Excellent video. You clearly do an exemplary job on research and your presentation is concise and understandable to the laymen, me. Regarding the content, a bit of good news is refreshing but I fear it will be short lived. Thank you for your continued climate awareness efforts.
Thanks Tim. I agree with you. I do think these last two years have been an anomaly. I have certainly read many of the reports about the ice sheet being undermined by water lubrication from below which may well be causing far more rapid collapse than institutes like NOAA and the DMI are reporting. One of my goals this week though was to try to gently demonstrate that there is essentially not much difference between the DMI conclusions and those of NOAA and NASA - in the past I've been accused of using the latter too heavily by people who perceive that the DMI usually offer a more positive picture, but as I hope the video shows, the overall long term trend reported by all of these institutions is one of relentless decline. Later in the year I may well take a look at the more disturbing data that I mentioned above. Thanks again for your support. It's very much appreciated. All the best. Dave
This is part of a well designed misinformation campaign on the part of big businesses, probably oil, finance and auto. They have literally a $trillion on the line and are trying to control the transition off oil to renewables. It should be illegal, but it's not because they own the politicians that write the laws. Fox news is allowed to sell their misinformation as news, under America's freedom of speech laws. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I surely despise those who abuse the privilege. Please don't fall for any of it. If you need scientific explanations of exactly why this is bullcrap, see Beckwith on RU-vid. He is an expert on current glaciers.
As the areas supporting ice masses continue to shed ice, isostatic rebound pushes the surface upwards. This has a slight negative feedback quality, as the ice is lifted slightly higher into the cold atmosphere and suffers slightly less melt. But it also ends up displacing more sea water, raising the sea level a bit more. So far, most of the ice which has been lost has been in the N. hemisphere. The water made it's way to the sea and then begins to be distributed southward, depending on gravity, centripetal force, winds and currents. That could have orbital effects. Nothing catastrophic, but potentially adding to the problems of surface heating.
I'm glad I found this channel. A few other climate science channels have gone dark over the last year, and I've been missing the updates on things like this. I would give one nit-picky criticism on this video though: did you actually answer the question asked in the video title? I would say that you *implied* the answer with the quote about how having one good year where things went our way won't make up for all the massive losses over the past few decades, but perhaps a bit more summative segment at the end would help. I know scientists don't like to characterize other scientists and instead prefer to just quote the other scientists and expect that common thread running through should be obvious to everyone, but I think it is possible to both not oversimplify with a well-written synthesis characterizing the cited works as a whole. Caveats are a good way to keep from oversimplifying while also helping to boil down the cited works to the takeaway. It certainly would make the video accessible to a wider audience. I think having videos I can share with people that I think they can handle makes it more likely that I can move the needle with them.
I think the takeaway message for newly concerned viewers, is that our current understanding of net ice loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet is not just based on computer projections of future effects of a warming biosphere, but on actual detailed observations of measurable inputs and outputs that chronicle the deterioration and ultimate end of post glacial Holocene climate stability.
Your videos are very positive because they enlighten viewers and make us think from a different perspective. I will dare make a small criticism though, when comparing areas of Greenland with India for example visually they look about the same size yet Greenland =1.7million Km square and India=3.17 therefore considerably bigger. The difference probably stems from the fact that projections used for drawing planispheres distort the proportions of areas according to latitudes on the globe.
Hi Andres. Thanks for your kind comments. Much appreciated. To address your note about relative country sizes, the website from which I took the little animation of Greenland compared to India is called thetruesize.com. The website is specifically designed to give an accurate size comparison of countries, rather than the grossly distorted impression that the classic Mercator Projection gives. The link below should take you straight to the page where Greenland is overlaid on top of India. You can hopefully see that there's still quite a lot of India around the edges, outside of the part that Greenland covers. Your numbers tell us that India is 1.86 times bigger than Greenland. I suspect when you add up all the extra parts of India that can see on this link, it will probably be pretty accurate. (although I admit I have not actually measured it myself!) thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTMwMTg5NzU.OTM3NDY5Mg*Mjg0MjUxNDc(MjAxNDE0NTY~!CONTIGUOUS_US*MTAwMjQwNzU.MjUwMjM1MTc(MTc1)Mg~!IN*NTI2NDA1MQ.Nzg2MzQyMQ)MA~!CN*OTkyMTY5Nw.NzMxNDcwNQ(MjI1)MQ~!GL*OTE3MzYwMA.MjM0ODQyMTI)Mw I hope that makes sense. All the best Dave
Hi Kim. Perhaps you can help us with some detail on this one. I'm mindful that there are some data suggesting a far more rapid decline of the Greenland Ice Sheet. As I've mentioned to a couple of other folks, I had to think quite hard about how to present this week's information. I have certainly read many of the reports about the ice sheet being undermined by water lubrication from below which may well be causing far more rapid collapse than institutes like NOAA and the DMI are reporting. I have watched Paul Beckwith's latest series of videos on the subject as well. I may well do a video later in the year that looks at this data to see if it is playing out in reality. I do think it's important though, firstly to try to explain the basic factors that drive the 'normal' ebbs and flows up on Greenland so that lay people (like me) have a chance to understand some of the science, but secondly to report the raw data from these established sources too. Thanks for your support of the channel. Much appreciated.All the best. Dave
Very interesting presentation. Could you interview Jason Box so that we can find out more about the dark snow project and extreme glacial flows. This would be a very interesting part 2. Thanks for all your efforts.
