Combined climate change indicators

[@mralekito]

Great work Peter. This is one of the few realistic views of what is happening and will happen to this planet.

[@Lokidog1]

Thanks Peter. It is clear that all the accords, treaties, agreements don't mean diddly because the numbers are the numbers . And they keep going up. The science of CO2 is clear and that will continue to move climate into unstable patterns in addition to the heat. Combine that with our overshoot of resources and we are in dire situation. We do seem to be frogs in the warming pot.

[@mrrecluse7002]

No surprise that we "seem to be frogs in the warming pot." That's because we are just another species here, (with no entitlements), doing its thing, filling every possible habitat, in our case exponentially, in full scale overshoot. Since I'm so thoroughly pessimistic, my definition of mitigation, is that we never get the chance to destroy other inhabited worlds, at least outside our solar system. I think that even microbial life elsewhere should not have to suffer our abuse! Can you tell I'm not a fan of man?

[@poigmhahon]

It's frustrating to see so many prognosticators projecting optimistic climate scenarios based upon stated "goals" and "treaties" when the elephant in the room is actual accelerating concentrations of greenhouse emissions and very minuscule mitigation.

[@robertcartwright4374]

Excellent account of the present state of climate change. Thank you.

[@dereknewbury163]

Such a brilliantly concise exposition. Mr. Carter, you could not be more clear. Thank you.

[@luka74913]

Thank you Peter for your vigilant reporting on this. great video as usual

[@9one9Music]

Your work is amazing. Thank you for everything you do. Thanks for your time and energy you put into your work. 🌎

[@HypermarketCommodity]

Exponential growth, truly beautiful ones the curve goes ballistic.

[@martiansoon9092]

If total carbon sink has degraded about 5%, then this leaves around 5% of the total carbon cycle gases in the atmosphere. Not just our emissions. This is extremely worrysome finding. We needs sinks while they are going worse and worse. IPCC scenarios are thrown out of window, because we have less sinks in the future. There is hardly any scenario that says "our sinks are going down", but that is what is happening in the reality.

[@snowjoe43]

Excellent presentation. You are far above anyone else explaining this situation.

[@charlesvt2010]

Now that was great , everything in one video , great teaching tool , thanks Peter

[@sbeast64]

I really don't think most people still understand the importance of tipping points and feedback loops, and it's why the net zero goals should all be much sooner.

[@ddoperations2768]

We aren’t going to stop it. Prepare.

[@kevinrauber8117]

thank you very much for the upload

[@quitequiet5281]

Thank You, for your research and commitment to present this information in a accurate and straightforward manner.

[@leviahimsa]

Although we all dead soon, we can choose kindness while we're here: Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, habitat destruction, water pollution, ocean dead zones and *species extinction* . -United Nations FAO The most comprehensive *meta-analysis* conducted to date with 119 countries, shows avoiding animal products is the *"SINGLE BIGGEST WAY"* to reduce our environmental impact. -Oxford University

[@hime273]

🤡

[@DelusionalDoug]

Stein et al., 2017 published a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice variations throughout the Holocene that appeared to establish that there is more Arctic sea ice now than for nearly all of the last 10,000 years. The proxy data used to reconstruct Arctic-wide sea ice variations over the Holocene (PIP25) clearly show that modern sea ice extent has only modestly retreated relative to the heights reached during the Little Ice Age (the 17th and 18th centuries), and that the from about 1400 A.D.on through the rest of the 10,000-year-long Holocene, Arctic sea ice extent was much lower than it is today. Only using 40 years of data could be very misleading.

[@kbmblizz1940]

Exponential functions are beautiful, except when they predict our demise.

[@richardbluhm1873]

Rational beings would attempt to mitigate conditions that threaten their existence. So sad!

[@EmeraldView]

Individuals can be rational. Many aren't. And collectively we aren't. Our animalistic nature dominates.

