Very clear explanation of an extremely complex integrated system of change. Really good communicator and someone WE should hear more from. Thanks Jason pint of Guinness waiting on you next time in Ireland
No mention that the Sun in the winter months above the arctic circle is absent. If the Sun at the later months moves above the horizon the oblique angle causes refection with no warming at all. There is warming, however, coming from the internal magma flow, which determines the magnetic field and the northerly displacing of the magnetic pole, in years, not just centuries. The internal heat is driven by radioisotope decay, which is not in the least uniformely distributed. and the magma flows from its upwelling in the equatorial plane, warms the ocean floor exactly at the equator , then flows under the solid mantle to the polar region descending there in a changing location ,not predictable, just observable by the near vertical magnetic local field. The temperature is around 3000 °C with a heat capacity 400000 times higher than the entire atmosphere, changing location of the descending magma at 3000 degrees must have a significant influence of the warming on the near surface below greenland, which 900 years ago was warm and populated , green, as the name suggests. The el niño is the seafloor heating, which determined the atmospheric temperature maxima in the past centuries and is increasing again. This variability is enourmous compared to the variability of the Sun's radiation density. The suggestion that the carbondioxide determines significantly the temperature of the atmosphere is absurd .
@@Patrick_Ross what is the temperature in the internal molten core? what is the mean surface temperature? what is the mean thermal conductivity and the thikness of the crust. Heat flows from hot to cold, that is a fundamental thermodynamic law. what is the resulting heat flow If you know a tiny amount of physics you can calculate that ,No? What is the Stefan-Bolzman radiation law? Compute the radiation density. compare that with the sum of the solar radiation corrected by the reflectivity of the clouds, the albedo, with the internal out going heat flow. Than any one can estimate the equilibrium temperature, can you? I don't think so. Other wise you wouldn't make that damming remark .
I think his well presented study results speak for themselves as severely worrying... and thankfully he adds no hyperbolic analysis - making him my favorite arctic climate researcher...
Must be so depressing for those trained to know what's going on to see fossil fuel use rise at a record rate and GHG accelerating upwards at the fastest ever rate after 30 years of dire warnings .
@@annettemack4825 this remark is simply stupid and shows you don't even understand the IPCC report. This is actually what i'm talking about when i talk about Judith Curry. No serious climate scientist would makes such claims.
Dr. Box, you mentioned two ice darkening processes including algae blooms and rounding of the ice crystals. Is smoke pollution and air pollution still thought to contribute to this darkening or has the understanding changed? Thanks from Ohio!
On another video Jason Box addressed that very point about the darkening on the ice in Greenland. Jason explained that is due to bacteria growth in the water as the ice thaws. This darkening is much more noticeable now than in the past because it is happening over a wider area. Right now the darkening on the ice is mostly confined to southern Greenland, but is spreading north.
Beginning at 42 minutes. He explains why the jet steam is wavier. And why are the politicians saying, "Where's the global warming?". Well, It's about persistent weather patterns.
This is the glory of the metric system. 1 cubic meter of water = 1000 kg, a metric tonne, properly spelled to differentiate from the SAE 2000 pound short ton only used in the USA, Liberia, and Myanmar.
I think one of the things that turns folks off of science talks is how dry and monotone they tend to be. I KNOW it's a lot of data to get out but this topic should be electrifying!
Thanks jason. Obviously great work, but sometimes i wish i'd spent the last 10 years oblivious to this, and just lived the expected modern life (make cash, drink, 2.4 children, house, wife(s), sun/ bike holidays, etc...) Knowledge does not seem to equate to agency for such a global predicament as this - Unless GIC / capitalism is collapsed!
In September 2022, sea ice reached a minimum extent of 4.87 million square kilometers in the Arctic. This is higher than the extent in 2007, which means the Arctic summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 16 years. It was almost as high as 1995. Summer 2023 is one of the coldest in several decades in the Arctic, and May 2023 was the coldest on record there. The Greenland surface mass balance (SMB) for the past 11 months is a massive but very normal 450 billion tonnes of ice accumulated. 5 out of the last 7 years have seen huge accumulations above the average (1981-2010).