It is not that complicated, Greenland ice is thickening. It has yet to reduce to levels 80 years ago and is a long way off from levels 800 years ago. So both long and short term trends are growing. All perfectly normal and natural trends.
I read somewhere that the volume of Greenland Ice Sheet is 2,900,000 km3 which would lead to a mass of of 2.7 million Gigatons (assuming an ice density of 0.934 Gigatons/km3). I wonder how less dramatic the mass loss chart shown in the video would be if it was shown as a function of the total mass? The 281 Gigatons per year would translate to 0.01% per year.
Yep. 14,000 years to melt the lot at current rates. No suggestion of that happening. But the trend line is showing an increasing melt rate. that's the relevant point in my view. And if we do have an ice-free arctic ocean at any point this century then that will push even warmer air across the land mass and speed things up even more.
Its 660,000 square miles by 1.2 miles thick. Which is a volume of 792000 cu miles or 1.166x10^17 cubic feet. A ton of ice is about 34 cubic feet so that is 3.429x10^15 tons. Of which we are losing about 250 billion tons a year so it should all be gone in 13715 years assuming that the rate is linear which is probably a bad assumption.
The Peterman Glacier Greenland has been growing three feet a year since the study of 2012. NASA satellite shows this. So the ice shelf has extended many miles.
I really enjoy watching your videos great job by the way. I was wondering if you could talk about species extinction and habitat loss. I think this could be a very important subject.
Hi Travis. Thanks for your kind comments. Much appreciated. I will certainly touch on those subjects in future videos. They have featured several times in previous programmes but never as a 'stand alone' video in their own right, so definitely something for me to add the to the schedule. All the best Dave.
There is a phenomenon that might kick in as we get more and more warmer open water in the Arctic ocean. It is a sort of Walker cell. In other words, warm moist air in contact with the ice, cooling and, flowing in a density current down the slope sucking in more warm moist air which is rising over the ocean. The kicker is that latent heat from water vapor to liquid water is 540cal per gram while latent heat from liquid water to ice is 80cal per gram. What this means is that every kg of water that condenses from the atmosphere on to the ice can melt about 6kg of ice. Add to this adiabatic heating. As the air flows down the slope it warms about 9degrees C for every km of vertical fall. A body of air falling from the peak of Greenland to the ocean warms significantly but of course only melts more ice as it is in contact with the ice. If this kicks in, we may see some spectacular melting.
The ice issue is fairly easy to demonstrate to yourself and see the issue. Just take a glass of water with an ice cube or 2 in it, put in a thermometer not touching the ice cube and a watch. Graph the rate of change of water temp when until ice is melted, then continue for a little while after. You will notice a huge increase in the rate of warming after the ice has melted. And thats why the boe is so important, huge rise in ocean temp when ice is gone, and thus huge change in climate also soon after
Hi Daniel. Thanks for your comment. I'm hoping to collate all of the latest date, including the GRACE data, into a programme in a few weeks time, when we will also have a good idea of the extent of arctic ice running up to this year's minimum (which is looking like it may be a record low).
@@JustHaveaThink Thanks! Definitely looks like a certain top 3, most likely a top 2. Beating 2012 is hard (that was such a crazy melting season), but who knows, given how bad the ice is looking right now. A record low is not out of the question!
Please keep this truth tech channel!!! Hallelujah for the Truth!!! Proven scientific research facts!!! Outstanding service... cheers team!! Big love for all that will benefit from this wisdom in future!! And the truth!!!
