Could Climate Change cause an Ocean Tipping Point... Soon..? 

As expected my comment linking to the NASA and NOAA websites showing data that proves the Earth has been cooling since 2016, and that the Arctic ice has been expanding since 2012, and a long list of failed climate predictions got deleted because nobody could argue with the data and the followers of the faith don't like the general public to know the truth. So Adam, have you got the guts to stand up for the truth, or are you so chicken you lay eggs?

The world has begun the transition away from fossil fuels? How come emissions are still rising then?

​@@Timlagorbecause we are still putting out more co2 than the planet can absorb. Plus we have likely tripped a number processes already that are releasing additional co2 that was locked up in. Permafrost.

@ClimateAdam : Why do Europeans omit naming all Greenhouse Gases other than Carbon Di Oxide (CO2)?, a Non Toxic Gas which actually is a coolant of Atmospheric Water Vapour & essential to Cloud Formation. I have not heard mentioned on DW, France24 or BBC News Broadcasts anything about Carbon Mon Oxide (CO), a Toxic Gas produced when anything organic is burned, which includes Fossil Fuels, Wildfires & Volcanic Activity, all of which also emit various degrees of Solid Carbon particles (C). I always hear them incorrectly state that all those emissions are CO2. I also keep hearing references to effects which can only result from Methane (CH4) Emissions as being caused by CO2. CH4 is created during the Decaying Process of everything Organic & is Toxic. Most CH4, the worst Greenhouse gas in relation to Global Warming, is released by flatulence, most of which comes from humans & animal meat livestock, sewage treatment (which also has Ammonia Emissions), waste landfill sites & trapped CH4 is released during Coal Mining. When Coal is burned, the main emission is CO, NOT CO2 as often publicised these days. In addition to CO, there is also Sulphur Di Oxide (SO2) emitted. SO2, C, CO & H2O are the main Greenhouse Gases emitted by Volcanic Eruptions. I have heard Documentaries stating the emissions from Eruptions is "All CO2", a very wrong generalisation which must be challenged. Yes, Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. There is a correllation of that increase in population growth, not only of Humans, but also of our Animal Meat Livestock, and deforestation, not just to supply timber for construction, but also to facilitate Farming & Urban Sprawl, including Industrial Precincts, which is rarely, if ever, blamed for Increased Global Temperatures. In addition, where our Planetary System is in the Galaxy is another factor, as Scientific Research is leaning towards the discoveries that the last time we were in this part of the Galaxy, Global Warming also happened. There are a number of locations in the Galaxy which cause us to undergo a Warming due to Supernovae Radiated Emissions.

From what I understand the AMOC plays a minor influence on the trans Atlantic gulf current, the earth's rotation is responsible for most of it.

Overfished, but it's not overfilled with plastic. That's a common myth.

​@TheMahayanist if microplastics are found in every trophic level, i think thats reasonable to believe it's overfilled with plastic regardless of how small the trash islands are compared to the overal volume.

In the 70's it was "impending Ice Age" as the scare tool, then Acid Rain, then depleted Ozone, then HIV/AIDS, then Global Warming....Fear sells

I think you're wrong. The ocean temp is often the same as the air temp all over the earth. No big deal.

"Reflect upon the Past. Embrace your Present. Orchestrate our Futures." --Artemis 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, We must see all in nothingness... Before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

That is a big deal. Hot water doesn't hold oxygen, and ecosystems are going to be heavily affected

@@freedomruss No they are not same. Air warms oceans to 3 micron depth where it instantly evaporates. Evaporating is cooling phenomena. In 70s we were going to ice age. And very soon we are going to ice age again.

eeeeerrrr ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Izxcpn4JEZ8.html

You're right, although you mean 'conclusions' instead of 'results'. Results is what we measure, our conclusions of the results can be too conservative.

"Reflect upon the Past. Embrace your Present. Orchestrate our Futures." --Artemis 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind’s journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul’s fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope’s strength re-steeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, We must see all in nothingness... Before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)

Not a scientist, but what I can see and feel is speeding up dramaticly lately. It's 22th of october and we're having 20 degrees celsius in Slovenia. Use to freeze those times. And gets hotter every year.

