Net zero isn't going to address any climate changes, it will though enslave through technology and impoverish most of the western worlds inhabitants. It's foolish and self destructive to support such policies. Is better to change life habits.
Net zero isn't going to address any climate changes, it will though enslave through technology and impoverish most of the western worlds inhabitants. It's foolish and self destructive to support such policies. Is better to change life habits.
@@lshwadchuck5643 You might be right about that, but I suspect there is an option in the video editing software to "add background music" with some free AI generated sonic wallpaper, and he should turn it off.
It’s propaganda. Yes, ice melts in the summer and accumulates in the winter. Just search climate science fraud. These people write articles using “scientific” sounding words, using a mixture dubious methods, and opinion while omitting data that doesn’t fit their models. Then they just cite each other work, creating a feedback loop. They are also highly funded by dubious donors.
I appreciate your work very much! I’ve been watching Paul Beckwith‘s videos for about a year. Another very good source for accurate, if not encouraging, climate realism.
They are at best realist when it comes to interpret the state of climate in regards to anticipation based on science. Politically all these climate scientists suck, and are part of the problem. Since they use lefty language like blaming "capitalism" and support " historic climate justice". Realistically we can only really get started when the poor countries accept that they will stay poor and mass immigration into the developed world will be suppressed.
Jason Box: you have been a source of valuable information and a wonderful example of human courage and compassion to me and my family. Please continue your cherished work and humanity xxx
Thank you Jason, after reading your (and other’s) work on climate change, I really feel motivated to TRY to communicate the importance of what is happening to our planet
Wow, this is so effective to see all of these rich visuals, photos, time-lapse and regular time videos, etc. It's really magical to be able to witness our own extinction so vividly. Thanks for your great work!
Yes ..just to say , i looked at all of this yesterday, struck by the profound moments i imagined you had out on the melt water lakes measuring for deepth to colour correlerate with imagery from above ... Just an historical moment for humanity .You must have been aware of the rarity of that experience and felt the sense of frustration that Humanity has arrived at this moment.
What you are describing is another method of Swiss Cheesification of Greenland Ice. One thing that should be worrying is the sudden drop in air temperature with this phenomenon. The cold air temperatures cause rapid formation of ice, which expands, and the ice is already brittle. That's why I've added Winter Melt Season to my climate lexicon.
When fractures emerge, then the area becomes a bit more darker (sunlight goes down to the crack). Also having cracks in the ice allows it to move the ways it did not do earlier. Alternating speeds may fracture ice even further. And the melting area is a bit larger due to crack surface. Having cracks allows water flow deeper in the ice. They may even make large subglacial lakes that may keep warming glacier long times. These ice bounded lakes could lead to even some flooding events. Crack may also fill up with surrounding snow, reducing snow coverage in nearby area, making it darker earlier. There are multitude of cracking related physical feedbacks. And most of them are negative and therefore these cracks leads to more melting.
The Beaufort gyre is getting ready to do a big release it's gone through several Cycles without releasing its cold meltwater I'm curious as to both of these events combining Into The Perfect Storm Into shutting down the amoc
Thank you for the work that you do! It's lonely and desolate out there and people need to pay as much attention to the forecasts you and your colleagues are reporting on climate the way that they do for an impending massive hurricane.. The other major factor that hasn't been adequately accounted for in climate models btw, is the release of methane from melting permafrost.
i think because .despite the extreme risk!!!, he has done that already and then confirmed the interpoloation of the other data, SAT, Dron etc. You only need to do it once,..i think, theres probly some variables .
I'm sad, too. I passed on various warning on KBOO from the 90s to 2020, and I remember trying to get you on-air long before you were ready for that sort of thing (I assume--I could not find a good contact). Your conditional statement (so long ago!) "we're fucked," made me weep. ...I don't know. Revolution.
are we using discrete (pixelated) maths for climate models? should be using vector based models that can accomodate both small and large features, as both matter?
Was only just watching a Democracy Now Interview with you from years ago when I saw your new vid. I want to have hope and I do a bit of rewilding when I can (especially at home) but I can't help feeling like the jaded George Carlin in his later years was right. We're in for scary times, and i can't help but be jealous of the people who can go through this but their biggest concern is what some celeb did to another.
But on the other hand, even if it's depressing and stressful, it's truly fascinating to see these complex interconnected and interdependent systems react to new rapid stresses and be witnessing what is phenomenal rapid changes. The asteroid that wiped out that hit the earth was beautiful and magnificent in an incredibly interesting if world ending way. I just wish it was easier to simply not take part in this whole system hostile towards the long term interests of most life on earth. Hippy communes should never have died out.
Excellent report. Climatologists always complain that the models underestimate warming. The molders fully acknowledge this in my readings. Observable climate change is not something humans have ever dealt with.
Could there also be an effect related to the difference in Latent heat of H2O from solid to liquid and from liquid to gas (80 VS 540CAL/KG). If, for instance, an atmospheric river flows across the ice, each kg of water that condenses out of the air, releases enough heat to melt over 6 kg of ice.
I hope you can get some funding for a sea drone so you don’t have to take a risk like that. As small as the odds are, they don’t aways reflect the moment well😁
As you saw in the video drones were used to map the melt water ponds on the southwest portion of Greenland. So there is probably a good reason for using a raft to study the melt ponds directly instead of with a drone.
Findings that are revealed in this video should be forced in all ice sheet models. Current models are just missing many key elements that mostly accelerates the melting rate. And there are other elements that may make predictions even harder to do. Like atmospheric rivers that may bring loads of ice melting heat with rains in just few days time. Each time ice elevation changes the surface temperature rises (6C per 1 km or for one years more localized change 0,06C per 10m). This means longer melting season with higher temperature maximum. So each melting season that is lower than the yearly gained snow cover, accelerates the melting. Also models often use snow as one layer component that misses the darker surface of the already melted and polluted older ice. There should be at least 2 layer surface, just for this years snowcover and other when it is gone. You may also add factors like melt lakes and darkened surface and so on to the second layer. In this way some of the melting season variables would be corrected. And then there is gravitational changes that alters sea surface. When Greenland melts rapidly, the gravitational pull lessens and the oceans retreats. This means lost sea laying area for sea side grounded ice meaning less melting. And also less uplift for the ice sheet where ever sea comes below the ice. This leads to higher friction and lessens the ice flow toward the sea. Also lower seas means less wave forces that may collapse the ice fronts. All of this this would be a good thing, but on the other side of the world Antarctica melting is accerated for the opposite reasons. And when Antarctica melt hastens that means more sea level rise in Greenland. This balancing act will affect on ice sheet melting rates.
Appreciate your videos, very interesting and good communication. Im wondering if you know anywhere you can find data on how the models have held up versus actual mass loss? With discovering new processes to make better future models it would be interesting to see earlier models compared to measured data and how big the gaps are. Do you know of any good sources? Or maybe you mentioned it in one of your videos i haven't seen.
May the Anthropocene (Pyrocene (?)) epoch make the Permian-Triassic extinction event seem like a minor footnote in the pages of Earths history. Let us bear witness to the fruition of scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment
My hypothesis to sea level rise, is the amount of ground water we pump and place back into the atmosphere... ' The weather system cannot seem to handle this new feedback loop with excess moisture in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^. ;)
Hello Jason You mention economy. If I can recommend you an Economist, it would br Prof. Michael Hudson. He is a true intellectual and wrote quite a few books and appears in many videos on youtube. He's well into hid 80's but his mind is exceptionally sharp. I'm sure you'll like the man, I sure do ☮ and thanks again for your work and dedication.
Appropriate way for Leo to invest some of his take from 'Don't Look Up'. Is the ablation period the period when the glaciers 'scrape' along the rock continent toward the edges?
