These are great clear videos. I have started to share them on twitter in part to counter climate misinformation there. Well done. Great production values. Alot of work gone into it.
I won't lie, I'm not optiistic about all this. But I really hope that I'm wrong and that we'll exit the "Someone must do something about it... me? Oh no, I didn't mean me!" mentality.
We are in the Holocene, if the constant warming and sea level rise that is caused by the Holocene is not talked about the whole conversation is a BIG waste of time.
Greenland current surface mass balance is at a record for this time of year, which is supposed to be the start of the melt season. The only thing humans have to do with the climate change is the fact that we are just here to experience it.
That would be incorrect. Arctic sea ice extent continues to decline significantly. The past 16 years (2007 to 2022) have been the lowest 16 minimum extents, with 2022 tying 2017 and 2018 for 10th-lowest in 44 years of observations.
I don't dispute that anthropic warming is a huge problem that is only in its early stages, but of all the environmental crises, this one is possibly the hardest to avert. If only a fraction of the political posturing and corporate greenwashing were directed instead towards SOLVABLE problems such as plastics and deforestatiom, we might be able to chalk up some successes. As it is, we are all collectively knocking our heads against the proverbial brickwall. The hard truth of the matter is that for every privileged westerner trying to reduce fuel consumption, there are three poor people eager to take up the slack. They too want to enjoy the rudiments of a civilised lifestyle, such as AC, fine food and mobility. It is furthermore increasingly apparent that legitimate CO2 concerns have been weaponized by the tiny ruling class (WEF et al) as a tool for curtailing civil rights and justifying wall-to-wall surveillance. Lets face it, even if every westerner were forced to eat bugs, global emissions would still rise inexorably until all the economically viable fossil fuels have been extracted.
"The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." - Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric science professor and lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on climate change.
Antarctica, keep watching Thwaites, Totten and other huge glaciers. Even single one of them failing and 1m sea level rise is only a wish. And there are multiple unsteady glaciers seen already. Past 2100 more melting is almost ensured already. Greenland, well, we can only make a scientific guesses is it a goner already. I would not even consider to buy a house under 5 meters from the sea level. Specially if it cannot float... Storm surges makes additional havoc too...
@@daveslater309 Depends what season the measurement was taken and the thickness. The Antarctic glaciers are being undermined by the warning ocean around them, making the floating part thinner. So I doubt if there's actually a net gain.
@@daveslater309 Well,...actually, the immense ice shelves that surrounded AntArctica have virtually disappeared, lowest levels ever seen in fact. The Interior glaciers on the other hand are building, so they really don't increase in 500 square kilometer amounts, .they increase in snow depth, which in turn equates to "ThickNess', you can relate to "Thickness", ..right?
Ice melt is a serious issue - for anything still alive when the last of it melts. We've made things much worse than this and other issues are quickly overcoming ice melt. The ice, as quickly as it is melting, will still likely outlast humanity. I feel that focus on ice sheet melting and the early estimates of centuries for melting to be a massive issue was a distraction from more immediate issues (unintentionally). Lastly, it has been found that Greenland's ice loss is also releasing massive amounts of methane which is bad and now unstoppable. Greenland wins as a result.
@@steve-r-collier "do your research". LOL. Another moron thinking HE knows better. I bet you believe the Earth is flat...and man walked with Dinosaurs...and who knows what other asinine things. Well, at least there's a career as a fry cook... climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaway%3A,adding%20to%20sea%20level%20rise. "Data from NASA's GRACE and GRACE Follow-On satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower chart) have been losing mass since 2002." Notice they are clear about MASS, and not area or volume. So don't event try that bullshit here. MORON (for those who didn't hear the first time)
Sea level is the least of our worries, so stop with the hopium! NOAA predicts an ice free Arctic Ocean next year & the latent heat that is no longer melting the ice will send temps skyrocketing, beyond the already 2.5c we are currently at with the ensuing ENSO.
And the recent paper from Prof James Hansen et al apparently confirms +10 deg C of warming by the close of this century - research untertaken WITHOUT modelling; purely empirical/proxy data sets and using data for the residence time of historic/current atmospheric ghgs only; not including self-reinforcing feedbacks, oceanic thermal uptake and mixing, or any other factors such as cryospheric retreat. This latency factor is the climate system inertia.... Not forgetting that both geologists and the working groups of the UN-IPCC have now agreed that the current interstadial is now regarded as *INDEFINITE* and anthropogenic global warming is *IRREVERSIBLE.* So this video is being a tad disingenous...
@@pollyb.4648 finally someone agrees with me. Thanks. Usually I get "you're crazy- we have plenty of time to figure this out!" The rapid rate of change is clearly not understood.
i think we will hit 150 degree's in cities soon, ..i also think that one million people will Die is a single day, ..bury that friends. You are right to be Alarmed if you understand even a little bit about whats happening on our Planet.
Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and the stars, and on the Earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring”
1 meter of sea level rise (from all melting ice) is enough to contaminate water tables and affect sewer infrastructure . The London sea wall will protect London but cause increased flooding around the sea wall. SE USA coastal cities have 15 cm of rise as of 2019 and are expected to have 30 cm more in 11 years per Dr. James White.
Are you saying thar sea level in SE USA has risen by 15 cm in 4 years and is going to rise by twice that much in 11 years? If your figures are right that's alarming but they also suggest that instead of rising by 3.75 cm a year as in the last 4 years it's only going to rise by 2.727 cm a year for the next 11 years? My impression was that sea level rise is 0.5 mm a year. What kind of doctor is James White? Doctor of bull£$it? This is more alarmism and it doesn't help!
Nice question, sorry it's confusing! This is a commitment based on warming that's already happened, so as far as I understand, it depends on when the ice sheet settles on an equilibrium. If we stopped warming tomorrow it would probably still take multiple decades to completely unfold, but if (when) we carry on warming it would take longer. This is from Jason's paper and it emphasises that this 27 mm figure is "regardless of future climate warming scenarios". However it's consistent with other estimates of ~33-49 mm by 2100.
How anyone can sound so chipper about any of this is beyond me. The situation we're facing is dire! Any talk about how things will be in 2100 are not only futile but useless towards motivating the necessary action.
Sea level rise is a small consequence of glacial melt compared to loss of freshwater sources, air temperature differentials, AMOC interference, desalination, and wild weather anomalies.
As others have said, the sea level rise bit is slightly confusing but I rewatched it and it made sense now! Thanks for introducing Jason to us, too, his videos use a lot of data analysis and data visualization which both match my background and I thoroughly enjoy. Looking forward to part 3 :)
Going from 2°C to 4°C it’s not a factor of two like the guy says. The Celsius scale does not start at absolute zero like the Kelvin scale does, they only share the same temperature interval. It would be like saying going from 275 Kelvin to 277 Kelvin is a factor of 2, just nonsense.
If we magically stopped dead at current warming (never mind current GHGs), why would the ice stop melting? It's already melting at the highest point in Greenland so why would you (he) expect any (summer) ice to remain at equilibrium?
... and thanks for the into to Jason... he seems like a nice guy : )))) So subscribed over there too. Not sure if I missed it or... but as the atmosphere warms - and what was said more precipation in total, what didn't seem obvious was any increase in the uptake of evaporation of the ice due to 'warmer' air? Assuming that would also encompass also due to higher/more frequent winds, etc. And is that albedo change from the melt water sitting on the surface that significant? And yes understand the 'dark waters' of the Arctic ocean is - but the waters on the film 'looked' pretty reflective?
Thanks for subbing, Jason is great :) I'm actually not sure how the evaporation/sublimation rates would change with warmer air, but as you say we could expect it to rise, especially with windier conditions. Jason is really the expert on this for Greenland. And I know that the albedo effect can be pretty significant in the ablation zone - there have been a few papers showing how this can drive a lowering of the ice sheet and enhanced melting, will see if I can dig them out...
@@-LightningRod- they could be looking at their own hands melting and still wouldn't believe something unusual is going on. Non-melting-hand era is over, this has happened in cycles before, they would say.
Greenland ice has fallen. The only question is whether it will have melted in 100 or 500 years. And it comes here too briefly the dynamics of the process. The amount of melted ice has tripled in the last 20 years. If it continues at this pace, it will be 900 gigatons per year in 2040.
This series can be summed up as "You win at losing! My condolences" a mixed achievement to say the least And that next video is definitely going to be something, because tipping points, even ignoring the greenland one we're in trouble just from the coral reef one alone. From what I can tell, we're just behind that tipping point note: I am not a professional climatologist, so just go find an actual one and see what they've said on this
@@jimmoses6617 As humans have drastically (50-fold) increased the warming rate, I strongly doubt that the melting will take 27.000 years. I would guess something on the order of 2 or 3000 years. Without the human intervention into the climate system, we would head towards the next ice age.
Good Video! Great information! I suspect that the linear pattern will break soon with a new pattern system... Such as a multiple day hurricane with stable temperatures over 70 degrees for days... or a atmospheric river brings in multiple feet of warm rain... or a heat dome... I suspect that tectonic uplifting has already begun in Antarctica. That it’s going to increase and accelerate volcanic activity along with earthquakes and tsunami’s. The increase in volcanic activity might create beneficial cooling effects lowering the overall temperature... Many of the relatively recent catastrophic disasters might actually be due to tectonic uplifting in Antarctica due to the loss of ice mass. Antarctica actually deforms the Earth as seen from space due to the mass of ice that has been stable for millions of years. The question is whether the volcanic activity occurs in time to prevent a methane hiccup... or sends us back to the ice ages after a methane disaster...
What happens to the ice sheets with heavy snowfall from atmospheric rivers. We don't have the snow of my youth anymore. I remember cutting out snowflakes since it was so distinctive. Today we see snow clumps, and it contains LOTS of moisture. I've noticed it's got more of a slab effect. Does that have a blanketing effect on the ice underneath? And if the temperature of an atmospheric river is raise enough, it's a rainfall dump, and that isn't good at all.