How nice of you to copy paste the exact same excerpt from probably some global warming denier site?! Got to make things easy on yourself in your senior years. I can empathize cuz I'm getting up there as well!! At any rate your cloned comment misses several points such as the decline in volume in Arctic sea ice since 2007 as well as not being too relevant to Jason's talk. This decline in volume is reflected in a reduction in older sea ice such that the oldest sea ice which is four years or older is mostly gone. Thus the Arctic is at risk of a sudden collapse in maybe a couple years and possibly in the near future. It is not clear why it has not dropped further in area over the last decade, but since the Arctic is continuing to warm faster than the rest of the globe Arctic ice will continue to vulnerable to significant decline in the near future. By the way this year is trending down close to three other lows;. 2007, 2016, 2019 and this year. All are close to the same ice extent at 4.19 km². This year is significantly below last year. Much of this is probably meaningless to you given that you chose to post the exact comment on several of the Jason Box videos that I have seen which tells me that details aren't.your strong point. At any rate have a good day.
We need to be very careful with geo-engineering, because we don’t have enough evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Currently we are in a solar max and have had cosmic ray changes with a weakening electromagnetic field which can easily explain the recent global temperature rise. In fact the solar and cosmic radiation along with volcanic influences track the unadjusted temperature record very well. We may well be going into a global cooling cycle within the next few years. We should watch the earths response closely over the next few years.
On the upside, at least Greenland will thaw out and they can grow crops and build more stuff, like factories and chemical works. They should try and catch that melting water whilst they can. Everyone is always complaining about water shortages, and now Greenland is in a position to become the worlds number 1 exporter of bottle water.
@@LaelHitz Yeah. I live in the North of Scotland .... its still not safe to plant certain crops yet because we might have another frost ..... in MAY lols I would love it if the weather up here became less hellish. That said, climate change is unpredictable, so we might just end up with more heat, worse storms, and more bugs.
@LaelHitz The main effect of a warmer climate will be that we'll have widespread drought, global famine, and mass die-offs of billions of people. Civilization is definitely going to collapse in the next couple of centuries because of that, if not much sooner. It might start in earnest around 2050. It's actually already happening in Somalia as we speak.
That's not true. The Arctic sea ice had been stable for millennia since the end of the last ice age. Atmospheric CO2 was stable at 280 ppm since 6000 BCE and aside from a spike in temperatures at that time for about 1000 years because of astronomic perturbations there has been nothing to cause a significant decline in Arctic sea ice and it actually grew somewhat during the so called Little Ice Age. There is direct correlation with increasing CO2 and warming of the Arctic especially in the last 50 years. Once sulfate aerosols we're cut in the atmosphere through industrial regulation the climate began warming again after a slight decline which occured about 1945--1975.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Not a single word you typed disputed what I said. 10,000 years ago, the entire northern hemisphere was covered in mile high ice. This ice has been melting and receding continuously over the last 10,000 years. Nothing died. Life flourished. Nothing you stated proves this wrong. Over the last 600 million years CO2 has been as high as 7,000ppm and has averaged around 3000ppm. At 3000 the Earth was covered in jungle all the way to the Arctic Circle and the largest herbivores the planet has ever seen walked the Earth. Mammals existed under these conditions as well. CO2 has jumped up and down numerous times over the last 800,000 years, bouncing from around 180 to 300 and back. This represents record lows. It has only ever been this low twice in 600 million years. Below 150 and all plant life dies. Fossil fuels may have saved all life on Earth.