I was impressed and just subscribed. I have used PP for years and I have their images for sea ice going back to 2005. I learned some things about Greenland this last week that I would like to share since it is not good news. The west coast started heating up early. Around May 1 there were temperatures up to 16.8°C around Jakobshaven. In fact there have been multiple days (over 5) of over 16° C. More troubling, it has stayed warm, and there has been almost no nighttime T° below freezing. In fact, some nights it has been between 7 - 10°C, at night. Worse yet the sea surface temperature is almost 3°C above normal, reaching over 3°C. There is a website I was sent that describes the deep ocean water around Greenland, and there is more heat coming up from the Deep Water. Here is the site: omg.jpl.nasa.gov/portal/ I thought that there was heat coming from the Pacific under the thick Arctic Basin ice, which could explain the Svalbard Jacuzzi where the sea surface T° was only rarely below 15°C in the last two winters! But I leanred about the Lincoln Sea and the Neers Strait. This is between NW Greenland and Ellesmore Island, a very treacherous stretch of water. And warm. That heat is coming down and spilling into the Bay of Baffin and eventually the Laborador Sea. I have been talking about the climatologists for the sudden loss of ice in April. The last information I had from Robert Fanney (another excellent site) was a photo of Arctic ice with lots of fissures on about late Oct or November. Those fissures are also a source of heat. When the measured the ice, they were getting a volume. But you never buy Swiss Cheese by the volume. I am starting to call this the Swiss Cheese effect, and we might have a Swiss Cheese Summer. I made a sick joke about this phenomenon. I am saying Windyday Concept is the proud sponsor of the Baffin Bay Big Wave Surf Contest, August 2019. No Climate Scientists are laughing.
Actually we are past that already according to all the proxys from Tree rings, ice cores, stalagmites, sediments etc. Only the glaciers are a bit slow to follow. If the CO2 and average temperature would make a halt right here, the glaciers would continue to shrink for another hundred years.
Medieval warm period was not a global event as the current warming is, no receding glaciers on Greenland at the time of Norse settlers who went there for wallruss ivory. Interesting article with a reference to the science: icelandmag.is/article/what-happened-viking-settlement-greenland-new-research-shows-cooling-weather-not-a-factor
Thanks for the video, very informative. A point that I thought you might cover is two fairly well known/understood meteorological cycles, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In layman’s terms it basically is an observation of the melt water cooling the surrounding water which then causes a colder snowier regional weather pattern that builds back the ice pack. I understand that something as complex as even regional climatic cycles it is practically impossible to touch on every aspect so I’m not knocking you, just suggesting that where we are in those cycles will have a significant impact on the overall picture.
Greetings Gary. The Antarctic is so massive that it creates it`s own weather systems and patterns. The small peninsula on the western side of the Antarctic that is getting all the attention and promoted by the activists and alarmists as catastrophic are doing themselves a disservice as world-leading scientists have confirmed that the slightly warmer ocean current is melting the sea ice from under the existing ice. (Observed and measured as fact) Oceans change their directional flow of warmer water causing the El Nino and La Nina effects on this planet. Considering that the oceans are 72% of the earth's surface the climatic changers of the earth is influenced by directional changes in the oceans currents. Simple primary school test. Place icecubes in a glass of water and measure the height of the water. When all the ice melts, measure the height of the water. WOW - the water level is slightly lower. So much for the melting of sea ice raising ocean levels. A different issue with the melting of glaciers of which some are receeding, some have stalled and some are growing and not melting, but nearly all glaciers move as gravity dictates. World leading Astrophysists are warning Governments of a pending "Grand Solar Minimum" due to the observence of the lack of sun-spots and the Earth`s orbit moving away from the sun. Cropping and food supply is a worldwide issue should the climate experience a solar minimum. Worth doing a search on the "Grand Solar Minimum" for yourself. Kindest regards.
Neville Buck I am a fairly average person and quite frankly struggle a bit to keep up with the real issues surrounding climate and alarmist vs anti-alarmists. I appreciate anyone who points out the enormous amount of conflicting data and information we have on both sides of the issue. It seems that everyone can only promote the data that supports their ideological predisposition on the subject and claim that opposing arguments/data is either a selling out or denying the facts. If our basic news sources would just report the intriguing things that even fairly low level meteorologists know about local and regional weather/climatic cycles, we would all be much more knowledgeable. Instead we get ‘news’ about this big ice melt in the Arctic, or that huge expansion of the ice sheets in Antarctica without getting the whole story about anything. Oh well, regards.
I do believe your video may have missed a significant point about the structure of Greenlands large glacier sheet. STRUCTURAL CHANGE, your video pretty much treats the ice sheet as a surface, yet it is kilometres thick. You've limited structural change to edge calving & accumulation of dark material such as dirt, dusk & algea. Would not surface water tunneling into the structure of the glaciers have a similar effect to local phase shifting? From a satellite's distance this would be indistinguishable from mass lost. It would also be similar to water lubrication of the base & rock interface beneath the glacier were the melt water tunnels completely through the glacier. As well water's passage through the ice could also weeken the bond between sizable chunks of ice.
Nice job. Well presented and objective info. Did you say the melting estimated is also estimated to have resulted in. .8mm rise in sea level per year? In other words, 1cm every 12 years?
There are a number of techniques including measuring the ratio of different isotopes of gaseous elements. Cosmic rays generate isotopes such as carbon-14 which break down at a predictable rate. As the ice gets covered it traps air that is no longer hit by these rays so the ratio of isotopes changes and can be measured. The ratio is used to estimate age of the ice layer in which it is found.