[@SouthCom1917]

@@EmeraldView The systems we live under are what cause delay on climate action, not an inherent inability to work collectively. We have worked collectively in the past. The problem is that the economic system which necessitates the destruction of nature for profit is the same system which has bought the State's regulatory bodies. Capital and the political power that comes with it are what stop climate action.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@EmeraldView there's nothing wrong with being an animal

[@EmeraldView]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 There is when you give it technology.

[@DelusionalDoug]

Rationale beings also have to look at the long term; not just the last 150 years since the coldest period in the Holocene. We are still in an ice age although it is now an interglacial period. Ice ages are rare in the geological record.

[@TheDoomWizard]

Always thorough.

[@OldScientist]

The Arctic cooled 1940-1980. CO2 conc. increased 1940-1980. Why choose 1979 to show the starting point of sea ice loss?

[@hosnimubarak8869]

Why are you spreading disinformation?

[@mikeharrington5593]

Thankyou, as always, Peter for your accurate reporting & realistic analysis of the climate-related adverse effects to our fragile earth ecosystem. Tragically there are additional threats from other sources - set out by Johan Rockström in his planetary boundaries data.

[@cheweperro]

Thanks for the content

[@boombot934]

Thank❤🌹🙏 you, dear Peter Carter. Your work is outstanding, Earth 🥀🌏🌍🌎🌹Will be saved, miracles happen😢😊

[@ollie2052000]

Not one proven miracle in the universe yet, but blind faith & ignorance is a thing.

[@parrsnipps4495]

Thanks for the clarification regarding climate change. There's so much talk these days of turning a corner, of having peaked in GHG emissions, but I don't see that from this report or total CO2 emissions which continue to set new annual records. So, if the global economy is going to make a green transition, it really needs to advance on a much faster & broader scale. Can hydrogen get cheap enough for shipping & airlines?

[@MyKharli]

Hydrogen is not the answer , the water vapour emissions alone , let alone inefficiencies in the production, transport and storage of it makes it another greenwash x10

[@poigmhahon]

Really appreciate your work, it's so frustrating to have the watered down infantile coverage of these massive and irrecoverable changes in Earth systems.I think, to a large degree, this infantalizing of the conversation is not just intentional, it's deliberate subterfuge at the behest of corporate profiteers.

[@MyKharli]

Should be noticing dramatic falling of emissions and ghg levels by now after over 30 years of dire warnings from people trained to know what there talking about ....oh .

[@robertw.campbell9539]

Excellent job in presenting complex information. 18:47

[@mjholiday557]

Don't look up.

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

I’m feeling hot just watching this.

[@-LightningRod-]

Remain Calm,...do not panic.

[@mrrecluse7002]

It's too late to panic, and too late to have a nervous breakdown. We are the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Few people want to admit it.

[@DelusionalDoug]

500 million years ago, CO2 in the atmosphere was above 4000 parts per million (ppm). It was the Paleozoic Era. Early life evolved. In the later part of that era (Carboniferous period), wooded plants developed using photosynthesis. CO2 levels in the atmosphere dropped during this 60 million year period due to plants absorbing CO2 and marine organisms using carbonate to build shells. The atmospheric carbon was sequestered into the earth as coal, oil, and limestone. In fact, the vast majority of carbon on the planet is stashed away in these long-term underground stores - 99.9 per cent of it is stored in rock, including around 80 per cent as limestone. During the last ice age CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm; dangerously close to not supporting photosynthesis.

[@folkeholmberg3519]

If I'm too old to have reasons to believe that I will live when all this gets extremely acute, that I don't have to worry for myself, but how do I talk to my children and grandchildren in a wise way, as I consider them not taking the situation seriously enough ?

[@mikeharrington5593]

The terminology is "informed helplessness"

[@martiansoon9092]

There is no emission reductions happened by 2020. Even by last year emissions grew. And there were still some impacts on Covid shutdowns, specially in China (meaning lower than expected emissions growth).