@@anthonymorris5084 What is the basis of your understanding because there is no geology or other science in your generalized comment. If the glaciers have been melting back for those 10,000 then why do ice cores show the exact opposite with ice going back over a million years ago. The science is much more clear and and refined over time. Saying CO2 has jumped up and down ignores the why this has happened. You make many generalized statements which seemed to ignore the details. Why for example did CO2 jump up and down the way it did? Do you even know? This is still an interesting dialog which is why I want to hear more of your point of view. Have a good day. And what's the basis for claiming fossil fuels saved life on earth when CO2 has not been below 280 ppm in 10,000 years? You claim that all life dies if CO2 drops below 150 ppm, but we haven't been near that except deep in the ice ages during glacial maximums. So I don't get your point.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 What does "melting back" even mean? Glaciers expand and recede. At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, roughly 20,000 years ago, much of Earth in the northern hemisphere was covered in vast ice sheets. Around 10,000 years ago the ice began to recede. (melt) Glaciers have continued to recede throughout my lifetime. Life flourished throughout this period. I can't even tell what you're disputing. I'm stating how CO2 has behaved over the last 800,000 years. I'm not interest in why. "Why" doesn't confirm or deny what I stated. This was not a "generalized statement". It describes what occurred according to my NASA graph. If CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm, and has averaged 3000ppm over the last 600 million years, and when it drops to 280ppm and has only ever done this twice for a very short period of time, and all plant life dies below 1500ppm, then 280 is alarming, no? Fossil fuels took us away from this dangerous precipice. BTW, I'm not being notified of your posts. I found this by fluke. TH-cam at it's finest.
no mention of the massive drop in arctic mean temps over last 2 years even though his graph shows it.... "uhm yea dunno why that is...." - its the actual climate, not this impassioned fairy-tale.
Fascinating, i am grateful for the Knowledge
Awesome talk !
Thanks Jason
Very clear explanation of an extremely complex integrated system of change. Really good communicator and someone WE should hear more from. Thanks Jason pint of Guinness waiting on you next time in Ireland
I always. Look for Jason's lecture, he is one of the best climate scientist doing the hard work for us.
No mention that the Sun in the winter months above the arctic circle is absent. If the Sun at the later months moves above the horizon the oblique angle causes refection with no warming at all.
There is warming, however, coming from the internal magma flow, which determines the magnetic field and the northerly displacing of the magnetic pole, in years, not just centuries. The internal heat is driven by radioisotope decay, which is not in the least uniformely distributed. and the magma flows from its upwelling in the equatorial plane, warms the ocean floor exactly at the equator , then flows under the solid mantle to the polar region descending there in a changing location ,not predictable, just observable by the near vertical magnetic local field. The temperature is around 3000 °C with a heat capacity 400000 times higher than the entire atmosphere, changing location of the descending magma at 3000 degrees must have a significant influence of the warming on the near surface below greenland, which 900 years ago was warm and populated , green, as the name suggests. The el niño is the seafloor heating, which determined the atmospheric temperature maxima in the past centuries and is increasing again. This variability is enourmous compared to the variability of the Sun's radiation density. The suggestion that the carbondioxide determines significantly the temperature of the atmosphere is absurd .
@@Arturo-lapaz- that was quite the litany of falsehoods!
@@Patrick_Ross prove it!
@@Arturo-lapaz - I don’t need to prove diddly squat to you. You climate change deniers are so damned pathetic.
@@Patrick_Ross what is the temperature in the internal molten core?
what is the mean surface temperature?
what is the mean thermal conductivity and the thikness of the crust. Heat flows from hot to cold, that is a fundamental thermodynamic law.
what is the resulting heat flow
If you know a tiny amount of physics you can calculate that ,No? What is the Stefan-Bolzman radiation law?
Compute the radiation density.
compare that with the sum of the solar radiation corrected by the reflectivity of the clouds, the albedo, with the internal out going heat flow.
Than any one can estimate the equilibrium temperature, can you?
I don't think so. Other wise you wouldn't make that damming remark .
I think his well presented study results speak for themselves as severely worrying... and thankfully he adds no hyperbolic analysis - making him my favorite arctic climate researcher...
Must be so depressing for those trained to know what's going on to see fossil fuel use rise at a record rate and GHG accelerating upwards at the fastest ever rate after 30 years of dire warnings .
those trained are like Judith Curry and they are not alarmist.
@@saticharlie They seem exasperated , like we told you so and you did the opposite !
@@saticharlie I hope you won't be crying when climate change hits your area and you lose your house.
@@annettemack4825 this remark is simply stupid and shows you don't even understand the IPCC report. This is actually what i'm talking about when i talk about Judith Curry. No serious climate scientist would makes such claims.
@@saticharlie we’re pumping c02 into the atmosphere ten times faster then the petm extinction event, I’m sure we have nothing to worry about 😂
I've added Winter Melt Season to my climate lexicon.
