Arctic climate insights and low fidelity climate models

[@michaeldepodesta001]

Thank you for your work in this area. It's distressing to learn about what is happening - it's like attending a pre-death autopsy. But it must be even harder to keep working diligently. Thank you for your efforts. M

[@tuberroot1112]

If you find his lies distressing, try checking the data instead of believing these activists masquerading as "objective scientists. Look at his graph a 3min. Try to ignore the deceitful red line and you will notice that Arctic ice thickness has show zero net change since 2007. If you look at the annual minimum in sea ice extent you will find the same thing. Arctic ice is not a straight line variable and the only reason he tries to pretend it is , is to FALSELY pretend this is due to CO2. Despite all his talk of permafrost feedbacks : more warming .. more melting ... more warming , that does NOT fit the data. If that was the case there would be accelerating melting, NOT a zero net change for the last 17 years !! I hope you feel less distressed. Checking the data instead of listening to LIARS can be very up lifting.

[@kennethdavis6666]

People who have never given a science lecture likely cannot appreciate how hard it is to produce one that is both this short and this lucid. It was obviously edited, but nevertheless I think it is excellent.

[@mikeharrington5593]

Thank you Jason for your perseverance with presenting the data. The wilfully ignorant may be steering us into a Moronocene, but we haven't all lost the will to survive the ravages of ecological negligence

[@robertalexander5422]

God, Jason, you became my hero with that infamous Tweet a few years back and now everytime I see you, I see a tortured person, stoically doing your work, keeping a stiff upper lip, but knowing too much.... Hugs to your family. And thx.

[@ranradd]

Thank you Jason excellent update. What people seem to not understand is as you mentioned in the end, that large scale agriculture (grains mostly) could soon have drastically reduced harvests that will have an almost immediate impact on available food for billions of animals and people. Sadly, perhaps that is what it will take for humanity to get the message.

[@miguel5785]

The thing is, even with drastically reduced harvests we can avoid famine if we anticipate the right policies, e.g. sacrifice livestock and divert the grains for human consumption, plus grain reserves and proper trade agreements. The perversity of the system is that if feeding cows is more profitable than feeding humans, the food operators will not feel obliged to feed humans, on the contrary all incentives will lead them to feed livestock. Which is why we need a big policy overhaul.

[@zarroth]

@@miguel5785 or, you can stop diverting resources into stuff we should eat minimally..i.e. plants...and realize that we are killing biodiversity with our farming methods for said plants. Farming animals for food is also regenerative. Its the farming practices we've adopted, and the plant pushing as our primary food, that is causing us problems.

[@wmanadeau7860]

Right, famine is unfamiliar to modern people. That will change. The Great Waves of Change are here and we are not prepared - I read this revelatory book years ago, I can hardly believe I am watching it happen in real time, in my lifetime. People need to know, we have very little time to respond and prepare. These changes are accelerating at an accelerating rate. We will see dramatic changes in the very near future.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@miguel5785 it's not who eats the grains it's the fact that photosynthesis shuts down since the interior of continents where grain is grown is 5 degrees F. warmer than the global average.

[@miguel5785]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 for any output of grain, using it as livestock feed will be less efficient than using it directly as food

[@SixSigmaPi]

Excellent summary - Thank you!

[@cyberboxx]

Excellent presentation; content and production.

[@tuberroot1112]

What are you on about. The presentation was amateur.

[@roberthornack1692]

Sadly, the aerosol masking paradox makes it abundantly clear that we have already reached the point of no return!

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

yes along with the 500 zettajoules of extra heat in the oceans since 1995 - locked in atmospheric temp increase. Then there's the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf. James E. Hansen's latest report claims ESAS is a "slow positive feedback" while Natalia Shakhova's research proves this is an "abrupt eruption" scenario that would double atmospheric temperatures! oops.

[@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039]

The message could not be clearer. Thank you

[@qbas81]

Thank you for another informative video. I have learnt so much about the climate change in the Arctic from your presentations.