@@bostjanerjavec4146 The increase in greenhouse gases and average temperature rise are exponential. That is, the rate of change is increasing along with the actual values. So, yeah, it's speeding up.

Not really. There are always multiple scenarios (scenarii). We only retain the conservative ones, but there are scénarios where our emissions keep rising (what we did and are still doing). So the modelisations are there, just that we chose to ignore them to focus on the milder scenarios ("if i do something it will be okay, so it s okay to do nothing") 😅

What country do you work for?

thanks for watching but plz stop watching and develop that famework now k thx bye

Some electric utilities and sewage utilities and farm operate on a 200-year longevity planning basis. In other words, an electric power line is purchased of high enough quality to last for 200 years, a sewage pipe is built to last 200 years, and a farm is operated on the expectation that it will be 200 years before the topsoil has eroded away. In a coastal region though, sea level rise won't always allow 200 years of operation. For the 280 year time frame from the year 1980 to the year 2260, accumulated level rise is expected to follow a roughly cubic trend, due partly to Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) following a roughly quadratic path for the last 40 years or so. Assuming that the now roughly quadratic EEI path continues for another 60 years or so, below are accumulated sea level rise estimates good enough for longer term planning purposes: December 1980 +0 meters December 2120 +4 meters December 2260 +36 meters In about 100 years, if that estimate works out, sea level will be about 4 meters higher than now in the year 2023, and in about 240 years, sea level will be more than 30 meters higher than now in the year 2023. An sewage utility operator for example serving a town 3 meters above median high tide level can go a little bit cheap on a new sewage pipe, since in 100 years, it can be expected that the town will have been lost to the sea, and that the sewage line therefore won't be needed anymore. Climate change is more than just about sea level rise. Winds from sea storms will be stronger, and will too frequently do substantial damage further inland than was typical in the 20th Century. Wind codes for buildings therefore need to be revised upward, to a wind speed building endurance requirement at least 10 kilometers per hour higher than at the end of the 20th Century. Also, in the Northern Hemisphere is an expected 21st Century pattern of climate zones moving northward. As such, there will be Summers during which Sahara Desert weather stretches northward into England, or during which Great American Desert weather temporarily extends northward into Saskatchewan, an important grain growing region in Canada. Such northward movement of desert weather events into the traditional agricultural regions of the 20th Century also creates some need for county planners in some regions to develop an irrigation infrastructure plan, and in some regions to develop a plan for just in case grain storage. Typical commercial worldwide food storage in mid-August typically amounts to about 90 days of food. In case of some disastrously low world food harvest some year of only 60% compared to expectation, that's about 39 days of world food shortfall. In addition, there has during the current war in Europe been notable military pillage of stored grain in the war zone in Europe this year in 2023, meaning that some harvested grain now gets blown up by bombs or missiles or the like, rather than remaining as part of the already typically too low mid-August inventory of the world's commercially stored food supply. I wish you and your county governance council good luck on your climate change planning project. One other bit of advice is that local weather expertise is often by far the best. Some parts of the world have local television station meteorologists. If you can get a local television station (or better yet two or three or four such local television stations) to donate for free some of their meteorologists' time to your town's governance council, a couple of 40 minute or so Skype or Zoom sessions involving you and your town's governance council and some local meteorologists might be in order, with the two sessions spaced about a month apart, in order to give everyone some time to ponder some upon whatever gets discussed in the first Skype or Zoom session.

🔥✨

What a difference an r makes. 🤦‍♀️😏

ahah that's so lovely to hear! especially the hair bit!

hehe jokes on you thats all oil and chemical derivitaves return to monkey is the only way

😂😂😂 "meet"

This is not science. Most of climate change is not science, it is fear mongering to seize control

With just projection of data? What about nonlinearities?

​@@tobiaszb If you read the paper it also includes the non linearities. Increased variance + instability in measurements of the last 150+ years as well as some of the most cutting edge simulations around. Forward models are fit / calibrated to this data. This means it's a pretty accurate projection: aka we are seriously screwed if we don't cut emissions ASAP. The last time AMOC collapsed was 12,000 years ago when europe was in an ice age.

