When Will the AMOC Collapse? Lightning Round Interview with Peter Ditlevsen 

The AMOC doesn't reach the Arctic Ocean. It stops just south of the Jan Meyen Ridge just before the edge of the Arctic Ocean (take a butcher's at the bathymetry and see the smallish deep pool surrounded by vast paddling-pool shelf that can't make a deep circulation because it's just a surface film (most of the Arctic Ocean and Greenland Sea). There's a warm surface return flow (Gulf Stream extension) descending deeper down into the Arctic Ocean basin at Novaya Zemlya but the basin is just the small centre bit, not touching the vast shelves. Warm air (northern Polar Cell, Polar Jet Stream) carries about 115 w/m**2 heating power into the Arctic Ocean based on 74.6N (see below) and the Atlantic Ocean flow carries about 53 w/m**2 heating power into the Barents-Greenland Seas but far less power onto the vast Arctic Ocean continental shelves paddling pools. Probably >10 times as much heat by air as by ocean water so Wonky Polar Jet Stream will heat the Arctic Ocean far more than any reduction in the AMOC could cool it. This following table I made is the semi-annual heat for the Arctic Ocean, centred at 75N. The warm air is only accurate to a few w/m**2, the small numbers +/- 1 03-22 09-22 to to 09-22 03-22 157 10 Sunshine absorbed 66 164 Warm air from south 0 20 Water freeze to sea ice latent heat 0 0 Atlantic Intermediate Water (AIW) ---- ---- 223 194 Total heat provided The heat above goes into this: 203 194 Radiated to space at 3, -12 degrees SURFACE 20 0 Melt sea ice latent heat ---- ---- 223 194 Total heat provided Note that the latent heat of ice forming & melting has zero effect on the annual heat budget (20 w/m**2 consumed for 6 months, then 20 w/m**2 generated for 6 months). The 42 w/m**2 of un-accounted heat must be mostly, or all, heat that is radiated to space from high altitude because there are large tropospheric temperature lapse rate inversions over the Arctic Ocean in autumn/winter so the "greenhouse effect" works backwards and loses heat instead of trapping it.

Yes, it's becoming increasingly clear that the science can't be advanced as fast as the events unfold so scientists will work out the date range about 99 years after it happens and say "We've got it now ! We predict it'll happen 99 years aqo. Hey, we're right !"

They'll be like half way up to The Moon. You just keep pushing north. Actually there's a pictorial on RealClimate but then it says "This is accurate for ocean but not much accurate for land" so pretty useless. That one's like 2 degrees colder in Cornwall, 4 degrees colder in Scotland, 6 degrees colder in Norway but maybe double that for winter cold (no summer cold) so like maybe 12 degrees colder in DJF in Norway but it's little better than a guess.

Not a secret. See my interview with James Hansen. It's not the McPherson Paradox, it's the Hansen "Faustian Bargain"

@aaronrelyea1098 “the best kept secret” of aerosol masking. Cunningly hidden in all IPCC reports that nobody ever reads (they're all too lazy) and hence it's a big secret. Are they cunning or what ? Example: shown as -1.46 w/m**2 in the IPCC AR5 Table of Forcings. Big Classified Secret. Please keep this under your hat.

​@@JackFrost008 "salty ocean will make it much more difficult to freeze". What the !? Sea ice doesn't form on the high North Atlantic Ocean since the last glaciation "ice age" (when sea ice went down to Spain). Also, can you provide your science that a temperature reduction of the top 20m of ocean by 6*9,000/1,300,000 = 0.04 degrees from 6.00 degrees to 5.96 degrees will materially affect the wind stress of the North Atlantic clockwise gyre and materially change the surface flow speed ? No of course you can't because you're entirely incorrect. There's so much wrong in your quick, lazy comment that it would fill a small book. I'd be willing to spend 15 minutes of my time educating you on some Basics of this topic from my ~200 hours of study on that thing in 2016 if you like, even though there's no audience here. It would be OK for me. You would learn some Basics.

@@grindupBaker yes. Learn physics and chemisty. Salty water freezes at a much lower temperature than fresh water.

@@grindupBaker you cant prove anything with your words and it evidently wont be just 20 meters of water. It will affect the whole ocean. It relies on salt water. Current and temperature. If you dump millions of tons of fresh water into the salty ocean everything will go wrong. You do realize the atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is already slowing down dont you.

@@JackFrost008 Hang on. I just discovered "@JackFrost008" is a coal-oil-gas-wealth Troll and not one of the other bunch. So obviously you've no interest in science. Goodbye.

​ @JackFrost008 I didn't realize when I replied that "@JackFrost008" was just another Troll, thought it was genuine. I was gulled yet again. Goodbye.

The AMOC has slowed down over the past 50 years.

@@climatechat What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. So you're going to have to give me the data source to prove that.

​@@OldScientist what "evidence" do you have that anything sped up then?? We KNOW the amoc is shutting down.

@@OldScientist Talk about hypocritical.