Interestingly, this is something I'm working on in my research life (although in West Antarctica). Atmospheric rivers can increase the amount of downward-directed heat, raising temperatures enough to perm it melting, and in some cases also driving rain. These tend to be extreme events, but can account for a large amount of yearly snow/melt/rain. As far as I understand, they can be even more important in Greenland.
@@DrGilbz I think the warming effect of the blanket of snow is probably worse in Greenland, or maybe I'm wrong. West Antarctica and the Peninsula are really showing signs of "faster than expected". It seems there is open water all around Antarctica in place of fast ice. That heat transfer can't be good, and I'm sure the mechanical stresses are adding to the breakdown of the buttressing effects. I've been observing the temperatures at the 1000 hPa levels and am shocked to see positive temperatures about the Peninsula and the Weddell Sea as late as May. I think that's the oceanic heat waves.
Yeah you're right - the West Antarctic is definitely warming faster than expected, and the peninsula was the fastest warming place on earth for a while... although it's been cooling a bit since the early noughties. I've seen the temp anomalies around the peninsula linked to the record low sea ice cover in Bellingshausen / Weddell sectors, and I'm sure the extra moisture and heat flux to/from the atmosphere is having an impact. I'm sure you're right about the warming impacts of snow in Greenland - I'm really not an expert on that, hence inviting Jason onto the channel to share his knowledge! Thanks for your comments :)
Hello Dr Gilbz - thanks for producing such a great channel - can I ask you to help us make sense of Dr Hansens (et al) recent paper - "Global Warming in the Pipeline"? I reckon it will take a phd in climate science for it to make sense. Do we really have 10 degrees C baked in on 4.1 W/m average global energy imbalance? Will self-reinforcing positive feedbacks make this situation even worse? Is the human race in a palliative state right now?
Hey John, thanks for your comment. Funny you should ask, cos I may have something in the pipeline with the fabulous Climate Adam on this topic... 👀 Stay tuned!
Thanks. British Isles currently experiencing what I would call a 'cold blob driven' anticyclone, causing an aircon like Northerly persistent wind - nb Supposed to be SW 'prevailing' here. .. miles out from norm.
But what about the volcano's? I know that Greenland is just massive volcanos all joined up, and it has many hundreds of giga tons of ice on top of it. The weight of the ice will be pushing down on the volcano's. So what happens when there is less force pushing down on the volcano's because the ice is melting? If you get more lava moving around inside the volcano's then you will have more heat, and if one of the volcano's erupts then that's a lot of heat going into the ice sheet. Which will result in more melting and less downwards force on the volcano's. So is there a tipping point where the volcano's just start erupting and melting all the ice overnight?
Ahh, tipping points. When we talk about tipping points I rarely hear anything about the rate of tipping. Are there tipping points that occur say, within a month, a year, a decade? How sudden will these occur?
That's a very hard question to answer. This is unprecedented. The meltwater pulses show that civilization collapsing tipping points can definitely occur within a couple of decades.
We all know heat rises. Can hotter temperatures expand the many ozones around earth 🌎 to make room for a polar shift? Maybe slow our spin or speed it up? We have relocated so many minerals from under ground burning most Is this possible?
@@-LightningRod- We're approaching Flow State. Part of the core of donut earth is still frozen. The toroidal apple core is locked down. The black hole sun is waiting to be released. It will be a bumpy ride. All civilizations crumble. No exceptions. Most won't make it through the eye of the needle. Pay attention to reality rather than the narrative. Prepare....
@@gmw3083 yes as billions start to starve and hundreds of millions, if not billions, start to migrate to land that hasn't become as hostile, we will all be peaceful and calm. Rejoice!
but what if the melt is natural? how do you not know you cant take records from long ago if the ice completely melts every 100K years, I live in Maryland and the sea was much higher a few million years ago you can find sea creatures in fossils like 30 feet above the current water level
I don’t know what the future holds. How come this bloke thinks he does? A computer simulation told him, he just knows, he believes someone else? There are some odd ideas about
I know that an hour from now, it will be an hour from now. Humans have agreed on measurement units (seconds, minutes, hours, days). We have made a model (24-hour day, 60 minute hours, 60 second minutes) that measures our time. So, when I say that an hour from now, it will be say 20 past 9 in the morning, instead of 20 past 8 in the morning. And when I wait an hour, this prediction holds. So, with measurement units, data gathering and modelling, we can use this to make predictions about the future, that then we can verify by the actual data we measure when the future is now.
@@RolfStones the future is in the future. My friend, the block universe is bad physics and bad philosophy. If I’m wrong I’m happy to hear what your crystal ball says about the weather in say my backyard next week. We can see how good you’re doing in a weeks time. Are you up for it?