[@JaseboMonkeyRex]

It doesn't require anymore science, it requires the science to be translated into understandable policy. The problem is the policy is going to be extremely painful and we've been living with the story that all we need to do is transition fossil fuels to renewable and presto bingo Banco Bob's your uncle and Barry is your aunt and life will continue... That's the joke. That's the story that has to be attacked and science has nothing to say on policy... Renewable energy sources are terrible sources of energy in COMPARISON to fossil fuels ... Oil has characteristics that simply can't be replicated and going off oil quickly is going to mean a catastrophic collapse of the economy. Which to be blunt is the only thing that is going to save us at this stage.. Soooo.....I think we should all vote for Marjorie Taylor Green for president because that woman would destroy things faster than we could blink... 😅😅😅 😢😢😢 😱😱😱 😫😫😫

[@TheDoomWizard]

Send up the nukes!

[@snowjoe43]

It’s not a matter of translating the science into policy. That has already been done. NO ONE IS LISTENING !!!

[@EmeraldView]

Haha yeah

[@gregwilvert]

And there’s the aerosol masking effect

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@gregwilvert does Peter even discuss it?

[@gmouse1250]

As things stand we are doomed. We can only pray at this point, the years to come are goin to be difficult

[@mrrecluse7002]

Prayer ain't gonna help. This is, "if you break it, you own it." If this were a large asteroid heading for a direct hit, do you think prayer would help?

[@MyKharli]

@@mrrecluse7002 yes if god answered and nudged the asteroid ! If it still hits its your fault for not praying loud enough as god appears to be pretty deaf , let alone vindictive and egotistical . Maybe the loudest prayers were for the asteroid ! Seriously though prayers are a metaphor for when no achievable option seems realizable and after over 30 years of dire warnings and everything accelerating the wrong way i think its prayer time !

[@mrrecluse7002]

@@MyKharli If you had true confidence in the power of prayer, there would have been no need to be defensive. The appropriate response would have been to just pray for me. People of religion need to become aware of their own contradictions. No malice intended. Just expressing my true thoughts and opinions, without thinking I'm better than you.

[@ollie2052000]

Praying has been scientifically shown to be of no benefit so yeah, we ain’t getting out of this one alive.

[@MyKharli]

@@mrrecluse7002 Same i hope ! Is hope the same as prayer ?

[@gustheriaga1654]

Amazing how even very gifted minds are ignoring this message….greed and ignorance (oh the bliss) is killing us and quicker than far too many want to admit.

[@OldScientist]

Greenland Total Ice Mass Balance rate of loss reached its maximum in 2012 but the rate of loss has been diminishing ever since. The average annual loss is 0.005% of the total mass. That's neglible. Come back in 20,000 years.

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet

[@MagnumInnominandum]

It would seem we are damned when we do as surely as we are damned if we don't. To avoid going well over 2 degree rise in global temperature our carbon emissions would have to go to zero by 2100. This would be the end of human civilization, not only as we know it but as it has ever been. As we are still maintaining growth in emissions we will be well beyond a 2 degree rise in temperature even before 2100. Agriculture for humans as well as the majority of the biosphere will collapse at these temperatures. In June 2021 it was estimated the Thwaites Glacier would collapse in the next 5 years. Since then we have observed that mass of the ice was reducing faster than had been estimated previously. Structurally being undermined perhaps twice as fast as had been estimated. When this buttress of land born ice goes it will release enough ice for approximately a 3.5 meter rise in global sea levels over the next one hundred years. It does not matter anymore how much we step up our game or fold. We totally screwed the pooch on that one. Have a nice day. 😮

[@MagnumInnominandum]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnTdeZWrrM9joac

[@EmeraldView]

I wish I could, but thanks anyway.

[@samirayassamani300]

Great summary! A reduction in GHG emissions ain't happen unless there are strict regulations.