Damn i did not know that someone (you) could be so stupid. I guess that your HS diploma makes you so much smarter than 21 thousand climate scientists with B.S. degrees, 1/2 of them have Master and a 1/3 of them have PHDs. Some of them have 2 or more PHDs. They study data from 23 earth 🌎 satellites 🛰 and 15 thousand earth 🌎 temperature stations and 4 thousand argo ocean buoys. I could go on but i seriously doubt you can wrap your HS diploma brain around any more facts.

@@globalwarming382 Yep they sure are hilarious, the Trolls.

​@globalwarming382 there are no satelittes like you think. There are only 2 types of satellites Yuotube channel planate veritas Author Robert Bassano Video library All satel.... are on balloons The video is 2 hours long and in English. A. The Lockheed U2-S, flies 25 -30 km high, top speed 800 km per hour. Eight hundred. B. Global hawk C. The hawkeye prop Jets who are the eyes of every carrier of the us navy D. Helium-based STRATOSPHERE BALLONS. NASA is the largest consumer of helium in the world. Balloon size up to 500,000 m3. Carrying capacity for up to 4 tons payload. At the bottom of the balloon hangs the so-called satellite. Launching takes place in remote regions. Arctic Antarctica North Sweden. Altitudes up to 80 90 km. Can stay up for several months. Ability to maintain radio contact with objects billions of km away = zero. To be verified In Ytvideo planate veritas Robert Bassano All satelittes are on balloons. The video is 2 hours long and in English. It starts with an interview of a lieutenant who was a member of a secret air force unit in Alaska in the 50s 60s. This unit had the task to catch the satellites hanging on parachutes with special airplanes in the air after the balloons had been blown off. It gets really exciting when you look through the reference list of balloon satellite launches of the Swedish service provider. Among others, balloon launches for MIR 12 balloonlaunches INMARSAT 2 balloonlaunches ENVISAT 13 balloonlaunches NASA > 8 balloonlaunches And there will be more than one service provider than the Swedes In another part you will see how such a satellitelaunch via balloon in Antarctica really happens. In the last part you make acquaintance with the Dragon Lady, the legendary Lockheed U2-S. SHE flies 25 -30 km high, top speed 800 km per hour. Eight hundred. 30 of them exist in the world 1/3 of them unmanned and refueling in the air. Range 10,000 km. These are the successors of balloons. Unit 1.5 billion There are no orbiting space sattelites. Signals are transmitted by ground based towers, cable networks, and high altitude balloons/aircraft

​@@grindupBakerthe weather stations are corrupted in a apecial way.