@@jimmoses6617 ofcourse climate modelling is far more complex. But I'd thought I'd start with the basics since someone evaluated climate projection models on the basis of weather prediction models. These are completely different models and it is pretty telling on how much someone actually knows about models when you make that error. Not much, if anything.
@@jimmoses6617 a statistical model like climate change models isn't a visual representation. It is a statistical framework. You're thinking of graphs. Also, models aren't crystal balls. They are projections of how, in this case the climate, will behave in the future, on the basis of how climate has changed in the past. There has been research that looked at old climate models and how accurate they were when we look at recent periods of data, it appeared the models were fairly accurate, and they became even more accurate when we included things we learned since those models were made. Your comment shows how little you know about statistics and modelling.
@@jimmoses6617 I don't believe that, a scientist wouldn't call a model a visual representation. Or maybe you were just tired and it was an honoust mistake. Also, climate models doesn't predict. They are a projection. Also, as a scientist, I would expect you'd have a critical opinion on error bars and how/which factors are used in climate models, to point out in a scientific way of argumentation what the biggest problems are with the different climate models. Just saying garbage in/garbage out doesn't cut it. Also, I am sure you're not a climate scientist, so you're as much an expert on climate models as me. You don't have authority on subjects outside of your specialization. As a scientist I would also expect you to have a humble stance on topics outside your field of expertise. But I guess your not a scientist with much integrity.
Well,..@Mattphillips9107 , you are right , they are expanding in that they are flowing from glaciers into the Sea And then melting. By "expanding", i think you mean Length X Width, ..however the Volume of the ice is Length X Width X Height, which you would agree, of course means that there is MUCH less ice, Thats what you mean tho, ..right?
@@-LightningRod-it’s all too big for them to consider. You point out one thing, they interpret it very simplistically, often relying on their tiny little world
Right- tell that to all the glacier tour companies around the world that have had to shut down because there is no glacier left to put tourists on. Or the glacier that was a few hundred feet from the tourist stop is now a few miles away and the tourists cannot see it any more.
Nature Bats Last!
Just found this channel and shall be using it for all my climate update needs, keep up the good work
These are great clear videos. I have started to share them on twitter in part to counter climate misinformation there. Well done. Great production values. Alot of work gone into it.
Thanks very much Denis - you're right I put a lot of effort into making them! Appreciate you sharing them :)
Let's see what an IPCC lead author has to say about "climate misinformation." ruclips.net/video/RUBrV0VFcbY/видео.html
I won't lie, I'm not optiistic about all this. But I really hope that I'm wrong and that we'll exit the "Someone must do something about it... me? Oh no, I didn't mean me!" mentality.
uhhhh,...i thought you were gonna ask someone about it,.....
We are in the Holocene, if the constant warming and sea level rise that is caused by the Holocene is not talked about the whole conversation is a BIG waste of time.
I see you have consulted your crystal ball.
The Milankovitch Cycles that brought on the Holocene are in cooling phases now, so we shouldn't be warming now.
The Beckisphere Twitch chatters love you! Great video series!!
we did and we do
ahhh that's awesome! Thanks Becky :) Big love right back!
But a recently released study shows the arctic ice coverage has been growing since 2017 if I remember rightly….. 🤷♂️
Greenland current surface mass balance is at a record for this time of year, which is supposed to be the start of the melt season. The only thing humans have to do with the climate change is the fact that we are just here to experience it.
That would be incorrect. Arctic sea ice extent continues to decline significantly. The past 16 years (2007 to 2022) have been the lowest 16 minimum extents, with 2022 tying 2017 and 2018 for 10th-lowest in 44 years of observations.
@@Jwhite198620 you may want to go to hell, but dont take us with you please sir.
@@Patrick_Ross What about the outlier 2012, which was lower than any year since, though the downward trend is clear?
I don't dispute that anthropic warming is a huge problem that is only in its early stages, but of all the environmental crises, this one is possibly the hardest to avert. If only a fraction of the political posturing and corporate greenwashing were directed instead towards SOLVABLE problems such as plastics and deforestatiom, we might be able to chalk up some successes. As it is, we are all collectively knocking our heads against the proverbial brickwall. The hard truth of the matter is that for every privileged westerner trying to reduce fuel consumption, there are three poor people eager to take up the slack. They too want to enjoy the rudiments of a civilised lifestyle, such as AC, fine food and mobility. It is furthermore increasingly apparent that legitimate CO2 concerns have been weaponized by the tiny ruling class (WEF et al) as a tool for curtailing civil rights and justifying wall-to-wall surveillance. Lets face it, even if every westerner were forced to eat bugs, global emissions would still rise inexorably until all the economically viable fossil fuels have been extracted.
"The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multi-factor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." - Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric science professor and lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on climate change.
Just subscribed to you channel. Interesting topics, made easy to understand with a touch of humour. Winner!
wahoo! welcome aboard :)
Antarctica, keep watching Thwaites, Totten and other huge glaciers. Even single one of them failing and 1m sea level rise is only a wish. And there are multiple unsteady glaciers seen already. Past 2100 more melting is almost ensured already.