[@OldScientist]

Deserts have shrunk considerably since the 1980's. The Sahara shrank by 12,000km² per year 1984-2015(Liu & Xue, 2020). The Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime. "The greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year"(NASA, 2019). Global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) between 1982 and 2016 (Nature, 2018). As well as human intervention, the reasons for this include forests expanding polewards aided by additional CO2 and a slight rise in temperature.

[@OldScientist]

The whole of East and West Antarctica is cooling, and has been for 40 years. East Antarctica has cooled by an impressive 0.7°C per decade. Resulting in an overall substantial and statistically significant decline of 2.8°C since 1980. So much for "Global" warming. I am referring to a paper by Zhu et al (2021) that looked at the reanalysed ERA5 satellite dataset.

[@OldScientist]

As regards ocean acidification, it is estimated that the ocean’s global mean surface pH may have declined (i.e., become less alkaline and thus more “acidic”) by -0.07 to -0.08 in the last 200 years - from pH8.12 during pre-industrial times to 8.04 to 8.05 today (Wei et al, 2015). N.B. The decline in pH occurred before 1930. However, and very importantly when you look the data after CO2 emissions began rising precipitously in the 1930s, the oceans have become less “acidic”!!! By way of comparison, from one season to the next, or over the course of less than 6 months, pH levels naturally change by ±0.15 pH units, or twice the overall rate of the last 200 years. On a per-decade scale, the changes are even more pronounced. Oceanic pH values naturally fluctuate up and down by up to 0.6 U within a span of a decade, with an overall range between 7.66 and 8.40. This is decadal rate of pH change is larger than the overall 200-year span (0.07-0.08) by a factor of 8. There is nothing to be alarmed about in the changing climate of this planet.

[@amberazurescale5617]

Looking at the latest ENSO predictions from NOAA just published today, things don't bode well: "62% chance of El Niño developing during May-July 2023". Meanwhile, I wonder when IPCC will officially forego the 1.5°C goal. Clinging to it seems more and more ridiculous, but also dangerous. 'Cause it means to not admit that climate action has been a failure.. and if it wasn't a failure, there's no need to change things, is it? That's why I'm honestly sick of the constant "we can still do it" prayers. Clinging to 1.5°C and advocating false hope means business as usual.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

the chart is not the territory. People fixate on the IPCC like if it doesn't discuss the ESAS methane then it's not a problem since later IPCC reports can always discuss the ESAS methane! hilarious. it doesn't matter what the IPCC says - the ESAS methane is already erupting and accelerating in erupting and ESAS methane has no idea that the IPCC exists.

[@OldScientist]

The Global Land Precipitation Anomaly from AR5 will disappoint with deviations from the average increasing by 0.2% per decade, but if you look at the actual data, it's just very variable over the decades. Drought appears to be decreasing globally (Watts et al, 2018) measured by SPI 1901-2017.

[@hosnimubarak8869]

Revisiting the Marshmallow Test???

[@angelsplace]

History, before it happens. This is what the graphs look like, to the next "civilization" to run ice core samples, in wonder of, "What happened here."

[@larx4074]

Heaviest snowfall in Greenland on record, greatest sea-ice extent in the Arctic ever, lowest temperatures ever measured in Antarctica and China, Of course, all of this was predicted by the "experts" to have disappeared by 2014..... gotta love this Co2.........

[@hosnimubarak8869]

The warm Arctic this winter and the amount of snow falling over Greenland are linked. Warm air can hold more water vapour than cold air. Projections from climate models suggest that as the atmosphere warms, there will also be increased snowfall over Greenland (particularly in the Southeast), however there will also be more melting and the question is really how far do these two processes balance each other. To date all model projections for the future suggest that melt and runoff will dominate over the increased accumulation of snow in a warmer world leading to retreat of the ice sheet and sea level rise. However, it’s important to remember that unusual winters like this one reflect regional weather patterns and on a climate timescale there is still significant variability from one year to another.

[@larx4074]

@@hosnimubarak8869 Complete and utter nonsense........