I'm interested in what he has to say regarding your question but I would posit that the glacier is always sliding but during the ablation, those drainage events speed up the movement by hydrofracture and lubricating the bottoms of the glaciers.
@@ravenken like a good prof, he's letting me look it up. NSDIC: "(1) combined processes (such as sublimation, fusion or melting, evaporation) which remove snow or ice from the surface of a glacier or from a snow-field; also used to express the quantity lost by these processes (2) reduction of the water equivalent of a snow cover by melting, evaporation, wind and avalanches." So during the ablation period means during the melt season.
If you are on the lake for 2 hours and it drains every four days we are looking at a 2 percent chance of catastrophic failure. After 50 measurements there is a 65 percent chance of a catastrophic event occurring.
Not sure that's how probabilities work 🤔 I think he has a 2% chance every time. You don't have a 100% chance of getting a head by flipping a coin twice. I totally could be wrong tho 😂
@@nerfherder4284 I think he wants to say there is a 65% chance this happens at least once over the 50 repetitions. But I think it's a 73% chance, 1 - 0.98^50. The chance of getting a head by flipping a coin twice is almost the same, 75%, 1 - 0.5^2.
Yes, but no, it won't really help. The oceans currently absorb about 25% of CO2 emissions, the slight increase in volume will not make a significant change. What's worse, as the ocean becomes warmer, the ability to absorb CO2 will decline.
You’d have an excellent documentary film in your work. It could really work. And there is an audience for it now. People are worried and science keeps selling ‘hope’. We need ‘truth’.
To be fair science isn't selling hope, people just want to ignore bad news and in the recent past the most dire predictions are ignored while those more hopeful are amplified. Blame mass media.
It is notable that the media concentrates on CO2 and seems to completely ignore the methane rise. I haven't any yet seen anyone quantify global methane release or show studies that relate warming rate to the rate of methane release. How warm do oceans need to get before we see marine methane release at substantive levels? Your point is well taken, there are no cooling mechanisms to refreeze tundra. Good video, I hope more people watch it.
Thank you. I've been making predictions for 2033. One of these is that Greenland will have a river the size of the amazon entering the ocean. Looks like 2033 is optimistic.
The deeper one drills an ice core the more compressible the ice is thus making it difficult to determine the age of ice at a specific depth. Generally speaking going down 100-200 m amounts to several hundred years.
Imagine if dinosaurs had space travel and they could have ventured out and photographed the asteroid that was heading their way. This video is like that. They forgot to take Bruce Willis.
These are the two extreme ideologies that are ruining our present. Firstly who deserves it?? The innocent children? That mentality is dumb, this is suicide on a global scale and no one deserves it. Secondly the idea that nothing is wrong is so stupid I have no words. The world is 'blooming'? Wake up and open your eyes!
@@arnehofoss9109 I'm enjoying life well enough, but we're not going to stop pumping carbon, so temps will keep on rising. And we're not going to stop breeding out of control either. We're too stupid. The world is finite. The shit WILL hit the fan.
Except that data proves humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history, by any measurement you care to examine. This trend is global, has never been interrupted and there is zero evidence that is about to be.
it seems obvious to me that the IPCC refuses to take into consideration and discuss many known but not fully understood positive feedbacks for purely political reasons. Many of these feedbacks have been identified and widely discussed in the journals for years. The IPCC ignores them. The models dont include them. But models are not everything. The IPCC is not everything. Science includes more than the IPCC and its constrained and limited modeling. I thank Jason Box and many other scientists for raising this.
The way earth cools is by the slowdown of the ocean currents. It is less publicized but critical function of our climate. When you look at earth climate data it is clear there is a feedback pattern that is able to reverse global warming/cooling cycles from into the other. Of course there are more factors at play but even if we simply do nothing and continue on this path eventually we will just be slammed with harsher and more severe cooling period. And boiling off our atmosphere is possible but highly unlikely due to the magnetic field. If we somehow manage to disturb that then boiling off is a possibility. Of course the current eco system will perish way before such event materialize.
This is not backed by much data, even if "less publicized ". I think the last time it got so hot was in the Carboniferous period when all the trees took over and most of that carbon was locked away as coal or oil and that lowered the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now we are digging all that up and burning it and presently the carbon cycle doesn't allow CO2 to be locked away like it used to be. It is far more likely that melting permafrost unlocks even more methane and the earth gets hotter for thousands of years. Perhaps after a huge extinction event some of the processes you mention will begin to kick in, but again compared to global warming that data it's pretty iffy
@@nerfherder4284 well I am with you about digging up carboniferous up but we are not there yet... they were at 20C we are only at ~14ish with climbing trend but hardly there... also the factor that decides HOW things change always will be ocean currents. Just look at current land mass. We have 2 almost perfectly split water bodies that are able to circulate the water. Hence the fairly stable climate. The other thing is that almost all other events that occurred before anthropocene were driven by volcanoes,meteorite etc. What do you think is easier to change? 8 billion people or turn around a meteorite or shutdown a volcano? Well we are bound to find out anyhow 😆. There is a crisis for us absolutely but it is only as big as we decide to make it. 😁
I have a question, is there a completely different feedback from the volcanos? Greenland was formed from volcanos so there will be a lot of volcanos all over Greenland, some sleeping a few not. The ice sheet is putting a lot of downward pressure on all these volcanos, if you release the pressure are you going to make the sleeping volcanos wake up, because that would melt more ice and release more pressure from on top of the volcanos. Having lava flowing down an ice sheet will melt all the ice very quickly.
No, there are no active or dormant volcanoes in Greenland. Google for an article "Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets" about an in-depth study NASA has done on this, and also on the Antarctic where there are active volcanoes. Greenland was not formed by volcanoes, perhaps you are mixing this up with Iceland. Greenland is an ancient continental core which actually contains the oldest rocks of the planet. There are extensive basalt flows under the ice and in the mountains but they are also from an ancient past. The most recent period of volcanism was when it moved over the hot spot that is now under Iceland during the last 100 million years or so, but that ended about 5 million years ago.
This excerpt from an article at nasa.climate.gov states that there is no evidence of volcanic activity in Greenland that could affect the glaciers and there hasn't been any some time. "There are no active volcanoes in Greenland, nor are there any known mapped, dormant volcanoes under the Greenland ice sheet that were active during the Pliocene period of geological history that began more than 5.3 million years ago".
Greenland was part of Pangea, the super continent where all todays continents were one, meaning that - at least most of Greenland was not formed from volcanoes. Not "recently" at least. If it was it must have been some hundred million years ago? There hasn't been any active volcanoes found anywhere on Greenland. There are areas where it is obvious that were formed from volcanoes, though. Estimated around same time as the dino killer rock which crashed on earth app 65-70 million years ago.
An interesting hypothesis. I wonder how much the settling of dark ash particles from the Canadian wildfires on the northern ice and snow packs will accelerate the melting and so increase the depth and size of these melt lakes this year? I think one also has to consider water's high latent heat. In other words, one must add a great deal of energy to melt water ice; however, one must also be able to remove that amount of energy to re-freeze it. This means that the amount of frozen water melted in the warmer seasons (energy added), will be disproportionate, to the amount of energy removed in an average winter to re-freeze the water. This imbalance or disproportion of energy in the freezing and thawing cycles will a result from the additional mechanisms of heat absorption you have identified.
No, because the oceans are continuing to absorb CO2. As CO2 continues to rise in the atmosphere it is continually forced into the oceans. In fact the vast majority of CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans. For the foreseeable future the acidification of the oceans will continue.
Ignore the haters, that video presented some new bleeding edge science which might be wrong altrough feels pretty legit and makes sense to me so it’s probably right and thank you for all those angry right wing commenters interacting with this video you are boosting it in the youtube algorithm so this is only going to spread even more
@@anthonymorris5084 "Catastrophic" is a value judgement. "Catastrophic" happens. Serious sea level rises could be pretty catastrophic for coastal cities, especially this in poor countries - relocating homes and infrastructure isn't good for economies, to put it mildly. How catastrophic will depend on how fast the melting happens.