Greenland, well, we can only make a scientific guesses is it a goner already.
I would not even consider to buy a house under 5 meters from the sea level. Specially if it cannot float... Storm surges makes additional havoc too...
I cant wait to buy real estate in Greenland and plant palm trees
It's a whole subject of what it means to have +0,5 m in the sea level.
@@daveslater309 Depends what season the measurement was taken and the thickness. The Antarctic glaciers are being undermined by the warning ocean around them, making the floating part thinner. So I doubt if there's actually a net gain.
@@daveslater309 Well,...actually, the immense ice shelves that surrounded AntArctica have virtually disappeared, lowest levels ever seen in fact. The Interior glaciers on the other hand are building, so they really don't increase in 500 square kilometer amounts, .they increase in snow depth, which in turn equates to "ThickNess', you can relate to "Thickness", ..right?
@@daveslater309
friend,..its 2023 now
Ice melt is a serious issue - for anything still alive when the last of it melts. We've made things much worse than this and other issues are quickly overcoming ice melt. The ice, as quickly as it is melting, will still likely outlast humanity.
I feel that focus on ice sheet melting and the early estimates of centuries for melting to be a massive issue was a distraction from more immediate issues (unintentionally).
Lastly, it has been found that Greenland's ice loss is also releasing massive amounts of methane which is bad and now unstoppable. Greenland wins as a result.
@@steve-r-collier "do your research". LOL. Another moron thinking HE knows better. I bet you believe the Earth is flat...and man walked with Dinosaurs...and who knows what other asinine things. Well, at least there's a career as a fry cook...
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaway%3A,adding%20to%20sea%20level%20rise.
"Data from NASA's GRACE and GRACE Follow-On satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower chart) have been losing mass since 2002."
Notice they are clear about MASS, and not area or volume. So don't event try that bullshit here.
MORON (for those who didn't hear the first time)
Sea level is the least of our worries, so stop with the hopium! NOAA predicts an ice free Arctic Ocean next year & the latent heat that is no longer melting the ice will send temps skyrocketing, beyond the already 2.5c we are currently at with the ensuing ENSO.
And the recent paper from Prof James Hansen et al apparently confirms +10 deg C of warming by the close of this century - research untertaken WITHOUT modelling; purely empirical/proxy data sets and using data for the residence time of historic/current atmospheric ghgs only; not including self-reinforcing feedbacks, oceanic thermal uptake and mixing, or any other factors such as cryospheric retreat. This latency factor is the climate system inertia....
Not forgetting that both geologists and the working groups of the UN-IPCC have now agreed that the current interstadial is now regarded as *INDEFINITE* and anthropogenic global warming is *IRREVERSIBLE.*
So this video is being a tad disingenous...
Agree. I'm an amateur but I've said for years that we'll all die of heatstroke or starvation by the time everything melts!
@@pollyb.4648 finally someone agrees with me. Thanks. Usually I get "you're crazy- we have plenty of time to figure this out!"
The rapid rate of change is clearly not understood.
i think we will hit 150 degree's in cities soon, ..i also think that one million people will Die is a single day, ..bury that friends.
You are right to be Alarmed if you understand even a little bit about whats happening on our Planet.
@@roberthornack1692 And the next 16 months of El Nino are very scary. I've given up trying to convince anyone, sigh So I say live laugh love!
Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and the stars, and on the Earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and waves roaring”
1 meter of sea level rise (from all melting ice) is enough to contaminate water tables and affect sewer infrastructure . The London sea wall will protect London but cause increased flooding around the sea wall. SE USA coastal cities have 15 cm of rise as of 2019 and are expected to have 30 cm more in 11 years per Dr. James White.
London, Washington D.C., New York City, and many other major cities, will eventually be abandoned.
Are you saying thar sea level in SE USA has risen by 15 cm in 4 years and is going to rise by twice that much in 11 years? If your figures are right that's alarming but they also suggest that instead of rising by 3.75 cm a year as in the last 4 years it's only going to rise by 2.727 cm a year for the next 11 years? My impression was that sea level rise is 0.5 mm a year. What kind of doctor is James White? Doctor of bull£$it? This is more alarmism and it doesn't help!
Understand,,,humanity needs this INFO♾️☮️
A little confused - what was the year we might expect the commitment of 27cm to be delivered?
Nice question, sorry it's confusing! This is a commitment based on warming that's already happened, so as far as I understand, it depends on when the ice sheet settles on an equilibrium. If we stopped warming tomorrow it would probably still take multiple decades to completely unfold, but if (when) we carry on warming it would take longer. This is from Jason's paper and it emphasises that this 27 mm figure is "regardless of future climate warming scenarios". However it's consistent with other estimates of ~33-49 mm by 2100.
you might be confused, it doesn't get delivered, it gets "ablated" over time, ...the "delivery" is constantly increasing.
How anyone can sound so chipper about any of this is beyond me.