[@hosnimubarak8869]

@@larx4074 Truth hurts eh perfesser.

[@larx4074]

@@hosnimubarak8869 Yep, the pain of continuous laughter at the cretinous and delusional pseudoscience that I seek out to rubbish........

[@hosnimubarak8869]

@@larx4074 I'm sure your mother is proud of you.

[@smacktart6869]

The like button won't work

[@RichRich1955]

I applaud climate scientists for dealing with such boring details

[@OldScientist]

On extinction the rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years (IUCN), so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Out of a known species total of over 2 million. That gives an annual percentage loss of less than 0.0001%. That's background extinction. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Of course, extinction is a natural part of the evolution of life on this planet with the average lifespan of a species thought to be about 1 million years (cf 930,000). It is estimated that 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have existed have gone extinct. It should also be noted that no genera have become extinct in the last 500 years.

[@hosnimubarak8869]

The K-T boundary? Seriously. You know that was rapid cooling due to a meteorite impact. Why are you using this against a rapid warming situation?

[@lennartverhagen8633]

👍

[@OldScientist]

If you want some really rapid warming look at the CET (Central England Temperature) Instrumental Record between 1690 and 1730 (3°C rise). Also why not try the Dansgaard-Oeschger events? The Dansgaard-Oeschger events were global (Dima et al, 2018). One about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet increased by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years, but a 5 °C change over 30-40 years is more common for these events. Carbon dioxide played no part in these changes. Some researchers believe the Medieval Warm Period was one of these, but I'm not convinced. Nevertheless, there is a lot of research to demonstrate the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present.

[@hosnimubarak8869]

Dansgaard-Oeschger events only occur during glaciated periods so we know they are not causing our current warming. But you knew this and chose to spread disinformation. Why?

[@OldScientist]

@Hosni Mubarak We are still in an Ice Age. And do objective facts become "disinformation" when it doesn't agree with the climate doom-sayers narrative?

[@hosnimubarak8869]

@@OldScientist I said "glaciated periods".

[@OldScientist]

@Hosni Mubarak Last time I looked both poles were "glaciated". You know we are still in an Ice Age. And do objective facts become "disinformation" when it doesn't agree with the climate doom-sayers narrative?

[@OldScientist]

As regards regards the rate of temperature change, the warming in the current modern era has been neither consistent nor rapid both temporally and spatially. The climate of the US in the 20th century is good example of this. The US has by far the best actual temperature recordings for this period with very little coverage elsewhere outside of Europe. Data from NOAA (2021) shows uneven warming focused on the South East through until it peaks in the 1930s. Where it should be noted the highest average maxima temperature records remain to this day. Some areas of the West showed negligible warming. There then followed a general continent-wide cooling into the 1970s. Then the West began to warm, but the South East continued to cool, so that by the end of the century some SE areas were cooler than they had been a century before. This pattern of uneven warming continues up to the present day. All of this demonstrates to my mind that the climate has a strong internal variability without the requirement for any external anthropogenic forcing. Globally satellite data shows how variable the Earth's climate is with changes up or down of more than 1°C occurring from one year to the next. However, overall the Earth's ecosystems are resilient to these fluctuations, as most species are eurytopic enough to survive these changes.

[@DelusionalDoug]

Thanks for data that goes against the “catastrophe” narrative.

[@hosnimubarak8869]

Think global, not local.

[@OldScientist]

@@hosnimubarak8869 I thought the phrase was "Think Global. Act Local." Oh dear, I'm going to have to throw that T-shirt away.