@@__Wanderer 12k years ago the climate didn’t have to overcome 50% extra co2.

@@christinearmington indeed. Which means this will likely be a far more rapid and extreme collapse.

@@aquamaneo1204 I didn't come up with the figure sadly. Was published in a nature article and yes they predict that anywhere between 2025-2090 the AMOC will collapse with 95% confidence interval. This is scary as hell. And nobody seems to care... insane.

Very thoughtful comment. I'm with you. I talked with a scared friend today. She had the numbers wrong, like wildly, and she was in total despair. If you're going to pay attention, you have to go to the actual scientists.

Hummans survived the last ice age dont worry

thank you! ❤

thanks so much - comments like these mean so much to me!

I feel certain that every conservative person in the country has already tuned in. I can't wait for their helpful input. My brother (the one who is still alive, not the one who refused to get vaccinated) told me that people are going to have to change the way they are doing things because of the climate. I asked him who he was thinking of voting for and he said Nicky Hayley. I feel better already. Why you ask? Because I'm 63.

@@simplethings3730👍😏

Climate communication is nothing more than a lot of parrots who are singing the same song. No facts, NO knowledge No research...just blaaahhh blaaahhh blaaahhh

Take a look at Maverickstar reloaded

Don't see why that couldn't still happen b/c of the huge amount of melt water due to the temporary warming

@@kevinmurphy5878 The thing is, the earth has warmed this much in the past and never had a problem. Why would we believe that something that has never happened before would suddenly happen now? For one thing, there is no "huge amount of melt water" happening due to global warming. These glaciers are rivers of ice that move all the time. They are not moving any different now than a million years ago. Snow and ice are deposited up stream of the glacier and force the glacier to move downwards. When it hits water, it melts. It is the ocean water that is causing the melt and has for millions, if not billions of years.

ahah! I'm definitely not the first to use that line, but I _will_ take credit for it!

And on a serious note: thanks for a typically clear, informative and fun video on a very important topic!

Wait. So you *aren't* responsible for the hair? I figured you did it while you were there.

Cahm aaahn@@timinclimate , if I *was* responsible, Adam would have something a bit more off-the-wall than this! Maybe... purple zebra stripes? Feel like this would suit you @ClimateAdam ;)

Ignore people like this nugget in the video first, then do research for yourself and you will see that this is fake rubbish

That's precisely the concern. We have proven that the anomaly is exponential. This past El Niño specifically showed (and an examination of the data of NOAA is very convincing, especially when graphed) that the increase each El Niño shows an exponential increase in global sea surface temperature anomaly. We were literally waiting for this event to be certain. We are absolutely anxiously awaiting the next two El Niños. These will show us more of what kind of exponential curve we're going to experience and what mitigating factors may play into such effects. But simply put... the next couple El Niños are going to get rough. Even if purely from the damage they do to coral reefs perspective.

It is entirely possible to build a mechanical climate machine that will halve the rate of global warming. But unfortunately, “climate activists” are more concerned with making money than solving the climate crisis.

No the poles are getting bigger and colder so why is everyone having a meltdown over supposed sea level rises ? that have not happened in my life time and do not look like happening any time soon contrary to what some very well paid people claim with their fabricated hockey stick nonsense.

My family farms in California. We have to be careful how much groundwater we use because of the salinity. Salt water will stunt and kill the cops. During the tsunami, the water probably washed nutrients onto the land, but most of the water itself probably cascaded over the land and back into the ocean. If the land had absorbed a great deal of the saltwater, it would be much less arable.

All that takes more energy so...

Irrigating crops with incoming seawater will not help, in fact, likely make the problem even worse as it will increase groundwater levels even if cities are sea-walled off. The runoff from irrigation would be like trying to take a bucket of water in the ocean and putting it elsewhere in the ocean

Are you aware that SO2 emissions decreased by 94% between 1980-2020? The PPB went from 173.9 ppb down to 9.9 ppb in that 40 year time frame (EPA bulletin 5/23). Leave the cows alone, they have been doing their thing for 10,000 years from the time they were domesticated from aurochs. If climate crazies spent more time educating themselves and working proactively and methodically on global warming etiology, conservatives would have more respect. Sorry, but a vegan electrical engineer whose PhD thesis was on “processor arrays” does not constitute an authority in this arena.