The situation we're facing is dire! Any talk about how things will be in 2100 are not only futile but useless towards motivating the necessary action.
Sea level rise is a small consequence of glacial melt compared to loss of freshwater sources, air temperature differentials, AMOC interference, desalination, and wild weather anomalies.
As others have said, the sea level rise bit is slightly confusing but I rewatched it and it made sense now! Thanks for introducing Jason to us, too, his videos use a lot of data analysis and data visualization which both match my background and I thoroughly enjoy. Looking forward to part 3 :)
@@daveslater309 no it hasn't. Where are you getting these numbers from?
@@marksherry6589 lol where do you think your numbers come from, genius?
The like are at 911.... couldn't bring myself to change it by liking the video
Going from 2°C to 4°C it’s not a factor of two like the guy says. The Celsius scale does not start at absolute zero like the Kelvin scale does, they only share the same temperature interval. It would be like saying going from 275 Kelvin to 277 Kelvin is a factor of 2, just nonsense.
Thank you for showcasing Jason Box. His channel has some legitamately good work on it.
Yep, Jason is a fab scientist and makes some cool vids too :)
If we magically stopped dead at current warming (never mind current GHGs), why would the ice stop melting? It's already melting at the highest point in Greenland so why would you (he) expect any (summer) ice to remain at equilibrium?
... and thanks for the into to Jason... he seems like a nice guy : )))) So subscribed over there too.
Not sure if I missed it or... but as the atmosphere warms - and what was said more precipation in total, what didn't seem obvious was any increase in the uptake of evaporation of the ice due to 'warmer' air? Assuming that would also encompass also due to higher/more frequent winds, etc.
And is that albedo change from the melt water sitting on the surface that significant? And yes understand the 'dark waters' of the Arctic ocean is - but the waters on the film 'looked' pretty reflective?
Thanks for subbing, Jason is great :)
I'm actually not sure how the evaporation/sublimation rates would change with warmer air, but as you say we could expect it to rise, especially with windier conditions. Jason is really the expert on this for Greenland.
And I know that the albedo effect can be pretty significant in the ablation zone - there have been a few papers showing how this can drive a lowering of the ice sheet and enhanced melting, will see if I can dig them out...
The hell this comment section full of science deniers
trust me, everyone will be a "believer" soon.
@@-LightningRod- they could be looking at their own hands melting and still wouldn't believe something unusual is going on.
Non-melting-hand era is over, this has happened in cycles before, they would say.
@@MapacheOculto
indeed
The science deniers will be among the first to succumb.
Dr. Glibz is brilliant thanks for sharing Doc or professor
Thanks Omar!
Greenland ice has fallen. The only question is whether it will have melted in 100 or 500 years. And it comes here too briefly the dynamics of the process. The amount of melted ice has tripled in the last 20 years. If it continues at this pace, it will be 900 gigatons per year in 2040.
This series can be summed up as "You win at losing! My condolences" a mixed achievement to say the least
And that next video is definitely going to be something, because tipping points, even ignoring the greenland one we're in trouble just from the coral reef one alone. From what I can tell, we're just behind that tipping point
note: I am not a professional climatologist, so just go find an actual one and see what they've said on this
one of the best videos I've watched all year, really interesting stuff!
Thanks Harry :)
Not buying low bank ocean front property. But I do love going to the beach.
We have to stop using anti freeze!
you should rename this to Just imagine waking up in Greenland and going WTF it's raining?
Sea level was 7 meters higher 120,000 years ago.
On average the runoff of Greenland is the equivalent of all the water which runs down the Volga river, the largest river in Europe.
@@jimmoses6617 As humans have drastically (50-fold) increased the warming rate, I strongly doubt that the melting will take 27.000 years.
I would guess something on the order of 2 or 3000 years.
Without the human intervention into the climate system, we would head towards the next ice age.
Has there been any work done on determining if there is a significant amount of methane hydrate under the Greenland ice?
I don't know I'm afraid!
@@DrGilbzYou can’t be a Climate Scientist if you don’t know about Methane Hydrates.
@@whatelse1222 You’re misinterpreting her answer. There haven’t been any studies into methane hydrates under Greenland Ice.
Good Video!
Great information!
I suspect that the linear pattern will break soon with a new pattern system...
Such as a multiple day hurricane with stable temperatures over 70 degrees for days...
or a atmospheric river brings in multiple feet of warm rain...
or a heat dome...
I suspect that tectonic uplifting has already begun in Antarctica.
That it’s going to increase and accelerate volcanic activity along with earthquakes and tsunami’s.
The increase in volcanic activity might create beneficial cooling effects lowering the overall temperature...
Many of the relatively recent catastrophic disasters might actually be due to tectonic uplifting in Antarctica due to the loss of ice mass.
Antarctica actually deforms the Earth as seen from space due to the mass of ice that has been stable for millions of years.
The question is whether the volcanic activity occurs in time to prevent a methane hiccup...
or sends us back to the ice ages after a methane disaster...