[@globalbusinessinvest]

I have some questions for all the People of the World and fanatics who like to follow the models and not the results: 1. If Humans are contributing only 4% of carbon emissions, what are Your plans about the 96% of carbon emitted from all other sources . 2. Since it is a fact that there was less Sea ice in the Antarctic 12000 years ago … where is the evidence that Carbon emissions by Humans must have caused this? Surely it could not have occurred without Human input? 3. The Antarctic has just had its coldest winter on record , how is this possible ? 4. Since We also know that Britain sufferers a severe drought in the 14th century We must assume this was due to severe high temperatures and low precipitation. So what caused it if We Humans were not spewing out carbon back then . By the way, records show it was so severe that People murdered each other for food with crops failing due to rivers and lakes also drying up . Please refrain from attacking Me if You don’t like what I am saying and focus on the argument . I believe We need to stop polluting with fossil fuels and rid the earth of plastics , however I do not buy into this fanatical frenzy that carbon is the only show in town . I may not be right but then again I might not be wrong. I am sure most of You buy the Big Bang theory that an infinite mass exploded 13.8 billion years ago and led to a virtual infinite number of coincidences and all came from nothing 😮 . Thanks.

[@globalbusinessinvest]

I meant less sea ice in the Artic 12000 years ago … sorry

[@missingpiece2071]

you told us the truth...... what's wrong with you? Start a tic toc challenge, be somebody.

[@OldScientist]

Global temperatures maxed out in 2016 and have been lower ever since (UAH v6 global satellite data). There is no climate crisis.

[@hosnimubarak8869]

2016 was a strong El Nino year.

[@scottekoontz]

Before 2016 did what year did you use? After this year will those goalposts shift as well?

[@OldScientist]

@@scottekoontz It doesn't matter. There is nothing in the current trends on climate that could be classified as a global climate crisis/apocalypse/emergency. It's a silly pseudo-religion.

[@scottekoontz]

@@OldScientist How about 2000? 2001? 1998? 1950? 1900? Anything but the hilarious cherry picks of the science aliterates. Are you one of those people who keeps shifting the starting year, and it's always within the past 10? I bet you are!

[@OldScientist]

@Scott Koontz Current warming is smaller than predicted by all models (0.1°C per decade since 1979, UAH v6) so around ½°C for the past 40 years. So what? What has that done globally that is so apocalyptic?

[@OldScientist]

The Great Barrier Reef's coral cover has reached the greatest extent ever recorded (AIMS). If you look at the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) data, the WIO (West Indian Ocean) shows 26% hard coral cover in 1985 upto 30% in 2020. South Asia reefs shows a decline around 2000 to below 25% then a regrowth to around 40% (2010) and a decline to 25% (2020). The Red Sea shows no change at around 25% (1995-2020). So the pattern in these three areas show no relationship to each other or to a changing climate. GCRMN data for the most important coral bioregion, the East Asia Seas, with 30% of the world’s coral reefs, and containing the most diverse coral of the ‘Coral Triangle’, show no statistically significant net coral loss since records began. The East Asia region has the biggest human population living in close proximity to reefs, and is located in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool - the hottest major water mass on earth.

[@toram6210]

Only 7k views I guess no one cares about the planet

[@dion8962]

Go tell it to China and India and see what they say about reducing carbon emissions. I will consider it if they go first😂.

[@jaykanta4326]

Racist.

[@rosch99]

Data is science. Interpretation of data isn't.

[@jaykanta4326]

Herp derp you're clearly not a scientist.

[@rosch99]

@@jaykanta4326 okay I admit my statement was way too broad. Yes, probably in most cases the interpretation of evidence, especially experimental evidence follows scientific principles. I was thinking more about materialism. It appears to me many scientists accept this as a scientific truth, when in fact it's a philosophical position held by scientists and non-scientists alike. I talked to a professor of anthropology once who said that the evidence is clear that evolution occurs by natural selection acting on random mutations. The thing is, the fossil record appears to show an evolutionary process. But the fossil record does not show that the process is randomly driven. That interpretation of the evidence is biased by philosophy.

[@jaykanta4326]

@@rosch99 random is based on genetics. But that’s pseudorandom as some regions of dna is more likely to mutate than others and some areas will cause a cascade where the offspring won’t be viable.