HI both. That's correct. I have a full time job as a Project Manager and I work on the channel in my spare time. i buy all the filming apparatus and all the props for the demonstrations out of my own pocket. It has cost me about £4000 since I started the channel 12 months ago. I hope that clarifies. Many thanks. All the best. Dave
@@JustHaveaThink Wonderful Dave, this is a remarkable example to show what an individual can do. That is have such an impact, that people wonder if there is a funding agency behind you! To fill a need where good science based, that are well above an introductory level, are badly needed. Thumbs up, bravo!!
@@sidharthafocus Thanks Sid. Very much appreciated. I would also say it shows what an amazingly democratic instrument You Tube can be when it is used in this way. I would never had been able to produce these videos without this user friendly and completely free platform. Thanks for your support. All the best. Dave
@@sidharthafocus Thanks Sid. Much appreciated. I would also say that it shows what an amazingly democratic medium You Tube can be when it's used in this way. I would never have been able to produce and distribute the information without this free platform. Thanks for your support. All the best. Dave
Hi Jimmy. You can if you use the website that I mentioned. They set up their website precisely because they hated the way that the Mercator projection makes northern (and generally more developed countries) look bigger than their South Eastern "subordinates". If you look carefully on the video you will notice that the size of the blue outline of Greenland grows smaller as it moves closer to the equator so that it is an accurate representation of its real size when overlaid against other countries. Here's a link to the website thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTYwODA2MzE.MzkzMDA5MA*MzUzMTM0NDc(MjE3ODY4Mg~!CONTIGUOUS_US*MTAwMjQwNzU.MjUwMjM1MTc(MTc1)MA~!IN*NTI2NDA1MQ.Nzg2MzQyMQ)MQ~!CN*OTkyMTY5Nw.NzMxNDcwNQ(MjI1)Mg All the best. Dave
Someone should fly over the south pole from s America to Australia with none stop unedited video rolling the whole time, with proof they were where they say they are . Millions of views no doubt
@@billparry79 FFS - That's been done quite a few times, and people have even walked the whole way with GPS monitoring, but FE morons wont accept it. They will get embarrassed when a planned FE cruise is going to circumnavigate Antarctica, and prove that the shoreline is a small as on Globe Maps. Even then, they will find an excuse.
After a BOE Greenland's ice sheet will melt like a blow torch, as will Antarctica, addi g 102 meters to sea level i just a few years. Take the BTUs applied to the polar cap via atomosphere and water and apply that to the tiny snow cone; which is all Greenland is in comparison.
Middle Europe had hardly any winter. Few times a bit snow, melted away the other day. A bit more snow to the alpes but also no long time winter and not cold as well. To dry actually.
I wonder if this number is solely a contribution from Greenland, or is net from the worlds ice mass. ie does this sea rise figure include negative rise due to Antarctica's mass gain? hmmmm
@@For2went Its Greenland alone and expected to increase a lot. Antarctica is loosing ice as well but not as much and there is not enough data for an educated guess about the next decades for antarctica. What you mean is probably the sea ice that has been slightly growing during the last decades but had an all time low lately.
Add the methane bloom from Siberia that is carried over Greenland and you will see a end. HERE is my biggest fear is having a cyclone/hurricane plant itself right over Greenland and dump a huge amount of rain right over the ice.
Storms happened - in summer no less - and the result was more snow... as for a warm hurricane going enough north to reach Greenland ? Your imagination is tricking you. Around 1000 AD the vikings had *farms* in Greenland. So the glaciers must have been covering not so much of it (or they would have called it Whiteland), and neither Europe nor America was under water.
well, ...that actually seems like GOOD news! Maybe everything is OK,.... Why do I have this suspicion that when the FO mission is online that it will ruin everything? Thank you for the info.
This information does not correspond with the actual decline in global temperature the last couple of years, and the fact that the Arctic ice sheet is now thicker than average. And it's the Greenland ice where measurements have been taken with regard to the relation between CO2 and temperature. The conclusion: CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. That's a scientific fact.
No one gets high marks for disinformation, fallacies and at worst, lies. Last year for example, was the fourth warmest year on record globally going back to the 1880's: www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record ...and the Arctic ice sheet hit its lowest sea ice volume in March of this year as summarized by Dave a week ago. Antarctic ice assays are the most relied upon because Antarctica has thicker ice sheets with more history and your conclusion is also wrong. While C02 has lagged temperature historically as a feedback of anaerobic decaying biomass, man made C02 emissions are going up side by side with temperature markedly since the 1960's proving C02's power as a greenhouse gas. Why do people make stuff up like this that is so easily dis-proven? The science of psychology offers clues. According to online searches, about 1 in 5 adults have a mental health condition. Of this number, approximately half have a condition related to the physical brain (damage, chemical imbalance etc.), most common being dementia and addiction related. The other half have a mental health condition caused by their socially learned environment (i.e. personality disorders). Such individuals are typified by having belief systems based on stuff that isn't true and as a consequence, live in a world that is a blend of real and false constructs. Over time, they end up living in a false construct or fake world with fake knowledge and sense of one's self and are typically identified in the same way. Now... I'm not pointing any fingers but... if you continue to comment here with fake knowledge it may not go so well for you :)
What about the European satellite, which is way more advanced than NASA's satellites, and showed no or nearly no sea level rise between 2002 and 2012, when the mission ended?