I wish Jason had given the names of the glaciers and ice sheets he was referring to.
Dr. Box, you mentioned two ice darkening processes including algae blooms and rounding of the ice crystals. Is smoke pollution and air pollution still thought to contribute to this darkening or has the understanding changed? Thanks from Ohio!
On another video Jason Box addressed that very point about the darkening on the ice in Greenland. Jason explained that is due to bacteria growth in the water as the ice thaws. This darkening is much more noticeable now than in the past because it is happening over a wider area. Right now the darkening on the ice is mostly confined to southern Greenland, but is spreading north.
Beginning at 42 minutes. He explains why the jet steam is wavier. And why are the politicians saying, "Where's the global warming?". Well, It's about persistent weather patterns.
An alternate title for this talk could be "Not in the Models", the scariest phrase in climate science.
How long before we have a blue ocean event?
Scientists mentioned 2030, but new measurements show that this year is outdated. There is a good chance that a BOE will occur years earlier.
To soon!!!
We're probably looking at the 2030s.
He knows his stuff and speaks truth. Hard to find that now a days. The 200 year carbon party is over. Great party it was. ❤️🌎❤️
50 billion tonnes of ice equates to about 50 cubic kilometres of water.
This is the glory of the metric system. 1 cubic meter of water = 1000 kg, a metric tonne, properly spelled to differentiate from the SAE 2000 pound short ton only used in the USA, Liberia, and Myanmar.
I think one of the things that turns folks off of science talks is how dry and monotone they tend to be. I KNOW it's a lot of data to get out but this topic should be electrifying!
Thanks jason. Obviously great work, but sometimes i wish i'd spent the last 10 years oblivious to this, and just lived the expected modern life (make cash, drink, 2.4 children, house, wife(s), sun/ bike holidays, etc...) Knowledge does not seem to equate to agency for such a global predicament as this - Unless GIC / capitalism is collapsed!
In September 2022, sea ice reached a minimum extent of 4.87 million square kilometers in the Arctic. This is higher than the extent in 2007, which means the Arctic summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 16 years. It was almost as high as 1995. Summer 2023 is one of the coldest in several decades in the Arctic, and May 2023 was the coldest on record there. The Greenland surface mass balance (SMB) for the past 11 months is a massive but very normal 450 billion tonnes of ice accumulated. 5 out of the last 7 years have seen huge accumulations above the average (1981-2010).
How nice of you to copy paste the exact same excerpt from probably some global warming denier site?! Got to make things easy on yourself in your senior years. I can empathize cuz I'm getting up there as well!!
At any rate your cloned comment misses several points such as the decline in volume in Arctic sea ice since 2007 as well as not being too relevant to Jason's talk.
This decline in volume is reflected in a reduction in older sea ice such that the oldest sea ice which is four years or older is mostly gone. Thus the Arctic is at risk of a sudden collapse in maybe a couple years and possibly in the near future.
It is not clear why it has not dropped further in area over the last decade, but since the Arctic is continuing to warm faster than the rest of the globe Arctic ice will continue to vulnerable to significant decline in the near future.
By the way this year is trending down close to three other lows;. 2007, 2016, 2019 and this year. All are close to the same ice extent at 4.19 km². This year is significantly below last year.
Much of this is probably meaningless to you given that you chose to post the exact comment on several of the Jason Box videos that I have seen which tells me that details aren't.your strong point. At any rate have a good day.
We need to be very careful with geo-engineering, because we don’t have enough evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Currently we are in a solar max and have had cosmic ray changes with a weakening electromagnetic field which can easily explain the recent global temperature rise. In fact the solar and cosmic radiation along with volcanic influences track the unadjusted temperature record very well. We may well be going into a global cooling cycle within the next few years. We should watch the earths response closely over the next few years.
OVERSHOOT…
Next time please just show the slides and his voice.
Disagree.
On the upside, at least Greenland will thaw out and they can grow crops and build more stuff, like factories and chemical works.
They should try and catch that melting water whilst they can. Everyone is always complaining about water shortages, and now Greenland is in a position to become the worlds number 1 exporter of bottle water.
Off you go an build a factory in Greenland you Muppet.