​@@globalwarming382Let's face it: Global warming is a fraud. If climate change was real Barack Obama would have never spent 15 million USD on a pacific beachfront property. Let's face it: Global warming is a fraud. Why? Well, the temperature curves of the climatologists all start at the end of the little ice age 1850/60 - at a temperature low point. If you let the temperature curves start earlier (it was warmer then), then there is no global warming at all. The global warming exists only in the computer and in the media. If climate change was real Barack Obama would have never spent 15 million USD on a pacific beachfront property. They conceal that the CO2 value in the pre-industrial time was higher than 260 or 280 ppm CO2. Already in an encyclopedia of 1885 one found values of 0,04% = 400 ppm. But these higher values were simply left out. How exactly is the fraud & cheating done? 1. They show you only a part of the temperature data 2. They do not show and tell you that there are a lot of higher temperatures from the past by hiding the periods BEFORE the last small ice age 1850-1880. 3. They do not tell you that it was already 3 times warmer in the last 3000 years than now (Minoan warm period 1000 before Christ, Roman warm period around the year zero, the medieval warm period around 1000 and the warm period today ). 4. They do not tell you that the climate is cyclic and that there are several different cycles, which can explain completely , the existing temperature differences without one molecule of CO2. 5. they do not tell that alone a mimimal weaker cloud cover leads to a higher irradiation and higher temperatures. 6. They change data from the past and makes the past colder. NOAA, NASA, WMO, DWD, but also organizations in many countries of the world play dirty They do not tell you for example the end of an interglacial period i.e. They manipulate past data like e.g. in the diagram from the 3rd assessment report of the IPCC (part 1, chap.) where the medieval warm period as well as the small interglacial period simply disappeared ! This is no coincidence as hacked Climategate emails prove. Dr. Jonathan Overpack writes to Dr. David Demming: "We have to get rid of the medieval warm period". 7. They don't tell you that they took out at least 7500 climate stations world-wide starting from the end of the 80's to today. Mainly stations in higher altitudes and cooler regions were deleted from the weather stations net. Disappeared. A comparison of the annual average temperature of all stations before and after the removal of the 7500 stations automatically results in a warming. A "statistically generated" warming by a reduced data basis. This is fraud.. Warming on paper. In Germany there are at the time 08/2022 2575 weather stations of the German weather service DWD. Up to this time 2,526 stations were removed from the measuring network since the beginning of the measurements. Replaced from 1.1.71 to 31.12. 1980 128 stations Replaced from 1.1.81 to 31.12.1990 96 stations Replaced from 1.1.91 to 31.12. 2000 95 stations Replaced from 1.1.00 to 31.12.2010 271 stations Replaced from 1.1.11 to 31.12.2020 464 stations Replaced from 1.1.21 to 31.08.2022 138 stations Estimated by end of this decade if trend continues in the same speed 848 stations from 1/1/2021 to 12/31/2030 Only 30 of these 2575 existing measuring stations have been in continuous operation since 1885. New stations were installed primarily in warmer regions. The german temperature increase of 1.6 degrees Celsius from 1885 to today, sold by the DWD as WARMING, can be called a deliberate fraud with a clear conscience. Because maybe more than 1 Degree Celsius is caused only by a high percentage of New stations in warmer regions. What do we learn from this. More and more top management of government agencies try to fool you. 8. They do not incorporate the heat island effect in their data. The heat island effect or UHI (Urban heat island) is the effect that the environments of almost all measuring stations have changed dramatically in the last 100 years. Rivers and creeks have been straightened, wetlands have been filled in, meadows have been drained, meadows have been turned into fields. In many places you have been roads or residential, commercial or industrisl zones with lots of buildings and paved surface. Also roads, airfields etc. Traffic and industry increased extremely. One or the other cold air corridor was closed off. The cities are further compressed. Higher temperatures are measured as a result. Examples: Rural stations in USA had only 0.09 degrees C temperature increase in 100 years. Urban measuring stations, on the other hand, had a temperature increase of 0.8 degrees in 100 years. That is factor NINE. Nine times. And that although the cities in the USA are usually much more dispersed than the cities in Germany. Depending on the country and the time period, 0.5 - 1 degree of the average temperature would have to be subtracted from the current values in order to consider this urban heat island effect properly. In addition there are from the end of the 80's some in this direction going investigations of the weather service chief of the USA at that time Mr. Karl. The German weather service refuses to consider the heat island effect. Also the chief-liar-webpage klimafakten.de tries this to hide this UHI effect or talk it down. 9. They do not tell you that they never properly compared new temperature measurements to the old technology. The average temperature in Germany remained about the same from 1900 to 1985. From 1985 to 2000, the average temperature increased by 1 degree in total. Then, from 2000 on, the average temperature remained the same again. Strange? No - from 1985 to 2000, the DWD changed its measurement methodology from alcohol or mercury thermometers to PT100 Sensors. According to its own statements, the DWD did NOT carry out any comparative measurements of the old and the new measuring methods. A meteorologist compared both measuring methods for 6.5 years. And found the following facts: The new method resulted in an average difference of plus 0.93 degrees, on 26% of the days the difference was between 1- 3 degrees. So the warming is caused by not taking into account the temperature difference after changing the measuring methods. FRAUD by government agency. 10. homogenization, data correction (Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, South Africa e.g.) Always it became warmer in the data afterwards. NASA. 2010: 120 measuring stations, 91 showed warming , 2012, 108 stations showed warming. The measured data were the same. Only those of 2012 were fudged. NASA GISS satellite data. Real 18 years hardly any warming trend. After that data manipulation and temperature increase. The second satellite data provider (Alabama) did not go along with the fraud. Satellite measurements are used for fraud. Example: gauges in ports worldwide measure 1.2 to 1.9 mm sea level rise per year. Consistent. Satellite measurements are 3 mm. Rising. 12. Much warmer than today it was in the Middle Stone Age 4500 B.C. likewise in the Neolithic 2500 B.C. also in the Bronze Age 1200 B.C. of course. In the Roman Warm Period around the birth of Christ 6,000 years ago hippos and crocodiles lived in what is now the Sahara 2000 -1400 b.C.. In the Subboreal it was warmer than today (heyday in Egypt) 500 to 370 b.C. wine grew in Upper Bavaria and Scotland. 218 b.C. Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants Climate optimum of the Middle Ages 1-2 degrees higher temperatures than today 1430 - 1465 cool summers, cold winters, crop failures 1500-1550 general climate improvement from 1550 again cooler, 1-2 degrees lower than before Until 1630 cool summers, glacier advances 1680 - 1730 warm summers mild winters good wine years From 1739/40 severe winters, glacier advances 1755 -1811 warm summers - annual mean temperature like today 1850-1880 cooler period, glaciers growing since 1880 transition to further warming, with peak between 1905 and 1930 (Flohn, Deutscher Geographentag 1959) The public broadcasters and the mainstream media use the most elegant form of lying. They hide relevant information from you. And they bring false reports. If they turn out to be false, there is no correction, and if there is, then it's on the bottom left of page xx. This is how it is done. For thousands of years. Who does Not Know the Truth, is simply a Fool... Yet who Knows the Truth and Calls it a Lie, is a Criminal. Bertolt Brecht

We need carbon tax

The problem with tax is the clever government clowns use it to line their pockets.@@remcovanek2