@@carelgoodheir692 This is hyperbole. According to NASA sea levels are rising at 3.4mm per year. This is imperceptible without scientific instruments. It's less than half a meter in a hundred years. Sea level rise began 20,000 years ago and has continued uninterrupted. NOAA graphs clearly show It was greatest in the beginning and has slowed over the last 4,000 years, likely because most of the ice has melted. Sea level rise is also here to stay. There is nothing humanity can to to prevent it so continuously propagating this is just pure fear mongering. You could end all fossil fuel production across the globe at midnight tonight, sea levels would continue rising at the same speed. Adaptation is the only solution You have also expressed the actual problem. Poverty. Warming isn't killing anything while poverty is killing millions. All climate policies induce greater poverty.
According to the history books, Greenland was green (hence the name) 1000 years ago, and became more ice covered since then. Until you can account for that phenomenon, I'm not going to panic over a return to the Medieval Warm Period of human flourishing.
Norse settlers in Greenland centuries ago were mostly in the far south which was and is green in late spring to early autumn. There is currently some experimental farming in the area and a forest has been successfully cultivated. And yes, they are finding that their growing season is a bit longer than it used to be.
Calling it "Greenland" was (false) advertising to encourage settlers. Greenland was much the same proportion ice covered during the Medieval Warm Period and much the same proportion as now was not under ice. The bits that were ice free were a little easier to farm than they became as the climate worsened. But settlers didn't come for the opportunity to farm, they farmed for the opportunity live there and to hunt. Quite specifically, they came for walrus tusk and narwhal ivory. That fetched good money till it it got outcompeted by a greater availability of African elephant ivory.
Don't know what history book you read. I'm guessing it's sponsored by ExxonMobil. Cause we're 100% certain Greenland has had major glaciers for 18 million years and a continuous ice sheet covering almost the entire landmass for almost 3 million years. There's been habitable land in the south due to the gulf stream, but that's about it. Should look up why Greenland was named as such. It's an interesting bit of history. It's definitely not because the land was covered in green.
Greenland must have had much less ice and a warmer temperature when the Danes settled there during the medieval warm period and farmed it successfully for quite some time, but then had to leave because it got too cold.
@@ricshumack9134 It was called Greenland because Iceland was a name that discouraged settlers, maybe Greenland would encourage them. The bits of Greenland not covered by ice are in sum a small proportion of the country, but they still add up to quite a large area. Scandinavians settled them as there was wealth in ivory, from walrus teeth and narwhal tusks. They had already exterminated these up the Norwegian coast and on Iceland, only the west of Greenland still had large enough herds and pods. The farming they did was always a struggle and got harder when there was a climate deterioration. It's probable though that the real reasdon the colony failed (after several hundred years) is that African elephant ivory became more available. It was better quality and the value of arctic ivory went down and there was no point in stsying in Greenland any more.
Can you talk about the recent study about the collapse of the AMOC? It sounds like it will make it colder in Greenland if/ when it happens, I was surprised to hear that.
Why were surprised? That's not a new insight. The potential collapse of ocean streams is one of the runaway mechanisms that could exceed all predictions, and the fastest-acting one that could reach a trigger point within our lifetime. Have you never heard of this before?
The IPCC has 3 workgroups 1- the basic science (Physicists) 2- the impacts (mostly Physicists) 3- Solutions (mostly economists and some engineers) Those are the one that come up with solutions like BECCS which would require more land tham there is... geoengineering schemes etc.
Human contribution to the plant-beneficial geologicaly very low current CO2 level is insignificant at about 12%. In the earth history the most abundant biomass occured at the CO2 level in the atmosphere up to 50 TIMES higher (currently at 0.04% only).
Yes, but what you forget is that the natural CO2 emission are in sync with their absorbtion...those extra 12% all go into increasing C02 emissions. The earths climate was wastly different 500 million years ago as you refer to when CO2 levels where higher...most of the landmass where in the south and it was very very hot... You are trying to spread disinformation....
@@TheEsseboy Rising CO2 is causing the greening of the Earth. Plants are thriving and absorbing more CO2. Life flourishes under warming and rising CO2. The OP is correct. We are currently suffering from a dearth of CO2. We are at record lows, and it's only been this low twice in the last 600 million years. Below 150 and all plant life dies. Fossil fuels may have in fact save life on Earth.
Humans were not around and could not have survived when CO2 was 50 times as high as it is now which I seriously doubt anyway. That would be 21,000 ppm which is absurd. As to your other point CO2 has increased 50 since the industrial age began 150 years. It was 280 ppm and it is now 420 ppm which is totally the result of human burning of fossil fuels. And we have proof of that by the increase in the carbon isotope C 12 relative to C13.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Where did I say CO2 was 50 times higher? CO2 averaged 3000ppm over the last 600 million years. When CO2 was at these levels 60 million years ago, the planet was covered in Jungle all the way to the Arctic Circle. The largest herbivores the planet has ever seen walked the Earth. Mammals existed and all life thrived. Horticulturalists pump up to 1500ppm of CO2 into greenhouses. There are no warnings on the door and nobody limits their exposure or limits their time in the greenhouses. CO2 is 30% higher indoors. CO2 can reach as high as 5000ppm on submarines and the International Space station.
"There are no active volcanoes in Greenland, nor are there any known mapped, dormant volcanoes under the Greenland ice sheet that were active during the Pliocene period of geological history that began more than 5.3 million years ago" This was an excerpt from a NASA website so your desperate attempt to explain away the ice melt in Greenland failed. If only you had bothered to do the research yourself which is obviously asking too much of a climate change denier!! 😂
When folks ask why the ice capes are melting, their not. There never was a Ice breaker 150 years ago, now there are 1000's that never let the polar caps reharden. Think about it.
It may be and probably is, but climate scientists can only follow the data and report what they observe. After all it is hard to be precise about things like ice loss when their change is greater than expected and the increase in change is also not linear.
To be a "climate scientist", a person would need a decade of training - since next to no one was studying "climate" ten years ago, I know of no one who has earned the right to be called a "climate scientist".