Yes, few people seem to discuss the possible advantages of a warmer climate, but there are many.
@@LaelHitz Yeah. I live in the North of Scotland .... its still not safe to plant certain crops yet because we might have another frost ..... in MAY lols I would love it if the weather up here became less hellish.
That said, climate change is unpredictable, so we might just end up with more heat, worse storms, and more bugs.
@@LaelHitz you a bit or just thick as a melting glacier?!
@LaelHitz The main effect of a warmer climate will be that we'll have widespread drought, global famine, and mass die-offs of billions of people. Civilization is definitely going to collapse in the next couple of centuries because of that, if not much sooner. It might start in earnest around 2050. It's actually already happening in Somalia as we speak.
Why do all members of academia presume we want to hear their C.V.s?
why would you listen to an hour long lecture from someone you're not sure is competent to talk about the subject?
I just click ahead - pretty much every talk on youtube doesn't really start until 15 minutes in. haha. Then 2 x the talk also. thanks
You realize that the ice has been melting for 10,000 years and didn't kill anything, right?
That's not true. The Arctic sea ice had been stable for millennia since the end of the last ice age. Atmospheric CO2 was stable at 280 ppm since 6000 BCE and aside from a spike in temperatures at that time for about 1000 years because of astronomic perturbations there has been nothing to cause a significant decline in Arctic sea ice and it actually grew somewhat during the so called Little Ice Age.
There is direct correlation with increasing CO2 and warming of the Arctic especially in the last 50 years. Once sulfate aerosols we're cut in the atmosphere through industrial regulation the climate began warming again after a slight decline which occured about 1945--1975.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Not a single word you typed disputed what I said. 10,000 years ago, the entire northern hemisphere was covered in mile high ice. This ice has been melting and receding continuously over the last 10,000 years. Nothing died. Life flourished. Nothing you stated proves this wrong.
Over the last 600 million years CO2 has been as high as 7,000ppm and has averaged around 3000ppm. At 3000 the Earth was covered in jungle all the way to the Arctic Circle and the largest herbivores the planet has ever seen walked the Earth. Mammals existed under these conditions as well.
CO2 has jumped up and down numerous times over the last 800,000 years, bouncing from around 180 to 300 and back. This represents record lows. It has only ever been this low twice in 600 million years. Below 150 and all plant life dies. Fossil fuels may have saved all life on Earth.
@@anthonymorris5084 What is the basis of your understanding because there is no geology or other science in your generalized comment. If the glaciers have been melting back for those 10,000 then why do ice cores show the exact opposite with ice going back over a million years ago.
The science is much more clear and and refined over time. Saying CO2 has jumped up and down ignores the why this has happened. You make many generalized statements which seemed to ignore the details. Why for example did CO2 jump up and down the way it did? Do you even know? This is still an interesting dialog which is why I want to hear more of your point of view. Have a good day.
And what's the basis for claiming fossil fuels saved life on earth when CO2 has not been below 280 ppm in 10,000 years? You claim that all life dies if CO2 drops below 150 ppm, but we haven't been near that except deep in the ice ages during glacial maximums. So I don't get your point.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 What does "melting back" even mean? Glaciers expand and recede. At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, roughly 20,000 years ago, much of Earth in the northern hemisphere was covered in vast ice sheets. Around 10,000 years ago the ice began to recede. (melt) Glaciers have continued to recede throughout my lifetime. Life flourished throughout this period. I can't even tell what you're disputing.
I'm stating how CO2 has behaved over the last 800,000 years. I'm not interest in why. "Why" doesn't confirm or deny what I stated. This was not a "generalized statement". It describes what occurred according to my NASA graph.
If CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm, and has averaged 3000ppm over the last 600 million years, and when it drops to 280ppm and has only ever done this twice for a very short period of time, and all plant life dies below 1500ppm, then 280 is alarming, no? Fossil fuels took us away from this dangerous precipice. BTW, I'm not being notified of your posts. I found this by fluke. TH-cam at it's finest.
no mention of the massive drop in arctic mean temps over last 2 years even though his graph shows it.... "uhm yea dunno why that is...." - its the actual climate, not this impassioned fairy-tale.