[@miguel5785]

So models are underestimating the effects of polar warming. Therefore, integrated assessment models are also underestimating impacts. Which is why William Nordhaus could say that a 3ºC global warming would only reduce GDP by 2.1%. It's like the telephone game only much worse. It strengthens the case that we cannot rely on models, but must use them jointly with paleoclimatology and observations. Thank you Jason for your your work and your discernment.

[@gregvanpaassen]

I'm sure that Nordhaus insures his house against the expected fire, a fat fire on his stove ruining the range hood, and that he doesn't insure against the total loss of his house. That's needlessly expensive.

[@tuberroot1112]

The models do not reproduce know climate variation, why would be believe anything they produce. This is the biggest scam know to mankind. Global warming was just a rapid between 1920 and 1945 but models TOTALLY fail to reproduce this just like they fail to show arctic sea ice has shown zero net change since 2007. Just look at his graph at 3 min in.

[@louisehoff9467]

Thank you for conducting and reporting on such extremely important and lamentable changes in the Arctic

[@tuberroot1112]

What is lamentable is that these "activist-scientists" are allowed to lie to the world. There has been zero net change in the annual minimum sea ice extent since 2007. YES, check the data. The last two years extent was indistinguishable from 2007. Look at his own graph at 3min in, you see the same thing for ice thickness. He boldly lies about this hoping no one will pause the video , ignore his deceptive red line and see what the data really showns.

[@dianewallace6064]

Thank you for your work and thank you for sharing your work through this content.

[@BobQuigley]

As always data, facts, figures combined presented by professional with a career in arctic studies. Thanks for your work

[@nsbd90now]

Say it! _"Faster Than Expected!"_

[@jonovens7974]

Not really, pretty much on point - only problem is that it's on point for the worst case scenarios. Also the earlier models were based on the start date of 1700. Then it was changed to 1850 which took 0.5 of a degree off the warming amount. If you use the original date then we're already over 1.5 degrees and have gone over 2 degrees multiple times, even hit 2.5 this year. The 1.5 degrees, above the 1700 average, was picked because we KNEW 40 years ago that, that was the main tipping point for the arctic shallow methane deposits...after which we're on a irreversible trajectory to +10 to +15 degrees, depending on how much more CO2 we produced. Well we've increased the yearly CO2 production nearly every year since ....so +15 it is. And in a time scale of decades to centuries, rather than the natural changes over 10's of thousands to millions of years.

[@ravenken]

@@jonovens7974 No, it is faster than the models anticipated. Jason just said that in the video. It is not just models that underestimated the speed but also we started with a general philosophical approach that the Arctic would take 1,000s years before it responded. I think one of the biggest failures of our science community was everyone 'staying in their lane' and no one really recognizing/acknowledging/reporting the whole ecology/connectedness (can't think of a more appropriate word) of the climatic inputs so all we got was disparate anecdotal info about this aspect or another. Now we are getting a much fuller picture of our demise. That's wonderful when you like to watch a train wreck. 😐

[@miguel5785]

Indeed he said faster than forecasted mainly because the models do not have the resolution and complexity required to mimic nature. If I recall it correctly from another video one example was small rain ponds and lakes forming on the surface of Greenland. But do not take my word for it.

[@nsbd90now]

@@jonovens7974 For some reason, that didn't make me feel better. 😜

[@jonovens7974]

@@ravenken The one main problem with the models from 20-30 years ago, is that the worst case was envisaged as "business as usual" because most scientists are somewhat sane individuals, and they didn't expect the world (well certain controlling interests) when faced with that future, to turn around and say "HOLD MY BEER!!" and massively increase the amount of human forced temperature change - there by reducing the timescale. And ofc we're still doing it : CO2 production was up by just over 1% of last year. And with the amount of Coal China is and is planning to burn over the next 30 years (because pretty much ALL their grand green energy projects are FAKE) - that ain't coming down anytime soon. As long as we don't poison the air and the water as well, we should be fine.....oh wait.