"the European satellite, which is way more advanced than NASA's satellites". It's always great to get impartial carefully-detailed technical assessments like you just provided. I got lost after page 872-B of your engineering technical specifications though.
@@grindupBaker The time you took to mock my comment, you could have googled and seen the difference for yourself. No bother. I'll take the time and Google it for you later.
60% of the(land)breeze and the(sea)changed in Iraq and this difference arrived at other countries of the world... This difference caused the change of the directions of winds,which needs to balance... You spend more than 100 years to study the age and the thickness of the ice at the poles(north and south ),but you didn't spend one day to return ice to his place... The people plan their future , but you do not plan the future of the earth... The world made sins, when he didn't study and read the studies and the advices of the others... I think that science is for the Americans and the Europeans !!! ??? ... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced
I was glad to see that you did not once proclaim this was due to man made co2. Glaciologist say it has been melting for centuries. It is obvious from the graph that the melt is a steady rate despite increases in co2.
A quality exercise in reducing the data into elementary understandable chunks, tho' the flow was too fast for my grey matter to absorb in just one viewing. Very good teaching, with some similarities to Potholer54, even down to the spoken English.
Thanks Mike. That's a very kind comparison, although I would have to say that I could not hold a candle to the level of knowledge and astonishing detail and research that Potholer54 carries out for his videos - he is a man I greatly admire. All the best. Dave
Mike, since I can't pay in cash the highest praise I can pay to a video is to watch again. Much praise has been shown to Peter Hadfield over the years in this regard.
@@dnomyarnostaw the data are shown since 2002. This is a very, very short period of time. Huge numbers are always impressive, what a non-biased report would do is put these numbers in perspective - relative to the total mass of the glaciers - relative to the historical variations Because the whole debate is not about whether warming/cooling is happening, but whether it stays in the confines of natural variations
@@walrustrent2001 Its only a 12 minute video. He spends the first five minutes explaining the size of Greenland, which is the TOPIC of this SHORT video. Any overall comparison can be easily looked up in the references (like Wikipedia) that he provides. As for recent historical variations in Greenland, that is the rest of this short video on one topic. But, if you are talking about ice sheet sizes in prehistory, that is just noise if you think about it. Humans have been on Earth for a miniscule amount of time, and our finely balanced systems are looking at disaster within one or two generations. For this reason, long past history is pretty irrelevant. If this melt is not Co2 induced, then we are just F*&*&d. If it is caused by Co2, then we have a small chance of influencing the global outcome. Coincidentally, a video with a broader analysis was released recently, that has a much wider scope. It may cover some items of interest ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CNkVGiSgOM4.html
@@dnomyarnostaw I don't understand your logic. If the melt is not CO2 induced, then it occurs as part of a cycle, and there is no reason to believe that the current warming will exceed that of the medieval optimum - at which time Europe was flourishing and nowhere near underwater. NB thanks for the video, I commented it - rather negatively I am afraid.
@@walrustrent2001 No reason to believe its part of WHAT cycle ? The cycle where Antarctica was a tropical rainforest ? The cycle where we return to snowball Earth ? They are all previous cycles. There certainly IS a lot of reasons why this is a manmade cycle, as the other video carefully explained. You have 100% of climate scientists to argue with. But don't let hundreds of studies and millions of dollars of research discourage you. You know better.
I read a few comments before listening to a video with such a bullshit title. You have the same following of people, ass Al Gore did. I am thumbs down #11. The video remains @0:01.
When I discover that the temperatures in Greenland have been falling since 2012 and that the western Glaciers are in fact growing, then I can figure out why you are not able to give any data to back up these dire reports that you so love to feed everyone. When you wake up to the fact that the Global temperatures are falling and all the stuff you have been spouting is nothing but propaganda, I hope you will be able to live with yourself.
Only recently discovered your videos and am so glad to find a source of well researched data and such a succinct presentation. Just one tiny note: how about NOT starting your script with, 'just to get you warmed up...' (0.53") in this particular context!
Medieval warm period was not a global event as the one we are experiencing today, Greenland was not warmer during this time. It has been shown that the glaciers did not recede during this period and hence no higher sea levels. One of the points of settling on Greenland was because of wallruss ivory which was in high demand at the time because of disrupted trade routes to Europe for elephant ivory. Settlements was abandonded for many reasons, interesting article and also with a reference to the research: icelandmag.is/article/what-happened-viking-settlement-greenland-new-research-shows-cooling-weather-not-a-factor
Can you do a video on the relevance of methane hydrates stored in the sea floor? I know of climatologists that hold an alarmist view on the topic. I researched that methane on the beaches of the world are the only deposits at risk of being released.