@@WhirledPublishing That was must be sarcasm because I find it hard to believe anyone could be that naive, but I'll take the bait anyway. In the first place the term 'climate scientist' actually is an umbrella term for researchers who study different aspects of the earth all of which are closely tied to the climate. James Hansen has a PhD in atmospheric chemistry and worked with NASA in planetary as well as earth science. Back in 1988 he was not able for his presentation to Congress about the threat posed by global warming. Gavin Schmidt earned a PhD in climate science and worked with NOAA and later with NASA as a climate researcher He has a website called real climate. Michael Mann studied climatology and geophysics and has been very outspoken for years about climate. Jason Box is a researcher in glaciology and has studied Greenland glaciers for years. Hopefully you get the point!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 You're here to talk about a guy who worked at NASA - as if you believe that is a pinnacle of "brilliant science" - even though he graduated from Idaho ... smh Public "science" agencies hire low IQ imbeciles - that graduated with a C average from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements. Their 85 to 115 IQ's are uploaded online by Psychologists while the magna cum laude PhD's from highly selective universities like Oxford and Cambridge are in the 170 to 200 IQ's and are hired by private science foundations owned by the billionaires. Jim's IQ is probably slightly higher than 115 but compared to the 170 IQ's, Jim is developmentally challenged and is operating on assumptions from "theories" which are intentional disinfo. Since he has the wrong paradigm of chemistry, the wrong timeline for CO2, the wrong timeline for sea level rise, the wrong timeline for Earth's history, the wrong timeline for Earth's cataclysms, the wrong timeline for the ice sheets, etc., which is why forecasts from the IPCC have been repeatedly wrong since their inception - and if you're unaware of this, then you haven't been doing your research. The low IQ lunatics were spoon-fed idiotic theories for several years - but you think this is "science" - because you're unaware their theories have been proven to be preposterous nonsense - but since the unintelligent fake science gods fail to notice that they were intentionally dumbed down throughout their BS, MS, and PhD's, while the true timeline for our Earth's history is clearly documented ... Since their 85 to 115 IQ's are the intellectual equivalent to school children, and since you're unaware of these conspicuous facts, please go to your local college where you can take their academic placement test, then listen carefully as your adolescent scores in Comprehension are explained to you, then maybe you'll begin to realize the "scientists" and the public are dumbed down with lies and lunacy - throughout their lives. Please don't write to me - I have no time for those that fail to realize the IPCC and universities and public science agencies are intentional disinfo while the billionaires get their reports from the 170 to 200 IQ's.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 As a Doctoral Scholar who has been doing this research for over 50 years, having studied Chemistry and Physics for decades, Geological Formations, Cataclysms and Wave Propagation for decades, having tested off the WAIS-R with an IQ over 150 ... nearly 30 years ago ... I will tell you that as an undergrad, I knew their Chemistry and Geology was all wrong. I've studied alternative paradigms of Chemistry - for decades - which includes dozens of alternative charts of the chemical elements - that go back over 100 years - that expose the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements as intentional disinfo. Have you been doing this research for over 50 years? Are you a Doctoral Scholar? Do you have a genius IQ over 150? No, you don't, that's obvious - but you think you're the smart one - so you go ahead with your public science agencies that have been wrong since their inception - you go ahead with your low IQ understanding of the evil that has siphoned 99% of the world wealth into their control - "nothing to see here - go back to what you were doing."
Those Methane numbers are more worrisome than Carbon Dioxide numbers considering that Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. Methane emissions should be the talking point, but the ag industry doesn't want that now, does it?
It is a matter of scale with CO2 and CH4, methane. CO2 is measured in ppm which is now at 418 ppm. CH4 on the other is measured in ppb which is now at about 1880 ppb. That is the same as saying 1.9 ppm. Over a hundred year period, though CH4 doesn't remain in the atmosphere that long is said to have 100 X the warming capacity of CO2 per unit volume. 100 X 1.9 is 190 which is still less than half of what CO2 is at. CH4 is said to account for 20 % of current warming. 190 is not far off 20% of the CO2 atmospheric amount. This is admittedly not a very scientific way of framing it, but it's something. Of course this could change in short order. Last year saw record jump in atmospheric CH4 by 17 ppb. Could that be an early sign of permafrost thawing? Too early to say.
Greenland is melring in summer? Dear God! BTW Greenland has gained above average ice in 5 out of the last 7 years. We're talking about up to 550 gigatons of net ice gains in 1 year.
From the site nasa.climate.gov is this statement of average ice loss from Greenland. Because of the warming climate and increasing areas exposed to ice melt in Greenland the amount of ICE LOSS has accelerated. "Research based on satellite data indicates that between 2002 and 2023, Greenland shed an average of 270 billion metric tons of ice per year, adding to global sea level rise".
Made up nonsense. There's a market for it so it'll keep getting produced. But in the real world glaciers and ice sheets or on average reducing in volume.
Given that it is coming to the end of summer in Greenland you would expect a lot of melting, and yet sea level is rising at the same rate as it has been since the end of the little ice age in about 1850. Scare story for the alarmists, lap it up!
@@jen_sen8508 If you think you reduce this subject down to such a simplistic statement then why do climate scientists study the climate for over a decade to earn a PhD before going out and WORKING as a climate scientist?
@@christopher554 Yes? Exactly where? Greenland is a huge island, so... And I've seen it many times before, lots of snow in the morning, all gone (melted) in the afternoon. That's how it has become. No sea ice at winter any more. Only in the northern most areas, and even there it has become much thinner, getting even thinner each winter.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
Your work is much appreciated. 👍
just discovered and subbed with great appreciation!
Thank you, looking forward to the rest of your presentations! Appreciate seeing what is really going on!
Net zero isn't going to address any climate changes, it will though enslave through technology and impoverish most of the western worlds inhabitants.
It's foolish and self destructive to support such policies.
Is better to change life habits.
Net zero isn't going to address any climate changes, it will though enslave through technology and impoverish most of the western worlds inhabitants.
It's foolish and self destructive to support such policies.
Is better to change life habits.
Thank you for your tireless efforts to educate the public on every new feedback look coming out of the Greenland region and their ramifications.
Great and informative, but the music makes it hard to hear for us older folks.
I can hear ok but the music is annoying, what is it for??
I'm old, I can hack it. He's trying to recruit the next generation of glaciologists.
@@lshwadchuck5643 You might be right about that, but I suspect there is an option in the video editing software to "add background music" with some free AI generated sonic wallpaper, and he should turn it off.
It’s propaganda.
Yes, ice melts in the summer and accumulates in the winter.
Just search climate science fraud. These people write articles using “scientific” sounding words, using a mixture dubious methods, and opinion while omitting data that doesn’t fit their models. Then they just cite each other work, creating a feedback loop. They are also highly funded by dubious donors.
And young people with hearing impairment though the inclusion of captionioning is very welcome
I appreciate your work very much! I’ve been watching Paul Beckwith‘s videos for about a year. Another very good source for accurate, if not encouraging, climate realism.
They are at best realist when it comes to interpret the state of climate in regards to anticipation based on science. Politically all these climate scientists suck, and are part of the problem. Since they use lefty language like blaming "capitalism" and support " historic climate justice". Realistically we can only really get started when the poor countries accept that they will stay poor and mass immigration into the developed world will be suppressed.
Great work and the World should appreciate it.
Take care and take all the safety required measures. We need people like you and like other scientists.
Commenting for the algorithm, TH-cam needs to give you more exposure. Great videos!
Jason Box: you have been a source of valuable information and a wonderful example of human courage and compassion to me and my family. Please continue your cherished work and humanity xxx
Thank you Jason, after reading your (and other’s) work on climate change, I really feel motivated to TRY to communicate the importance of what is happening to our planet
Wow, this is so effective to see all of these rich visuals, photos, time-lapse and regular time videos, etc. It's really magical to be able to witness our own extinction so vividly. Thanks for your great work!
Oh leanado decaprio will be pissed with that attitude pal
Like I lose sleep worrying about what Leo or his 15+, 22-year-old girlfriends think, turkey.
Magical is a peculiar word to use in this case. It's scary knowing the hundreds of millions of people It's seriously going to affect.
You’ll see how magical it’ll be when you start killing for food …
@@stanleykubrick8786 it was a joke turkey
Many thanks for this informative and interesting video! 😊
Dude, you are the best. Can you imagine how fast Greenland will melt a year after the Canadian fires!!! That snow must be getting pretty dark.
Yes ..just to say , i looked at all of this yesterday, struck by the profound moments i imagined you had out on the melt water lakes measuring for deepth to colour correlerate with imagery from above ... Just an historical moment for humanity .You must have been aware of the rarity of that experience and felt the sense of frustration that Humanity has arrived at this moment.
Changing climate is Like changing the length of Night time cooling hours.
What you are describing is another method of Swiss Cheesification of Greenland Ice. One thing that should be worrying is the sudden drop in air temperature with this phenomenon. The cold air temperatures cause rapid formation of ice, which expands, and the ice is already brittle. That's why I've added Winter Melt Season to my climate lexicon.