@@eyeugrad1 I was not aware, I'll have a think about how that effects the argument and look at the data on it. Though I want an ethical as well as sustainable society so if we were really leaving the cows alone, we would not be artificially and forcibly impregnating them into existence and killing them and their children for needless taste pleasure.

@@eyeugrad1 I miss quoted the climate healers paper though it does factor in SO2 which your are correct in that it's a small aspect and dropped, they also do not consider it to be a driving factor in the artificial cooling I mentioned, but brings to light a lot of the miscalculations implemented in the IPCC reports and raises concerns with their public affiliations with the large meat and dairy industries and highlights the miscalculations they have made and refusal to continue an open dialogue about the critique of said miscalculations and measurement methodology, though they have been raised repeatedly. I didn't consider Dr. Rao an authority on the matter but to date I've not seen anyone convincingly refute their arguments to focus on ending the animal agriculture (the killing machine) industries as a priority over drawing down fossil fuel emissions ('the burning machine') though would like to see such a refutation if it's out there. Have you read the paper in full?

Initiatives to improve ruminant digestion and reduce methane production are nice. Initiatives to prevent the destruction of forests and jungles to create pasture and cropland are obviously essential. But ultimately, the carbon released into the air by livestock is only the carbon removed within the last 1-2 years by the plants those livestock are eating. After the livestock have eaten the tops off the grasses, the grasses grow back, capturing the same amount of carbon over again in a net-zero cycle - or in a carbon capture cycle if the farmer is engaged in regenerative agriculture. It's the carbon that was removed from the atmosphere either millions of years ago in the case of fossil fuels, or tens of thousands of years ago in the case of permafrost, that is going to kill billions of people. We need to stop the release of fossil carbon already.

super interesting question and maybe a topic for a future vid, but no! surprisingly sea level rise is not uniform, partially because of shifts in gravity, and partly also due to shifts in circulation. here's a good, clear discussion of the topic: sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/9/are-sea-levels-rising-the-same-all-over-the-world-as-if-were-filling-a-giant-bathtub/

Ahah that's a new one!

loool I've never heard that, but I'm gunna start using it!

for sure - the climate scientists I've heard speaking about it make clear that we want to rule it out as thoroughly as we possibly can.

We can´t change oceans currents. Global warming is turning global cooling. That´s not good.

Unless the precautionary principle has huge negative consequences. Example: You don't want to have a serious auto accident so you don't go to work or do shopping or visit friends. If you don't do all these things the consequences on your life would be extreme. If you don't want to accidentally choke to death, you could avoid eating. We all take risks every day. Life is a risk.

@@dzcav3 have you read up about the precautionary principle? It is different to the concept of risk-reward, and certainly nothing like the examples you provide. In the case of climate change, there are no further benefits to increasing emissions, because we have renewable technology we can deploy, and we already consume far more than is needed for our well-being, with ours being a distribution aka inequality problem. I recommend going and having a read of the precautionary principle in the context of the Rio 1992 Earth Summit.

@@kaputfretudy Go to Africa and talk with the mothers who lost their babies because the local hospital didn't have an ultrasound machine or incubator due to the lack of cheap, reliable electricity. They don't think there are no benefits to increasing emissions. On a similar note, many in Africa have lung problems due to breathing smoke from burning animal dung indoors to cook their food. The introduction of propane stoves literally saves lives. You talk about an inequality problem. All starvation is an inequality problem. Equality sounds nice in theory, but it's impossible in practice. Humans are going to act like humans. Can richer nations make ECONOMICALLY SOUND moves to minimize emissions? Sure, and they should, as long as the ECONOMICALLY SOUND part doesn't get overlooked. The problem is that it usually DOES get overlooked. People often talk about solar and wind having lower LCOE than fossil fuels. What they almost always ignore is the added costs of additional transmission lines and backup power generation that solar and wind require. When you look at the total picture, it's often very different. Germany had the highest electrical rates in Europe BEFORE the Ukraine war due to its use of solar and wind. It couldn't survive without its neighbors to buffer its supply and demand. Poverty is the main cause of premature death around the world. When you overlook the economics and increase poverty, even marginally, you kill people.