In the past a large piece of the south pole ice broke and slided into the ocean causing worldwide tsunami's , are we capable to detect such a threat ahead of time and are people looking at this possibility.
I never heard about that. There was a huge subsea landslide off the coast of Norway some thousand years ago (actually app 8000 years ago, the storegga slide). That caused a huge tsunami. And no, we have no way to predict a thing like that.
Greenland 🇬🇱 May look 👀 stable but it is not and I will tell you why. ONE satellite information can be deceptive, wonder about those liquid pools of water that run into the thick ice miles thick. There are vast energy differences between solid ice at 32 degrees and liquid ice at 32 degrees. Within this massively thick ice there are pockets of liquid water. When this ice collapses it will be in shorter order than thought.
Hi Robert. Thanks for your feedback. A few folks have alluded to similar points. I was very mindful of exactly what you point out and I had to think quite hard about how to present this week's information. I have certainly read many of the reports about the ice sheet being undermined by water lubrication from below which may well be causing far more rapid collapse than institutes like NOAA and the DMI are reporting. I have watched Paul Beckwith's latest series of videos on the subject as well. I may well do a video later in the year that looks at this data. I do think it's important though, firstly to try to explain the basic factors that drive the 'normal' ebbs and flows up on Greenland so that lay people (like me) have a chance to understand some of the science, but secondly to report the raw data from these established sources too, otherwise it simply gives fodder to the deniers to say that we Climate Change advocates are always "trying to manipulate information to make it look like it's worse than it is". I do appreciate your feedback though, and I will take it on board. All the best. Dave
The summary of climate change is easy. It is the change of humidity in atmosphere, which produce between the (land)and the(seas & oceans) on the other hand... Occurring of rains, snow, storms, and floods at time and in unexpected places, confirm my theory(the change in the directions of winds)which must be balanced... How to reduce the heat of the earth and atmosphere? We must supply the earth with a natural cooling places... Results: ---------- 1- To balance the water vapor which produces between the( ground)and the(seas and oceans )... 2- To balance the pressures of the air in the atmosphere... 3- To balance the directions of winds which caused the climate change... 4- To control upon the storms and harricans... 5- To revive the the first theory of climate change (dynamic horizontal movement). 6- To balance the percentage of gases forming the atmosphere. NOTE :The lack of water vapor is of land not of seas and oceans... These studies had completed and sent on July 26th 2000... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced
Hi, My name is William Nelson I have been an independent environmental researcher sense 1969 and work with formulated wax for solving many mankind environmental problems such a preventing the spread of radiation. Have been to Chernobyl three times sharing with that Government how to prevent Plutonium particles from escaping the Sarcophagus of Chernobyl's blown-out reactor # 4. I had to spend overtime inside the reactor from the bottom to the top to locate where Plutonium dust is escaping. The demonstration was successful and confirmed. Also, I demonstrated how to cocoon buried highly nuclear waste for long term safe burial. Also, I demonstrated how to reclaim radioactive contaminated territories for re-cultivation. Formulated wax was shown how to prevent radioactive Uranium mine tailings' dust particles from becoming airborne. It was demonstrated under contract for the Federal Government how to prevent 95 to 100% of Radon Gas from entering into homes. confirmed. In 1974 I was contracted by Environment Canada to remove spilled oil on Passage Island B.C. The oil was removed from hidden tide pools, rocks and the oil was rolled off of the beach sand as though it were a giant carpet. Preventing the spread of radiation has been at the top of my list, but I discovered a solution to help prevent the ice melt. Only the people can force the arm of the Government. The airborne carbon particulates are darkening and collecting on the surface of the ice on Greenland and elsewhere causing the ice to melt because black absorbs the heat of the Sun. The white color of snow and ice reflect the heat of the Sun. The more carbon on the ice or snow surface, the more the ice will melt. The solution, If the carbon and other particles are forced through high heated microcrystalline wax before it leaves the industrial smoke stack's the carbon acts like a candle dye, and once it is in a solution it cannot become airborne. Problem solved, so how to force the arm of the Governments to implement this basic technology? I can demonstrate this basic technology at any time to anyone. Thank you for allowing me to share my discoveries. In close, Please type, Wax for pollution on RU-vid to view wax removing crude oil from water and beach sand. Documentation and reports, letters etc. have been posted on my FB timeline if you scroll down to past post's. Take care, William
We should be heading into a cooling phase according to most cycles. But, we are not. If Greenland ice sheets fail. The chain of events especially after 2 million years of methane gas is released will be gargantuan
What about the illegal gag order on meteorologists and NOAA employees? There can be no valid discussion on climate without the inclusion of geoengineering/weather modification.
the gag order was in consultation with the researchers union in regards to organizational planning, grievance settlements & collective bargaining. no gag on talking about the science. so far the only climate engineering that is wide spread is cloud seeding, which has been going on since the 1930s. usually used to force rain over dams to fill them up. there is several companies that for $100k+ guarantees it will not rain on your wedding day, by cloud seeding any rain clouds coming your way. apart from that, all other proposals are just that, proposals. mainly because they are too expensive and there is no payback. easiest would be to just remove co2 from the atmosphere and sequester it back into old oil wells. that is hardly controversial.