When fractures emerge, then the area becomes a bit more darker (sunlight goes down to the crack). Also having cracks in the ice allows it to move the ways it did not do earlier. Alternating speeds may fracture ice even further. And the melting area is a bit larger due to crack surface. Having cracks allows water flow deeper in the ice. They may even make large subglacial lakes that may keep warming glacier long times. These ice bounded lakes could lead to even some flooding events. Crack may also fill up with surrounding snow, reducing snow coverage in nearby area, making it darker earlier.
There are multitude of cracking related physical feedbacks. And most of them are negative and therefore these cracks leads to more melting.
Your comment seems logical. However, I think you’re S Out of Luck on the Martian plan.
There is no planet B.
what if we put glue in the cracks
Adaptation waits for no man or beast when the big chill returns with vengeance
I have been looking for visuals of the situation there during melt season.Thank you.
Thank's friend, liked and shared.
The Beaufort gyre is getting ready to do a big release it's gone through several Cycles without releasing its cold meltwater I'm curious as to both of these events combining Into The Perfect Storm Into shutting down the amoc
Well on the bright side, the greenland icesheet is safe from wildfires. So there is that.
But areas of Greenland that are not covered by ice or snow do have wildfires.
@@Patrick_Ross Where?
@@arnehofoss9109Google it 🙄 west Greenland 2017
@@arnehofoss9109 - coastal areas that are covered with vegetation.
Thank you for the work that you do! It's lonely and desolate out there and people need to pay as much attention to the forecasts you and your colleagues are reporting on climate the way that they do for an impending massive hurricane.. The other major factor that hasn't been adequately accounted for in climate models btw, is the release of methane from melting permafrost.
How does the present data you found compare to previous Dansgaard-Oeschger events?
I can only imagine how it's honeycombed throughout, along with warmer air being suck down with the water to accelerate the melting from below
Seems like the premise for some horror movie!
Maybe it will end up like the Medieval Warm Period and the Vikings will be able to grow crops there once again!
Thank you for your dedication and sharing this information.
At these melt rates when do you think the bigger icesheets will collapse to allow inland ice to slide into the ocean?
You need a boat drone! Please don't go down with the ship.
Do you have any theory of what this all this fresh meltwater will do to the amoc?
Good work, will pass it on...
Jason bud, please fly a drone over the lakes with a plumb bob. As soon as it goes slack you have your measurement. much safer
i think because .despite the extreme risk!!!, he has done that already and then confirmed the interpoloation of the other data, SAT, Dron etc.
You only need to do it once,..i think, theres probly some variables .
Thank you father
I'm sad, too. I passed on various warning on KBOO from the 90s to 2020, and I remember trying to get you on-air long before you were ready for that sort of thing (I assume--I could not find a good contact). Your conditional statement (so long ago!) "we're fucked," made me weep. ...I don't know. Revolution.
Very informative and interesting Jason.
are we using discrete (pixelated) maths for climate models? should be using vector based models that can accomodate both small and large features, as both matter?
Green Planet had no ice, and forests at each pole, water vapour was 4%, we are on the way.
Was only just watching a Democracy Now Interview with you from years ago when I saw your new vid.
I want to have hope and I do a bit of rewilding when I can (especially at home) but I can't help feeling like the jaded George Carlin in his later years was right. We're in for scary times, and i can't help but be jealous of the people who can go through this but their biggest concern is what some celeb did to another.
But on the other hand, even if it's depressing and stressful, it's truly fascinating to see these complex interconnected and interdependent systems react to new rapid stresses and be witnessing what is phenomenal rapid changes.
The asteroid that wiped out that hit the earth was beautiful and magnificent in an incredibly interesting if world ending way.
I just wish it was easier to simply not take part in this whole system hostile towards the long term interests of most life on earth. Hippy communes should never have died out.
Excellent report.
Climatologists always complain that the models underestimate warming. The molders fully acknowledge this in my readings.
Observable climate change is not something humans have ever dealt with.
Well we are sure dealing with it now whether we like or not!
Non linear responses are hard to sell, especially at that scale.
Thank you for your work and videos!
Wow, so interesting, but also scary!
It's supposed to be scary. That's the strategy. Fear is how you motivate, manipulate and control people.
Could there also be an effect related to the difference in Latent heat of H2O from solid to liquid and from liquid to gas (80 VS 540CAL/KG). If, for instance, an atmospheric river flows across the ice, each kg of water that condenses out of the air, releases enough heat to melt over 6 kg of ice.
I hope you can get some funding for a sea drone so you don’t have to take a risk like that. As small as the odds are, they don’t aways reflect the moment well😁
As you saw in the video drones were used to map the melt water ponds on the southwest portion of Greenland. So there is probably a good reason for using a raft to study the melt ponds directly instead of with a drone.
Findings that are revealed in this video should be forced in all ice sheet models. Current models are just missing many key elements that mostly accelerates the melting rate.
And there are other elements that may make predictions even harder to do. Like atmospheric rivers that may bring loads of ice melting heat with rains in just few days time.
Each time ice elevation changes the surface temperature rises (6C per 1 km or for one years more localized change 0,06C per 10m). This means longer melting season with higher temperature maximum. So each melting season that is lower than the yearly gained snow cover, accelerates the melting.
Also models often use snow as one layer component that misses the darker surface of the already melted and polluted older ice. There should be at least 2 layer surface, just for this years snowcover and other when it is gone. You may also add factors like melt lakes and darkened surface and so on to the second layer. In this way some of the melting season variables would be corrected.
And then there is gravitational changes that alters sea surface. When Greenland melts rapidly, the gravitational pull lessens and the oceans retreats. This means lost sea laying area for sea side grounded ice meaning less melting. And also less uplift for the ice sheet where ever sea comes below the ice. This leads to higher friction and lessens the ice flow toward the sea. Also lower seas means less wave forces that may collapse the ice fronts. All of this this would be a good thing, but on the other side of the world Antarctica melting is accerated for the opposite reasons. And when Antarctica melt hastens that means more sea level rise in Greenland. This balancing act will affect on ice sheet melting rates.
Ironic. 2 ads for Huge ICE SUVs in this vid. We are doomed.
O M G 🚙
But thank you Jason.@@JasonBoxClimate
This Video helps back my opinions of how fast the ice is going to melt because of all the feedback loops that are going on and that's not good.
Appreciate your videos, very interesting and good communication. Im wondering if you know anywhere you can find data on how the models have held up versus actual mass loss? With discovering new processes to make better future models it would be interesting to see earlier models compared to measured data and how big the gaps are. Do you know of any good sources? Or maybe you mentioned it in one of your videos i haven't seen.
May the Anthropocene (Pyrocene (?)) epoch make the Permian-Triassic extinction event seem like a minor footnote in the pages of Earths history. Let us bear witness to the fruition of scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment
Thanks Jason
My hypothesis to sea level rise, is the amount of ground water we pump and place back into the atmosphere... '
The weather system cannot seem to handle this new feedback loop with excess moisture in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^. ;)
Hello Jason
You mention economy. If I can recommend you an Economist, it would br Prof. Michael Hudson. He is a true intellectual and wrote quite a few books and appears in many videos on youtube. He's well into hid 80's but his mind is exceptionally sharp.
I'm sure you'll like the man, I sure do ☮ and thanks again for your work and dedication.
I agree. Steve Keen is the only economist that I think is of the same caliber. Mark Blythe is also phenomenal but probably not quite as climate aware
Farewell cryosphere, the truth is we never loved you, enough!
Appropriate way for Leo to invest some of his take from 'Don't Look Up'.
Is the ablation period the period when the glaciers 'scrape' along the rock continent toward the edges?
I'm interested in what he has to say regarding your question but I would posit that the glacier is always sliding but during the ablation, those drainage events speed up the movement by hydrofracture and lubricating the bottoms of the glaciers.