I just became aware of this paper (Chengfei He et al. “A North Atlantic Warming Hole Without Ocean Circulation.” Geophysical Research Letters. 2022.) that pretty much destroys the ASSumptions of the Ditlevsen paper on which this video is based. Another vindication of NOT taking expensive actions which will definitely harm poor people when we don't have a high degree of certainty that those actions are necessary.

Welcome!

The water is also more saline in Texas if this were to actually have an impact, the South Atlantic Upwell is just the last leg of the AMOC once the current passes between Cuba and the Yucatan it does a gyre, it's not exactly the same further up north. Hurricane Harvey is trivial, 77% of global rainfall, falls directly into the ocean. 5% of rain that hits land actually runs back off into the oceans. It's weird, I had a few classes on it in college. It's still way above my pay grade, to be honest, I am amazed I remembered anything.

Human activity has never seen these levels, 8billion people burning 100 million barrels of oil per day. She canny take any more captain!

why did literally nobody ever suggest that?!?!?

I've done exactly the same while watching RU-vid vids!

RIP the long hair 😢

@@ClimateAdam- You youngsters always overestimate how long (subjectively!) it takes hair to grow back. I’ve had mine long (middle and bottom of shoulder blades) twice in my life, have it quite close to yours now, and am not ruling anything out for the future (I’m 57). Actually, my future hair length is one of the only things I _don’t_ have qualms about!

here's a useful conversation on that topic! twitter.com/EpocProject/status/1684468246903132160

@@ClimateAdam Thanks... very interesting 🙂

This is actually one of the caveats of the paper which I didn't have time to get into - there may be such a thing as a partial collapse of the amoc, so it would have multiple tipping points not 1. At the moment we don't have the info we'd need to tell.

@@ClimateAdam If the AMOC stopped transporting heat northward, wouldn't that heat end up somewhere else?

Yes.@@fromnorway643

I've read most of the paper on which this video is based. It reminds me of a thorough and correct mathematical analysis of chicken entrails. In other words, garbage in equals garbage out. The analysis may be flawless, but the underlying assumptions aren't. Chicken entrails don't predict the future, and neither do very limited and inadequate models of extremely complex fluid systems (e.g. the weather and overturning ocean currents). If you disagree with my analysis, please provide an ACCURATE forecast of the weather for one year from today. No one can do that. No one can come anywhere close. Here's some of the particular flaws with the paper: 1. The AMOC has only been studied in detail since 2004. That is far too short a period to get an understanding of its natural variations. There are known climate phenomenon such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), El Nino, and La Nina that happen on longer time scales. 2. The use of sea surface temperatures (SST) as a proxy for AMOC. Again, due to the short amount of time AMOC has been studied, we don't know the long-term correlation of these two. 3. The historical record of SST in the "fingerprint" area of AMOC is almost nonexistent prior to the use of satellite measurements in the 1980s. The "fingerprint" is in a very remote part of the ocean with very little commercial shipping traffic. Prior to satellite data, the intake water temperature of commercial ships was used to estimate ocean surface temperatures. The paper assumes we have an accurate record of the "fingerprint" area going back to 1880. This is laughable. 4. Complex fluid systems are essentially impossible to model. We can somewhat model very simplified situations such as jet engines, airplane wings, and combustion chambers of engines. but that's about it. Weather forecasts are only good for a few days, and pretty much just extrapolate current trends. Climate models are political garbage, and greatly overestimate actual global warming. Their main purpose is to support the mainstream narrative, get funding/prestige/tenure, and increase government control. MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE. Finite element analysis "models" are used in engineering, but material stresses are not nearly as complex as fluid flows, and the models are well verified by empirical data. That is NOT the case with climate models, which FAIL to accurately hindcast known historical temperatures. Bottom line: fear mongering is alive and well.

I just became aware of this paper (Chengfei He et al. “A North Atlantic Warming Hole Without Ocean Circulation.” Geophysical Research Letters. 2022.) that pretty much destroys the ASSumptions of the Ditlevsen paper on which this video is based. It also affirms some of the points I made in my previous reply.