Hi Roger. Thanks for your support. Wouldn't it be great if a million people got sufficiently engaged in the issue and were actively seeking information about it on outlets like You Tube. That, I think, would signal a true sea change in public consciousness and awareness of the urgency of our global predicament. Here's hoping! All the best. Dave
We're in an interglacial warm period and one would expect some warming and ice loss before the next glaciation period starts in couple thousand years. Actually, the climate in Greenland was warmer than today 1,000 years ago as the Vikings grew barely in the southern part of Greenland until the little ice age ended it all. sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
...and then 7.6 billion humans came along. Growing to 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11 billion in 2100. All almost completely reliant on wheat, rice and maize grown in all the mid latitude regions that will suffer the worst effects of climate change. Kinda makes you wish you were a viking huh?
Thanks for another great video. I did find the graph at 11:00 quite difficult to follow. The vertical access is labelled as 'Mass Loss' but the scale is marked in negative values, negative mass loss to me is mass gained (I don't think that was what you intended). Also the numbers get more negative towards the origin which would only make sense if this really was change in mass, not as labelled 'Mass Loss'. I apologise for being such a pedant.
Hi Dogphlap.Not pedantic at all. In fact when I viewed the animation again I can see exactly what you mean. I took that chart straight from NASA's site here... climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/153/video-greenland-ice-loss-2002-2016/ As you mentioned, the intention was certainly not to suggest ice gain over the time period, but I think your critique is very fair. All the best. Dave
The sooner it melts, the sooner the world will have a huge new tract of farmland, forest & habitable space. Global Climate MODERATION will result in much warmer winters, and COOLER summers in mid to high latitudes due to the cooling effect of cold mobile ice water vs. stationary frozen solid ice. This effect is quite obvious in recent years for North America where the Pacific & Atlantic coasts and Hudson/James Bay are awash with cold water well into September. There are bumper crops now acrross N. America as the growing season extends, viable farmland expands, and precipitation increases. The depleted western aquifer is now filling back up. Despite the "huge catastrophic ice loss" already claimed by the doom & gloom host of this video, total seal level rise worldwide is LESS THAN ONE MILLIMETRE..!!! And even that "measurement" is highly questionable (try holding a ruler up to the surface of any body of water, even a calm swimming pool, duh). Unlike all the leftwing supremacist fake news media who parrot & sensationalize every tornado, dry spell, flood & wildfire as if it's prima facia proof of the "end of the world", the net effects of global climate MODERATION will be OVERWHELMINGLY positive for humanity and indeed for bio diversity as harsh deserts & tundra are replaced with lush jungles forests & farmland. FACT: There was no greater bio-diversity than at the MANY times in the past when there were NO polar ice caps. Yes, some polar bears, lizards scorpions & cacti will be displaced, but in their stead Grizzlies wolves deer eagles and all manner of abundant wildlife will flourish. FACT: Increased atmospheric co2 is enormously beneficial for vegetation, forests & crops alike. FACT: harsh cold winters SUCK and the sooner they are dispatched the BETTER..!!! Greenland alone once it attains it's utopian "nor-cal." climate BENEFIT will with its year round warmth, rich glacial-deposit soils and elimination of its current vast ice desert will be able to easily accommodate 10billion people if developed sustainably. That could leave the rest of the world as a vast nature preserve. Here in Canada we produce 1/200th of world co2 and are much cleaner in other emissions & practices than china russia africa inda asia & s.america. We have jihadstin castro trugrope the fiberal IMBECILE trying to carbon-tax-hoax us into dysfunctional uncompetitive oblivion to feed his egregious deficit malfeasance which won't even cut 10% of our co2 output which would be (but it won't even) ONE TWO THOUSANDTH of world co2 or in other words ZERO EFFECT on climate MODERATION, but in turd-dolts own lies: "If not us who? If not now when?"... Gee I wish we could do MORE to eliminate miserable harsh winters. FACT: The Great Lakes Basin will become the new San Fernando Valley only with 100x the lush fertile production. As for all you leftwing propagandists & rhetoric spewing delusional duplicitous cry-babies.... KEEP YOUR CARBON TAX HOAX FILTHY FIBERAL FINGERS OUT MY POCKETS YOU LYING SWINE. Global Climate MODERATION is coming, Global Climate MODERATION is GOOD! Global Climate MODERATION will be a huge benefit & opportunity for humanity & nature. Global Climate MODERATION cannot come soon enough..!!!! btw, the host above "conveniently" doesn't provide or discuss the data & facts that conflict with his negative narrative. As much as I wish the Greenland ice desert was gone, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The Grace Satellite data clearly shows ice deposition exceeds sea ice shelf loss (which makes for such nicely dramatic photo-shopped graphics) in most polar regions.