@@ravenken like a good prof, he's letting me look it up. NSDIC: "(1) combined processes (such as sublimation, fusion or melting, evaporation) which remove snow or ice from the surface of a glacier or from a snow-field; also used to express the quantity lost by these processes (2) reduction of the water equivalent of a snow cover by melting, evaporation, wind and avalanches."
So during the ablation period means during the melt season.
If you are on the lake for 2 hours and it drains every four days we are looking at a 2 percent chance of catastrophic failure. After 50 measurements there is a 65 percent chance of a catastrophic event occurring.
Not sure that's how probabilities work 🤔 I think he has a 2% chance every time. You don't have a 100% chance of getting a head by flipping a coin twice. I totally could be wrong tho 😂
@@nerfherder4284 I think he wants to say there is a 65% chance this happens at least once over the 50 repetitions. But I think it's a 73% chance, 1 - 0.98^50. The chance of getting a head by flipping a coin twice is almost the same, 75%, 1 - 0.5^2.
Would the extra water help absorb more co2
And make the oceans more acidic?
The fck do you expect to get more water?
Yes, but no, it won't really help. The oceans currently absorb about 25% of CO2 emissions, the slight increase in volume will not make a significant change. What's worse, as the ocean becomes warmer, the ability to absorb CO2 will decline.
You’d have an excellent documentary film in your work. It could really work. And there is an audience for it now. People are worried and science keeps selling ‘hope’. We need ‘truth’.
We need hope AND the truth. Because without some hope people would despair that nothing can be done.
some say reality bites . . .@@michaeldeierhoi4096
Jason Box is known for Into the Ice (2022), Before the Flood (2016) and Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet (2021).
To be fair science isn't selling hope, people just want to ignore bad news and in the recent past the most dire predictions are ignored while those more hopeful are amplified. Blame mass media.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096if hope isn't based on some truth it is just false hope and that is the worst kind
I really appreciate your work and sharing. Keep up and be careful not to end like Conrad Steffen.
It is notable that the media concentrates on CO2 and seems to completely ignore the methane rise. I haven't any yet seen anyone quantify global methane release or show studies that relate warming rate to the rate of methane release. How warm do oceans need to get before we see marine methane release at substantive levels? Your point is well taken, there are no cooling mechanisms to refreeze tundra. Good video, I hope more people watch it.
Why haven't you seen that? Have you closed your eyes every time a study regarding methane showed up?
Media reports on methane...are you blind?
Methane is absorbed in around 10 years.
@@anthonymorris5084 No, it takes 17.2 years for 75% of it to break down into CO2 and H2O. 25.8 years for 87.25%, 34.4 years for 93.375% etc.
@@anthonymorris5084 I know, so why are the atmospheric levels rising so steeply?
I knew it was going to go faster than they said. 😢
Shared. Please keep spreading the info. You’re incredible!
Spreading the bullshit
Say it with me everyone! _"Faster Than Expected!"_
Faster than expected.
Faster than FORECAST
Thanks!!!
Thank you.
I've been making predictions for 2033. One of these is that Greenland will have a river the size of the amazon entering the ocean. Looks like 2033 is optimistic.
If you were to take an ice sample from 100 metres down, how old would the ice be?
The deeper one drills an ice core the more compressible the ice is thus making it difficult to determine the age of ice at a specific depth. Generally speaking going down 100-200 m amounts to several hundred years.
Imagine if dinosaurs had space travel and they could have ventured out and photographed the asteroid that was heading their way.
This video is like that.
They forgot to take Bruce Willis.
We’re you drunk when you made this comment?
i believe it is his version of critical thinking.....lol @@Patrick_Ross
It's sad watching the world die. But we absolutely deserve it. It's the animals I pity.
What? The world dies? Wake up, the earth is blooming! Do not listen to doomsday preachers! Enjoy life!!
These are the two extreme ideologies that are ruining our present. Firstly who deserves it?? The innocent children? That mentality is dumb, this is suicide on a global scale and no one deserves it. Secondly the idea that nothing is wrong is so stupid I have no words. The world is 'blooming'? Wake up and open your eyes!
@@arnehofoss9109 I'm enjoying life well enough, but we're not going to stop pumping carbon, so temps will keep on rising. And we're not going to stop breeding out of control either. We're too stupid.
The world is finite. The shit WILL hit the fan.
Looks outside at nothing but smoke... again*
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
Except that data proves humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history, by any measurement you care to examine. This trend is global, has never been interrupted and there is zero evidence that is about to be.
will work for the chicklets they serve on the Lear !
Hey, Jason. Is looking for Isotopic Rebound part of your research? Never mind. You just answered it in you video.
heheheh, i do that all the time, it's pretty exciting isn't it?
More data by more scientists will not change politics, only a deluge of catastrophic events will do it over time.
it seems obvious to me that the IPCC refuses to take into consideration and discuss many known but not fully understood positive feedbacks for purely political reasons. Many of these feedbacks have been identified and widely discussed in the journals for years. The IPCC ignores them. The models dont include them. But models are not everything. The IPCC is not everything. Science includes more than the IPCC and its constrained and limited modeling.
I thank Jason Box and many other scientists for raising this.
The way earth cools is by the slowdown of the ocean currents. It is less publicized but critical function of our climate. When you look at earth climate data it is clear there is a feedback pattern that is able to reverse global warming/cooling cycles from into the other. Of course there are more factors at play but even if we simply do nothing and continue on this path eventually we will just be slammed with harsher and more severe cooling period.
And boiling off our atmosphere is possible but highly unlikely due to the magnetic field. If we somehow manage to disturb that then boiling off is a possibility.
Of course the current eco system will perish way before such event materialize.
This is not backed by much data, even if "less publicized ". I think the last time it got so hot was in the Carboniferous period when all the trees took over and most of that carbon was locked away as coal or oil and that lowered the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now we are digging all that up and burning it and presently the carbon cycle doesn't allow CO2 to be locked away like it used to be. It is far more likely that melting permafrost unlocks even more methane and the earth gets hotter for thousands of years. Perhaps after a huge extinction event some of the processes you mention will begin to kick in, but again compared to global warming that data it's pretty iffy
@@nerfherder4284 well I am with you about digging up carboniferous up but we are not there yet... they were at 20C we are only at ~14ish with climbing trend but hardly there... also the factor that decides HOW things change always will be ocean currents. Just look at current land mass. We have 2 almost perfectly split water bodies that are able to circulate the water. Hence the fairly stable climate. The other thing is that almost all other events that occurred before anthropocene were driven by volcanoes,meteorite etc. What do you think is easier to change? 8 billion people or turn around a meteorite or shutdown a volcano? Well we are bound to find out anyhow 😆.
There is a crisis for us absolutely but it is only as big as we decide to make it. 😁
I have a question, is there a completely different feedback from the volcanos?
Greenland was formed from volcanos so there will be a lot of volcanos all over Greenland, some sleeping a few not. The ice sheet is putting a lot of downward pressure on all these volcanos, if you release the pressure are you going to make the sleeping volcanos wake up, because that would melt more ice and release more pressure from on top of the volcanos.
Having lava flowing down an ice sheet will melt all the ice very quickly.
No, there are no active or dormant volcanoes in Greenland. Google for an article "Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets" about an in-depth study NASA has done on this, and also on the Antarctic where there are active volcanoes.
Greenland was not formed by volcanoes, perhaps you are mixing this up with Iceland. Greenland is an ancient continental core which actually contains the oldest rocks of the planet. There are extensive basalt flows under the ice and in the mountains but they are also from an ancient past. The most recent period of volcanism was when it moved over the hot spot that is now under Iceland during the last 100 million years or so, but that ended about 5 million years ago.
This excerpt from an article at nasa.climate.gov states that there is no evidence of volcanic activity in Greenland that could affect the glaciers and there hasn't been any some time.
