 years back in 2006.
I am sure that windbag Al Gore is responsible for most of the human generated co2 these last few years. Every time he opens his mouth he's exhaling bullsh**.
Thank you, nice video!❤️
so bottom line, i'm not going to be around long enough to see any of this
@Steve Haigh . . . me neither too .
@Scott Davis . . . and ?
You prob will be tho dw unless ur 70+ u shall see
No faith no gain
I have seen a number of photographs from Florida, Canada and elsewere, showing the seal level from for example 1920 and today and there is no visible difference.