Time to build some modern cities, replacing stocks of outmoded grid cities?
What happens to the ice sheets with heavy snowfall from atmospheric rivers.
We don't have the snow of my youth anymore. I remember cutting out snowflakes since it was so distinctive. Today we see snow clumps, and it contains LOTS of moisture. I've noticed it's got more of a slab effect. Does that have a blanketing effect on the ice underneath? And if the temperature of an atmospheric river is raise enough, it's a rainfall dump, and that isn't good at all.
Interestingly, this is something I'm working on in my research life (although in West Antarctica). Atmospheric rivers can increase the amount of downward-directed heat, raising temperatures enough to perm it melting, and in some cases also driving rain. These tend to be extreme events, but can account for a large amount of yearly snow/melt/rain. As far as I understand, they can be even more important in Greenland.
@@DrGilbz I think the warming effect of the blanket of snow is probably worse in Greenland, or maybe I'm wrong. West Antarctica and the Peninsula are really showing signs of "faster than expected". It seems there is open water all around Antarctica in place of fast ice. That heat transfer can't be good, and I'm sure the mechanical stresses are adding to the breakdown of the buttressing effects.
I've been observing the temperatures at the 1000 hPa levels and am shocked to see positive temperatures about the Peninsula and the Weddell Sea as late as May. I think that's the oceanic heat waves.
Yeah you're right - the West Antarctic is definitely warming faster than expected, and the peninsula was the fastest warming place on earth for a while... although it's been cooling a bit since the early noughties. I've seen the temp anomalies around the peninsula linked to the record low sea ice cover in Bellingshausen / Weddell sectors, and I'm sure the extra moisture and heat flux to/from the atmosphere is having an impact. I'm sure you're right about the warming impacts of snow in Greenland - I'm really not an expert on that, hence inviting Jason onto the channel to share his knowledge! Thanks for your comments :)
Is this why Arctic (esp round Greenland) isn't hotter than usual while the rest of the Ocean is glowing red?
Bring on the see level,,,I live in the hills..Looking at beach side property...lol
Wait until the world moves into your backyard.
how hot will those Hills be when the earths air conditioner is gone friend?
Will you be able to live there still?
They'll be barren hills.
@@jimmoses6617
i really don't understand why the Nobel people haven't called Me yet.
You think the impending mass die offs of civilization is funny? The last laugh will be on you.
Could a sudden large ice loss happen as large glaciers slide into the sea. In the goegoligical past there hav been Onsager? events?
Nearly used the term 'Exponential'.... Nearly. Maybe practice it for next time...? Awareness is growing among the normies, thank you!
Hello Dr Gilbz - thanks for producing such a great channel - can I ask you to help us make sense of Dr Hansens (et al) recent paper - "Global Warming in the Pipeline"? I reckon it will take a phd in climate science for it to make sense. Do we really have 10 degrees C baked in on 4.1 W/m average global energy imbalance? Will self-reinforcing positive feedbacks make this situation even worse? Is the human race in a palliative state right now?
Hey John, thanks for your comment. Funny you should ask, cos I may have something in the pipeline with the fabulous Climate Adam on this topic... 👀 Stay tuned!
@@DrGilbz Thanks Dr Gilbz !!
We are all passengers on Titanic Globe
Thanks. British Isles currently experiencing what I would call a 'cold blob driven' anticyclone, causing an aircon like Northerly persistent wind - nb Supposed to be SW 'prevailing' here. .. miles out from norm.
Since we have a shared interest, I have to post my video on Greenland melt with Jason! ruclips.net/video/0Pq5LYSpFG8/видео.html
But what about the volcano's?
I know that Greenland is just massive volcanos all joined up, and it has many hundreds of giga tons of ice on top of it. The weight of the ice will be pushing down on the volcano's.
So what happens when there is less force pushing down on the volcano's because the ice is melting?
If you get more lava moving around inside the volcano's then you will have more heat, and if one of the volcano's erupts then that's a lot of heat going into the ice sheet. Which will result in more melting and less downwards force on the volcano's.
So is there a tipping point where the volcano's just start erupting and melting all the ice overnight?
Greenland melting im melting, come on lads can we not melt plz
Sorry, ...its melting, ...fast.
@@-LightningRod- booo
@@SkyNetIO
booo hoo 4 u Non-Believer! youll prbly BURN ,..or get eaten.
'fraid not.
@@EmeraldView rubish !we can do it !
Ahh, tipping points. When we talk about tipping points I rarely hear anything about the rate of tipping. Are there tipping points that occur say, within a month, a year, a decade? How sudden will these occur?
That's a very hard question to answer. This is unprecedented.
The meltwater pulses show that civilization collapsing tipping points can definitely occur within a couple of decades.
Tuesday
@@JimTheDruid-db3ok Fck! What time Tuesday? I have an appointment.
this is something covered in the next episode ;)
@@JimTheDruid-db3ok Bugger, I was planning on doing 18 holes on Tuesday.