"There are no active volcanoes in Greenland, nor are there any known mapped, dormant volcanoes under the Greenland ice sheet that were active during the Pliocene period of geological history that began more than 5.3 million years ago".
Greenland was part of Pangea, the super continent where all todays continents were one, meaning that - at least most of Greenland was not formed from volcanoes. Not "recently" at least. If it was it must have been some hundred million years ago?
There hasn't been any active volcanoes found anywhere on Greenland.
There are areas where it is obvious that were formed from volcanoes, though. Estimated around same time as the dino killer rock which crashed on earth app 65-70 million years ago.
An interesting hypothesis. I wonder how much the settling of dark ash particles from the Canadian wildfires on the northern ice and snow packs will accelerate the melting and so increase the depth and size of these melt lakes this year?
I think one also has to consider water's high latent heat. In other words, one must add a great deal of energy to melt water ice; however, one must also be able to remove that amount of energy to re-freeze it. This means that the amount of frozen water melted in the warmer seasons (energy added), will be disproportionate, to the amount of energy removed in an average winter to re-freeze the water. This imbalance or disproportion of energy in the freezing and thawing cycles will a result from the additional mechanisms of heat absorption you have identified.
Will melting ice caps mitigate ocean acidification?
No, because the oceans are continuing to absorb CO2. As CO2 continues to rise in the atmosphere it is continually forced into the oceans. In fact the vast majority of CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans. For the foreseeable future the acidification of the oceans will continue.
Ignore the haters, that video presented some new bleeding edge science which might be wrong altrough feels pretty legit and makes sense to me so it’s probably right and thank you for all those angry right wing commenters interacting with this video you are boosting it in the youtube algorithm so this is only going to spread even more
To proclaim that Greenland is melting is science. To proclaim that this is catastrophic is not science.
@@anthonymorris5084 "Catastrophic" is a value judgement. "Catastrophic" happens. Serious sea level rises could be pretty catastrophic for coastal cities, especially this in poor countries - relocating homes and infrastructure isn't good for economies, to put it mildly. How catastrophic will depend on how fast the melting happens.
@@carelgoodheir692 This is hyperbole. According to NASA sea levels are rising at 3.4mm per year. This is imperceptible without scientific instruments. It's less than half a meter in a hundred years.
Sea level rise began 20,000 years ago and has continued uninterrupted. NOAA graphs clearly show It was greatest in the beginning and has slowed over the last 4,000 years, likely because most of the ice has melted.
Sea level rise is also here to stay. There is nothing humanity can to to prevent it so continuously propagating this is just pure fear mongering. You could end all fossil fuel production across the globe at midnight tonight, sea levels would continue rising at the same speed. Adaptation is the only solution
You have also expressed the actual problem. Poverty. Warming isn't killing anything while poverty is killing millions. All climate policies induce greater poverty.
Amazing video, thank you for not oversimplifying this.
According to the history books, Greenland was green (hence the name) 1000 years ago, and became more ice covered since then. Until you can account for that phenomenon, I'm not going to panic over a return to the Medieval Warm Period of human flourishing.
Norse settlers in Greenland centuries ago were mostly in the far south which was and is green in late spring to early autumn. There is currently some experimental farming in the area and a forest has been successfully cultivated. And yes, they are finding that their growing season is a bit longer than it used to be.
Calling it "Greenland" was (false) advertising to encourage settlers. Greenland was much the same proportion ice covered during the Medieval Warm Period and much the same proportion as now was not under ice. The bits that were ice free were a little easier to farm than they became as the climate worsened.
But settlers didn't come for the opportunity to farm, they farmed for the opportunity live there and to hunt. Quite specifically, they came for walrus tusk and narwhal ivory. That fetched good money till it it got outcompeted by a greater availability of African elephant ivory.
Don't know what history book you read. I'm guessing it's sponsored by ExxonMobil. Cause we're 100% certain Greenland has had major glaciers for 18 million years and a continuous ice sheet covering almost the entire landmass for almost 3 million years. There's been habitable land in the south due to the gulf stream, but that's about it. Should look up why Greenland was named as such. It's an interesting bit of history. It's definitely not because the land was covered in green.
Scary
And where is it all draining to? Into a cold blob in near by ocean?
Excellent presentation. Now, stay off those lakes please, for your sake.
Greenland must have had much less ice and a warmer temperature when the Danes settled there during the medieval warm period and farmed it successfully for quite some time, but then had to leave because it got too cold.
...and then the elves showed up to fight with the dwarves?
Its called Greenland because it's white.
@@ricshumack9134 It was called Greenland because Iceland was a name that discouraged settlers, maybe Greenland would encourage them. The bits of Greenland not covered by ice are in sum a small proportion of the country, but they still add up to quite a large area. Scandinavians settled them as there was wealth in ivory, from walrus teeth and narwhal tusks. They had already exterminated these up the Norwegian coast and on Iceland, only the west of Greenland still had large enough herds and pods. The farming they did was always a struggle and got harder when there was a climate deterioration. It's probable though that the real reasdon the colony failed (after several hundred years) is that African elephant ivory became more available. It was better quality and the value of arctic ivory went down and there was no point in stsying in Greenland any more.
@@carelgoodheir692 Thanks, interesting info.
I think I’d be investing in a remote controlled boat!!
Please stay off those lakes, it is not worth losing you!
Can you talk about the recent study about the collapse of the AMOC? It sounds like it will make it colder in Greenland if/ when it happens, I was surprised to hear that.
Why were surprised? That's not a new insight. The potential collapse of ocean streams is one of the runaway mechanisms that could exceed all predictions, and the fastest-acting one that could reach a trigger point within our lifetime. Have you never heard of this before?
13 % additional water vapour from the Tongan underwater Volcano, Increased radiance from the sun, and El Nino? surely has some bearing.
The IPCC is not doing anything for this predicament.
Dear Jed, please refresh your memory of what the IPCC does (e.g. summarize scientific research findings).
@@beverleybarnes5656 and waters them down, so to speak, as directed
The politicians censor via consensus findings ... not the scientists
The IPCC has 3 workgroups
1- the basic science (Physicists)
2- the impacts (mostly Physicists)
3- Solutions (mostly economists and some engineers) Those are the one that come up with solutions like BECCS which would require more land tham there is... geoengineering schemes etc.
Human contribution to the plant-beneficial geologicaly very low current CO2 level is insignificant at about 12%. In the earth history the most abundant biomass occured at the CO2 level in the atmosphere up to 50 TIMES higher (currently at 0.04% only).
Yes, but what you forget is that the natural CO2 emission are in sync with their absorbtion...those extra 12% all go into increasing C02 emissions.
The earths climate was wastly different 500 million years ago as you refer to when CO2 levels where higher...most of the landmass where in the south and it was very very hot...
You are trying to spread disinformation....
@@TheEsseboy Rising CO2 is causing the greening of the Earth. Plants are thriving and absorbing more CO2. Life flourishes under warming and rising CO2. The OP is correct. We are currently suffering from a dearth of CO2. We are at record lows, and it's only been this low twice in the last 600 million years. Below 150 and all plant life dies. Fossil fuels may have in fact save life on Earth.
Humans were not around and could not have survived when CO2 was 50 times as high as it is now which I seriously doubt anyway. That would be 21,000 ppm which is absurd.
As to your other point CO2 has increased 50 since the industrial age began 150 years. It was 280 ppm and it is now 420 ppm which is totally the result of human burning of fossil fuels. And we have proof of that by the increase in the carbon isotope C 12 relative to C13.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Where did I say CO2 was 50 times higher? CO2 averaged 3000ppm over the last 600 million years. When CO2 was at these levels 60 million years ago, the planet was covered in Jungle all the way to the Arctic Circle. The largest herbivores the planet has ever seen walked the Earth. Mammals existed and all life thrived.