[@empireofpeaches]

Thank you, there is so much important info presented. I hadn't heard about a link between climate change and the disruption of the polar vortex before. I remember going looking online a few years ago when those huge blizzards plunged deep into southern US. It seemed obvious (for an outsider) at the time. I will check your link for details. The permafrost temp change looked exponential, except for the last couple of years, covid effect or something else? Glad I am not a climate modeller!

[@nsbd90now]

Are you aware of "aerosol masking"? We saw some of what that does during the covid shutdown. We're in a Catch-22. Various types of pollutants in the air reflect radiant heat back out into space. When those particles are no longer in the air we will heat up more quickly.

[@lshwadchuck5643]

Watch any video with Jennifer Francis. She started talking about the wavy jet stream affecting weather a decade ago. Now her theory has become mainstream.

[@empireofpeaches]

@lshwadchuck5643 thanks. Did she predict increasing instability of the waviness with climate change? I find it fascinating, a classic case of climatic extremes being felt.

[@lshwadchuck5643]

@@empireofpeaches Not so much predict as explain their existence by the warming arctic, which is clearly part of climate change.

[@CharlesBrodheadIII]

Your great presentation is much appreciated, thanks.

[@climatechaos5809]

Thanks Jason Box

[@StressRUs]

Important and much appreciated work, but devoid of the most important focus: heat absorption by the phase shift of melting ice, in which just one gram of ice absorbs 343 BTUs (Joules) of heat energy, and without which we are speeding toward becoming Venus 2.0. Also, we need to consider the rest of the melting ice on the Earth: 1.2 trillion tons per year, to be precise. Copernicus predicts that 2/3rds will be gone by 2,100, which extrapolates to 2,138 for the total meltdown before Venus 2.0. This is an urgent existential issue, not just another obscure academic exercise. Venus 2.0!

[@StressRUs]

Correction: one pound of ice absorbs 144 BTUs of heat energy, so more like 0.343 BTU/gram. Anyway, for this amateur weather nerd, global ice melt is stabilizing our climate and it's rapidly melting away due to human fossil fuel burning and the Greenhouse effect (GHGs). Copernicus recently published the "Daily global surface air temperature anomalies" showing the steep incline from July, 2023 to Mar., 2024 and on a trajectory to ave. 2.0 degC by year end, 2.5 degC by yr. end 2025, and 3.0 by year end 2026. We are committing thermal suicide.

[@Naturalook]

Personally, I love the technical, absolute way the "SCIENTIST" Jason Box speaks... but then I do have an degree in Environmental Science... However, it's kinda hard for a non-scientist to follow... even as plainly spoken as he is. yet still, if you just listen to him, and pay a bit of attention, you should be terrified of our future... It's like your doctor telling you that you have a life threatening disease... Just pay a little attention to what he is saying!!!

[@punditgi]

Excellent video! 😊

[@em945]

Australia has just had 2 stuck 'omega pattern' systems , similar to what has been happening in recent years to the jetstream in Northern hemisphere. This created a hot and humid heat wave across the bulk of the continent and the second, further east. Now, a second, very early cat 4 cyclone formed last week and although has dropped back to cat 2 as it is about to hit the north Qld coast, it sat for a week over the coral sea. The Coral Sea will not fare well this year. We are not having the normal el nino and positive IOD weather patterns. The Antarctic is throwing more warm currents north . These are visible on normal weather maps. The great thing, is there has been some breaking of droughtlike conditions with large stormy rain fronts developing in a lot of places.

[@rebeccarivers4797]

Thanks for my daily dose of depression. In all seriousness, thanks for the work you do.

[@tuberroot1112]

don't listen to lying activists if you don't want to be depressed.