@@jeffboutilier4696 300,000 bats? So what? I'm in a small town in south eastern Australia and if 300,000 bats drop dead tomorrow, the only way to tell would be the smell. When they get moving just before dark they literally darken the sky. Now, if 300 million of them drop dead, that might be noticeable.
A super video of great clarity, shot through with excellent data. I won't pretend I can remember the calculations any longer, it has been too many years since. For me, the most important point to take away from the video is that the mass of ice has predictably diminished dramatically in the last few decades. It's in line with rising CO2 levels and global temperatures. Not a theory. Not opinion. Evidence.
Absolutely right Andy. And that was really the overall point I was trying to get across. In the past people have accused me of using NOAA or NASA instead of DMI data, as there have been slight differences in their numbers each year. The implication being that I was favouring the more negative findings. But I hope this presentation shows, exactly as you say, that all of these institutions are in total agreement about the long term decline. Thanks again for your support. All the best. Dave
You have made a common error with the size of Greenland. Truesize.com doesn't show the true size of Greenland. It is using a Mercator Projection which flattens the curve of the earth by making lines of longitude parallel. This makes Greenland look as nearly as big as Africa which is obviously wrong because Greenland is only 1500 miles by 700 miles. Africa is actually 14 times larger than Greenland. Try Googling "The real size of Greenland".
Gotta take some victories, but I wonder how many deniers will take that information and draw a conclusion that everything is ok. (also, I don't normally click the bell icon but for this channel I have - keep up the work)
Hi Skye. Thanks for your feedback. You make a very good point and I suspect quite a few more people will feel the same way (I've only just started going through this week's comments and yours is the first). I was very mindful of exactly what you point out and I had to think quite hard about how to present this week's information. I have certainly read many of the reports about the ice sheet being undermined by water lubrication from below which may well be causing far more rapid collapse than institutes like NOAA and the DMI are reporting. I have watched Paul Beckwith's latest series of videos on the subject as well. I may well do a video later in the year that looks at this data to see if it is playing out in reality. I do think it's important though, firstly to try to explain the basic factors that drive the 'normal' ebbs and flows up on Greenland so that lay people (like me) have a chance to understand some of the science, but secondly to report the raw data from these established sources too, otherwise it simply gives fodder to the deniers to say that we Climate Change advocates are always "trying to manipulate information to make it look like it's worse than it is". Essentially, when these messages reach climate deniers they are not being received by rational thinkers, so whichever way the information is presented they will find a way to distort it. After all that's what many of them are paid to do by their fossil fuel paymasters. I do appreciate your feedback though, and I will take it on board. All the best. Dave
Just Have a Think You could, to give a perspective, explain the amount of time it would take for the total amount of Greenland ice sheet to melt, given the climatic conditions we have today. I have reguraly checked the temperature on Greenland for the last 6 mnths, it has varied from -47 to -2C (depending on location, and the southern parts is the warmest, about the same latitude as Oslo Norway) As I write this, the southern part is -3C. So, how many years will it take to melt down?
Rodrigo Vronscki Ricardo well, when something is "likely" a cause, it tells that they are not sure. Likely, might,could and so on gives no reason to alarm ;-). Why should not things be "ok" ? It will still take a few thousand years to melt the ice on Greenland. By that time we will maybe be far off into a new ice age. A new ice age WILL be upon us no matter what we do. And it will end far off into the future. (I'm talking thousands of years in both cases). However, let it be clear that I do support clean air and new tech to free us from carbon emissions...but when it comes to "doomsday" predictions whith melting ice caps and catastrophic sealevel rise I'm not onboard....It's bs!
Very good information, thank you for that. However, you speak so calmly, that I got impression "nothing to worry about". Of course, that's not the case. We'll all face devastation after blue ocean event.
Hi Mikko. You may be right. I am a Project Manager and I have been trained to know that the very worst thing you can do in a crisis is panic. Perhaps my tone of voice betrays too much of that training. You are right though - as I pointed out in last weeks video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YYJIwGACKY8.html - we will have a massive challenge whenever the Blue Ocean Event finally arrives. All the best. Dave
@@JustHaveaThink I like the way you present this information. You do not let emotion influence the information. You present the facts. No fear or panic, just facts. Great Job!!