Horticulturalists pump up to 1500ppm of CO2 into greenhouses. There are no warnings on the door and nobody limits their exposure or limits their time in the greenhouses.
CO2 is 30% higher indoors.
CO2 can reach as high as 5000ppm on submarines and the International Space station.
jason box knows that ice wont stop melting now.......
You should look at volcanic activity and Greenland ice.
"There are no active volcanoes in Greenland, nor are there any known mapped, dormant volcanoes under the Greenland ice sheet that were active during the Pliocene period of geological history that began more than 5.3 million years ago"
This was an excerpt from a NASA website so your desperate attempt to explain away the ice melt in Greenland failed. If only you had bothered to do the research yourself which is obviously asking too much of a climate change denier!! 😂
So good. Thanks a lot.
Of course you have a plan if you find yourself in a lake that is draining, I'd have an ice-gripping anchor, and always know the nearest shore
When folks ask why the ice capes are melting, their not. There never was a Ice breaker 150 years ago, now there are 1000's that never let the polar caps reharden. Think about it.
It's worse than scientists realize - much worse.
It may be and probably is, but climate scientists can only follow the data and report what they observe. After all it is hard to be precise about things like ice loss when their change is greater than expected and the increase in change is also not linear.
To be a "climate scientist", a person would need a decade of training - since next to no one was studying "climate" ten years ago, I know of no one who has earned the right to be called a "climate scientist".
@@WhirledPublishing That was must be sarcasm because I find it hard to believe anyone could be that naive, but I'll take the bait anyway.
In the first place the term 'climate scientist' actually is an umbrella term for researchers who study different aspects of the earth all of which are closely tied to the climate.
James Hansen has a PhD in atmospheric chemistry and worked with NASA in planetary as well as earth science. Back in 1988 he was not able for his presentation to Congress about the threat posed by global warming.
Gavin Schmidt earned a PhD in climate science and worked with NOAA and later with NASA as a climate researcher He has a website called real climate.
Michael Mann studied climatology and geophysics and has been very outspoken for years about climate.
Jason Box is a researcher in glaciology and has studied Greenland glaciers for years.
Hopefully you get the point!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 You're here to talk about a guy who worked at NASA - as if you believe that is a pinnacle of "brilliant science" - even though he graduated from Idaho ...
smh Public "science" agencies hire low IQ imbeciles - that graduated with a C average from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements.
Their 85 to 115 IQ's are uploaded online by Psychologists while the magna cum laude PhD's from highly selective universities like Oxford and Cambridge are in the 170 to 200 IQ's and are hired by private science foundations owned by the billionaires.
Jim's IQ is probably slightly higher than 115 but compared to the 170 IQ's, Jim is developmentally challenged and is operating on assumptions from "theories" which are intentional disinfo.
Since he has the wrong paradigm of chemistry, the wrong timeline for CO2, the wrong timeline for sea level rise, the wrong timeline for Earth's history, the wrong timeline for Earth's cataclysms, the wrong timeline for the ice sheets, etc., which is why forecasts from the IPCC have been repeatedly wrong since their inception - and if you're unaware of this, then you haven't been doing your research.
The low IQ lunatics were spoon-fed idiotic theories for several years - but you think this is "science" - because you're unaware their theories have been proven to be preposterous nonsense - but since the unintelligent fake science gods fail to notice that they were intentionally dumbed down throughout their BS, MS, and PhD's, while the true timeline for our Earth's history is clearly documented ...
Since their 85 to 115 IQ's are the intellectual equivalent to school children, and since you're unaware of these conspicuous facts, please go to your local college where you can take their academic placement test, then listen carefully as your adolescent scores in Comprehension are explained to you, then maybe you'll begin to realize the "scientists" and the public are dumbed down with lies and lunacy - throughout their lives.
Please don't write to me - I have no time for those that fail to realize the IPCC and universities and public science agencies are intentional disinfo while the billionaires get their reports from the 170 to 200 IQ's.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 As a Doctoral Scholar who has been doing this research for over 50 years, having studied Chemistry and Physics for decades, Geological Formations, Cataclysms and Wave Propagation for decades, having tested off the WAIS-R with an IQ over 150 ... nearly 30 years ago ... I will tell you that as an undergrad, I knew their Chemistry and Geology was all wrong.
I've studied alternative paradigms of Chemistry - for decades - which includes dozens of alternative charts of the chemical elements - that go back over 100 years - that expose the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements as intentional disinfo.
Have you been doing this research for over 50 years?
Are you a Doctoral Scholar?
Do you have a genius IQ over 150?
No, you don't, that's obvious - but you think you're the smart one - so you go ahead with your public science agencies that have been wrong since their inception - you go ahead with your low IQ understanding of the evil that has siphoned 99% of the world wealth into their control - "nothing to see here - go back to what you were doing."
We are working on workable solutions
Those Methane numbers are more worrisome than Carbon Dioxide numbers considering that Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide.
Methane emissions should be the talking point, but the ag industry doesn't want that now, does it?
It is a matter of scale with CO2 and CH4, methane. CO2 is measured in ppm which is now at 418 ppm. CH4 on the other is measured in ppb which is now at about 1880 ppb. That is the same as saying 1.9 ppm.
Over a hundred year period, though CH4 doesn't remain in the atmosphere that long is said to have 100 X the warming capacity of CO2 per unit volume. 100 X 1.9 is 190 which is still less than half of what CO2 is at. CH4 is said to account for 20 % of current warming. 190 is not far off 20% of the CO2 atmospheric amount.
This is admittedly not a very scientific way of framing it, but it's something.
Of course this could change in short order. Last year saw record jump in atmospheric CH4 by 17 ppb. Could that be an early sign of permafrost thawing? Too early to say.
Greenland is melring in summer?
Dear God!
BTW Greenland has gained above average ice in 5 out of the last 7 years. We're talking about up to 550 gigatons of net ice gains in 1 year.
From the site nasa.climate.gov is this statement of average ice loss from Greenland. Because of the warming climate and increasing areas exposed to ice melt in Greenland the amount of ICE LOSS has accelerated.
"Research based on satellite data indicates that between 2002 and 2023, Greenland shed an average of 270 billion metric tons of ice per year, adding to global sea level rise".
Made up nonsense. There's a market for it so it'll keep getting produced. But in the real world glaciers and ice sheets or on average reducing in volume.
Given that it is coming to the end of summer in Greenland you would expect a lot of melting, and yet sea level is rising at the same rate as it has been since the end of the little ice age in about 1850. Scare story for the alarmists, lap it up!
Hmmmm maybe because it’s winter in the southern hemisphere where ice is forming 😱😱
@@jen_sen8508 Greenland is in the northern hemisphere so your point eludes me.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 and the oceans are all one. Think for 10 seconds and youll understand
@@jen_sen8508 If you think you reduce this subject down to such a simplistic statement then why do climate scientists study the climate for over a decade to earn a PhD before going out and WORKING as a climate scientist?
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 what does 1+1 equal? 2. I knew that without a phd in maths. a dumb question only needs a simple answer
It will be freezing hard mid September
Your comment didn't age very well.
Still almost summer temps in Greenland.
@@oneshothunter9877 it was snowing heavily last few days
@@christopher554
Yes?
Exactly where?
Greenland is a huge island, so...
And I've seen it many times before, lots of snow in the morning, all gone (melted) in the afternoon.
That's how it has become.
No sea ice at winter any more. Only in the northern most areas, and even there it has become much thinner, getting even thinner each winter.
Hopefully they'll be some new amazing resorts popping up! Can't wait to tour Greenland once it's more climate comfortable ❤😊
uhh, we'll be mostly dead by then!
So why are there three spots blocked on google maps? Is it because the melted ice revealed something you people don't want the public to see?
It must be Summer!