[@russtaylor2122]

Cheers Jason. Our entire modern industrial-level existence is built around reasonable predictability, right? Surely food shortages and price hikes are next, not affecting the rich, of course, which is why the term 'phase-out' of fossil fuels has just been axed at COP28. You couldn't make it up...

[@woodchipgardens9084]

Changing climate is Like changing the length of Night time cooling hours or changing the intensity of the Sun, regardless winter always brings the Ice back and we have never witnessed any noticeable sea level change the past 200 years.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Question, are any physics subject to transition to chaotic dynamics? It would another level of blindness, one where it’s not mathematically possible to forecast regional climate regimes usefully, like a volume in rapidly boiling water, not much beyond temp is very predictable.

[@williammeyers3750]

Brief, calm, yet frightening. Governments based on nations mostly hold talk fests. We need a global government with the power to do what is necessary to protect the planet and its creatures. Could be based on the U.N., ending the right of industrial nations to veto measures, making it one person, one vote, and with reps with voting power representing non-human species or ecosystems. For now, call it a Provisional Government of Earth.

[@OldScientist]

The Arctic minimum summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 17 years. In the past few years it was almost as high as 1995. The probability that this could be due to chance has now dropped to 10% (after Swart et al calculations, 2015). If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p

[@frankiefresh79]

ice -> ice + water -> water. there are 3 phases. with 2 transitions : 1) sensible heat of ice to latent heat of fusion water + ice and 2) latent heat of fusion water + ice to sensible heat of water You need 3 formulas to determine the sum of the warming. You can not combine these 3 phases in 1 formula and you can not measure the latent heat phase with thermometers, because there is no delta T at all. Then you need to apply superposition principle to determine the response of these transistions. That is what need to be done. This approach will explain Arctic amplification and even the warming response of Dansgaard-Oeschger events .

[@marckostons7050]

🙏

[@stewiegriffin3496]

Got a question. Why did Greenland retain its ice sheet at the end of the last ice age while the large anorth American ice sheet which was at the same latitude melted away?

[@jocelynevkb5889]

In the last 100 or so years, the World's Oceans absorbed 90% of the temperature increase due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, oceans have warmed up significantly and this eventually leads to the melting of polar ice sheets. By contrast, prior to human-induced global warming, the usual pattern was that land masses absorb heat quicker than oceans. Hence rapidly melting land based icesheets, such as the Northern land-based American icesheet, whereas Greenland's sea-based ice sheet kept on floating on the cold Arctic ocean. So, basically, the World's Oceans are at the brink. They can hardly absorb more heat and marine polar ice sheets will melt at an increased rate. Land based permafrost is already going/gone in the Arctic zone, as is to be expected from landmasses' low heat absorption abilities.

[@toughenupfluffy7294]

Trophic cascades will do us all in.

[@jaronard1]

Where is the 2024 report published? It does not appear loaded on the website. Most recent report is from 2021, and the website states that the 2023 report is in the works. I’m viewing this six months after your video was posted, so not sure if that’s the issue.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Guess no one else excited by greening and heightening of Arctic vegetation?

[@gregflock380]

For many years the models have underestimated the speed and damage...please get ahead of it for once and tell the people the truth....reality is coming folks.

[@earthsystem]

I hope the human leaders stop trying to brute force the climate and back off the heat engine, allow the exquisite planetary processes to stabilize.

[@justmenotyou3151]

😂😂. Not gona happen. 😢

[@dbadagna]

The world's oceans continue to absorb 91% of the solar radiation trapped by greenhouse gases, which as of 2023 amounts to 10 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second (per *second*!!!), every second of the year. That's going to have consequences. According to James Hansen (2022): "Greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing is 4.1 W/m² larger in 2021 than in 1750, equivalent to 2×CO₂ forcing. Eventual global warming due to today’s GHG forcing alone - after slow feedbacks operate - is about 10°C." [That's 18°F!]

[@a.randomjack6661]

It's not hope we need, it's courage, gigatons of courage.