We all know heat rises. Can hotter temperatures expand the many ozones around earth 🌎 to make room for a polar shift? Maybe slow our spin or speed it up?
We have relocated so many minerals from under ground burning most Is this possible?
✌️
And this is bad why? All they have in the country is one town, now they can have 2 xD
Are you serious or was your comment just poorly worded sarcasm?
🧊
7:49 What is this insertion
The Paris agreement legislates for 2C, with the "ambition" to achieve 1.5C. Less warming is of course safer.
Holy Greta Thunberg!
The ice age is ending. Rejoice.
what actually cools the rest of the Earth when all the ice melts?
@@-LightningRod- We're approaching Flow State. Part of the core of donut earth is still frozen. The toroidal apple core is locked down. The black hole sun is waiting to be released. It will be a bumpy ride. All civilizations crumble. No exceptions. Most won't make it through the eye of the needle. Pay attention to reality rather than the narrative. Prepare....
I can't wait until bread costs fifty bucks a loaf and my cooling bill hits a thousand bucks a month. There will be much rejoicing.
@@ax14pz107 you're doing it wrong. You're not alone. Bread isn't good food anyway. Read my reply to Lightning rod
@@gmw3083 yes as billions start to starve and hundreds of millions, if not billions, start to migrate to land that hasn't become as hostile, we will all be peaceful and calm.
Rejoice!
still possible?.lol
Nederland verzuipt. !!!!
Yes, but the antarctic has gained record amounts of ice in recent years.
but what if the melt is natural? how do you not know you cant take records from long ago if the ice completely melts every 100K years, I live in Maryland and the sea was much higher a few million years ago you can find sea creatures in fossils like 30 feet above the current water level
Sea life fossils found on dry land or on mountains and hills, are most likely there from uplift. There is no great mystery to this.
Because Cows Fart! Have you not heard them?
😏 Promo-SM
I don’t know what the future holds. How come this bloke thinks he does? A computer simulation told him, he just knows, he believes someone else? There are some odd ideas about
I know that an hour from now, it will be an hour from now. Humans have agreed on measurement units (seconds, minutes, hours, days). We have made a model (24-hour day, 60 minute hours, 60 second minutes) that measures our time.
So, when I say that an hour from now, it will be say 20 past 9 in the morning, instead of 20 past 8 in the morning. And when I wait an hour, this prediction holds.
So, with measurement units, data gathering and modelling, we can use this to make predictions about the future, that then we can verify by the actual data we measure when the future is now.
@@RolfStones the future is in the future. My friend, the block universe is bad physics and bad philosophy. If I’m wrong I’m happy to hear what your crystal ball says about the weather in say my backyard next week. We can see how good you’re doing in a weeks time. Are you up for it?
@@jimmoses6617 ofcourse climate modelling is far more complex.
But I'd thought I'd start with the basics since someone evaluated climate projection models on the basis of weather prediction models. These are completely different models and it is pretty telling on how much someone actually knows about models when you make that error. Not much, if anything.
@@jimmoses6617 a statistical model like climate change models isn't a visual representation. It is a statistical framework. You're thinking of graphs. Also, models aren't crystal balls. They are projections of how, in this case the climate, will behave in the future, on the basis of how climate has changed in the past.
There has been research that looked at old climate models and how accurate they were when we look at recent periods of data, it appeared the models were fairly accurate, and they became even more accurate when we included things we learned since those models were made.
Your comment shows how little you know about statistics and modelling.
@@jimmoses6617 I don't believe that, a scientist wouldn't call a model a visual representation. Or maybe you were just tired and it was an honoust mistake. Also, climate models doesn't predict. They are a projection. Also, as a scientist, I would expect you'd have a critical opinion on error bars and how/which factors are used in climate models, to point out in a scientific way of argumentation what the biggest problems are with the different climate models. Just saying garbage in/garbage out doesn't cut it.
Also, I am sure you're not a climate scientist, so you're as much an expert on climate models as me. You don't have authority on subjects outside of your specialization. As a scientist I would also expect you to have a humble stance on topics outside your field of expertise. But I guess your not a scientist with much integrity.
Worrywarts.
The ice shelves are expanding! Fact!
You are confused with Antarctica and did you also look at the volume instead of surface alone?
Well,..@Mattphillips9107 , you are right , they are expanding in that they are flowing from glaciers into the Sea And then melting.
By "expanding", i think you mean Length X Width, ..however the Volume of the ice is Length X Width X Height, which you would agree, of course means that there is MUCH less ice, Thats what you mean tho, ..right?
@@-LightningRod-it’s all too big for them to consider. You point out one thing, they interpret it very simplistically, often relying on their tiny little world
@@swayback7375
Education is the best answer, fill in the facts and tell the truth friend.
Right- tell that to all the glacier tour companies around the world that have had to shut down because there is no glacier left to put tourists on. Or the glacier that was a few hundred feet from the tourist stop is now a few miles away and the tourists cannot see it any more.