[@tinarhoades3178]

Sadly, there were over 2,400 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP28 this year--four times as many as last year. Why were they even granted access to attend? (Well, I know why, of course.....) It's just another sign of how insignificant the climate catastrophe appears to be to many of the dignitaries and world leaders in attendance. I"m hoping this presentation received the adequate attention at the conference that it--and the billions of people and countless other species whose food and water security are already threatened--deserves.

[@billirvine9078]

Hi, 71 y o mid latitude resident here.57* 45 .It,s just as cold wet and miserable as it has always been at this time of the year.

[@Patrick_Ross]

Your anecdotal observations at one specific point on the planet has, of course, no bearing on the big picture of climate change.

[@owl8618]

Lol

[@cemotazca8628]

Great video, you should talk to Nate Hagens.

[@miguel5785]

That who says we cannot quit oil, that we need to keep making all the products of the distillation column even if we stop using gasoline or diesel? Well he's wrong and I can't see what good he's doing by insisting we cannot quit oil.

[@cemotazca8628]

@@miguel5785 Im a Chemical technician by training and I can assure you that there is no legitimate substitute for Oil as a raw material for basically everything. Especially medicals, cosmetics and plastic. Imagine a Hospital without Oil...

[@miguel5785]

@@cemotazca8628 We can keep using some oil products without the need to burn fossil fuels is what experts say, but oil sycophants and their paid technicians won't listen to

[@justcollapse5343]

Yes - 'accelerating' non-linear ice loss with accompanying climate feedback. Somebody ought to let celebrity climate science-denier, Mickey E Mann, know.

[@Meathead-10810]

I think "climate science" and "nutrition science" are both very lacking and both seem to be more ideologically driven than science driven because there are still so many things that we don't know about both fields but we like to tamper and think we know enough without considering how much we don't know. Everything about how we live generates much pollution just to power an economy and promote greed and consumption, we are consuming the resources available at an astronomical rate and we will probably have a large war over control of those last remaining resources. Remember the people getting into fist fights over toilet paper during the lockdown - It's the same for whole countries, only the fight is bigger.

[@proudchristian77]

Little kids are happy capppers , people's who think they r not off limits will get their selves in troubles soon & they can be safe again, they haven't been in the past , y all this , a heart is a hard thing to quiet when its been hurt , im sure He knows about them, 💒👣👑💝🚴‍♀️

[@tuberroot1112]

"When we compare how well modelling captures past ice and carbon changes..." But ice modelling was a total failure and did NOT predict the rapid decline from 1997 to 2007. Then you changed all the models to catch up except that the rapid decline evaporated and Arctic sea ice extant and thickness has seem net ZERO change since 2007. You models do not reflect this at all. Now of course you know all this because you are an expert. So you are LYING to use when you recount this crap about "how well" past modelling captures past change. If this situation is so serious why do you think you need to LIE about it everyone????

[@grindupBaker]

You babbled nonsense because the climate models were never anticipated to be able to capture the large natural fluctuations of all sorts of things (basically the natural variability of the movement of the 2 big fluids) and that's why an ensemble of models and multiple runs are used and only TRENDS over averaging-out periods such as 30+ years can be meaningful. I wrote a simulation for an engineering application and it had that same feature, I RANDOMIZED conditions that were known only statistically and it was run 100 times to get the average and the deviations of the outputs of interest ("it'll be aaa on average, the most it ever gets is bbb, the least it ever gets is ccc, the proportion of times it's >ddd, >eee, >fff, >ggg, >hhh etc... is d%, e%, f%, g% h% etc... That sort of thing. It's statistical probabilities.

[@alienoverlordsnow1786]

I agree, Jason, the situation is dire, the ice loss is a powerful climate feedback that indicates runaway global overheating. The solution is the imediate removal of 2 trillion tons of greenhouse gas from the skies, and the cessation of the 40 billion tons of annual human emissions. This is not happening due to the absence of the neccessary technology. Super AI is needed immediately to invent an alternative solution.

[@earthsystem]

Right because our intelligence got this feedback rolling, so surely more intelligence will stop it.

[@justmenotyou3151]

​​@earthsystem or destroy us. 6 one way 1/2 dozen the other.

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@earthsystem Don't confuse greed with intelligence.

[@eliinthewolverinestate6729]

The last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. Long-term, temperatures are now declining (for the last 3,000 years), and we appear to be headed for the next 90,000 year ice age, right on schedule at the end of our current 10,000 year warm period. We have repeated this cycle 46 times in succession over the last 2.6 million years. And in case you are wondering, the previous Antarctic ice cores tell a broadly similar story. The following graph of ice core data from Vostok (vertical scale in degrees C variation from present) shows that Antarctica is also experiencing a long-term (4,000 year) cooling trend mirroring the Greenland GISP2 cooling trend. Though the individual temperature spikes and dips are different than in Greenland, the long-term temperature trend on the planet appears to be down, not up. And since it is so late in our current interglacial period, we could be concerned about global cooling. My main point is that natural variation is so large, even if we cease all emissions completely, the climate will still change (just look at the graphs). The cost of (possibly) slightly influencing this change is so great, why not spend a lot less adapting to it? Since we don’t know if the long-term climate is cooling or warming (I bet on cooling long-term), we could spend trillions to cut emissions, only to have the climate cool catastrophically on its own. Warming is not a killer, but global cooling is. It would only take a few years of global crop failures from cold weather to put populations at serious risk. Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are thickening: Leave anything on the ice, and it gets buried pretty fast (for example: the US South Pole Base was recently reconstructed because the old base was being crushed by snow and ice, and WWII planes lost on Greenland’s southeast coast, were covered by 264 feet of ice in 50 years: see the image below). This is not rocket science. Sure, the sea-level edges are retreating (that is why we call them the ablation zones of a glacier), but they represent a minute portion of the continent-scale ice mass.

[@markarchambault4783]

Really??? I would love to see a climate scientist respond to your dubious claims here.

[@paulchace2391]

B.S.

[@nsbd90now]

Oh look... someone without any relevant education or work experience trying to sound like someone who does via parroting words they don't even understand. How embarrassing.

[@Patrick_Ross]

😂🤪

[@kidlifecrisis9927]

Well at least you tried to sound smart

[@eirikraude854]

"The laws of thermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown." --Albert Einstein The 2nd law of thermodynamics say that a colder object (the atmosphere) cannot warm a hotter object (the Earth's surface.) The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect breaks this law, and must be refuted. The 1st law of thermodynamics say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The surface cannot be heated by it's own energy. The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect breaks this law also. The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect breaks both the 1st and the 2nd law of thermodynamics!

[@xchopp]

If you put a coat on, are you warmer, colder, or the same? Does a coat break any laws of thermodynamics? If it doesn't, what you wrote above is pure twaddle.

[@jrrarglblarg9241]

Unless you can explain in small words how a refrigerator “makes cold” your understanding of thermodynamics is irrelevant.

[@nsbd90now]

Always so obvious who didn't get good grades in school.

[@eirikraude854]

​@@jrrarglblarg9241 A refrigerator is a closed system that needs external energy to operate. This is done by depressurising and compressing the cooling liquid. This is not comparable to the open atmosphere.

[@eirikraude854]

@@nsbd90now As usual alarmists resort to ad hominem attacks when they have no arguments! ALWAYS!🤡🤡🤡

[@TheDane_BurnAllCopies]

Thank you for all your hard work, and happy holidays.

[@a.randomjack6661]

I just watched this climate related video earlier "Antarctic Melt Slows Ocean Current may Impact Climate for Centuries". Yes, I did mention this video over there. Reality is fragmented, I like to share fragments of it. 🧩

[@kunstogkurser]

🙏