IPCC : Accelerating Ice Melt and Rapidly Warming Oceans

[@thepepperlanders]

Like a listening to a discussion on the dangers of icebergs on the sinking Titanic.

[@drorbenami]

After it has hit the Titanic.....he should be teaching people how to convert the dining room tables and doors into rafts....

[@thalesnemo2841]

The Titanic was hit at least 50 years ago !

[@zeroxcliche]

One thing that has been concerning me for awhile now is that economic, political and governance disruption will affect our ability to respond

[@TazPessle]

If we don't manage it now we'll scarcely manage it when things go tits up. But maybe thats the natural solution that earth has up its sleeve.

[@Jimmy4video]

This is really important, we are moving further from having the mechanisms in place to minimize global warming and respond to its affects. This does not bode well.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Well I think you've probably hit the nail on the head there Noss :-) Our collective challenge is not to let that happen.

[@macmcleod1188]

In my area, we've had 5 floods rated at 500 years to 1000 year flods. Since 2000. At some point you have to stop calling them 500-year and 1000 year floods.

[@richdiana3663]

At some point you have to call it game over.

[@ahaveland]

@@richdiana3663 Game over is not an option. Defeatism means the fossil fuel industry won.

[@davidwilliams-xt7pe]

Due to the grand solar minimum we are in.

[@donfields1234]

@@davidwilliams-xt7pe smh go away blockhead

[@wildflower8425]

hello sir - do you want insurance on the 100 year old flood the 50 year old flood or the 2 year old flood. only joking .....hope you and your family are safe

[@terrilee27]

Just found your channel a couple of weeks ago! I am a high school science teacher in the US and am struggling to determine the best way to teach my students about the climate crisis. Your logical reporting of the facts is very welcome in these troubling times!

[@JustHaveaThink]

That's great to hear. I'm delighted they're a bit of help. Much appreciated.

[@terrilee27]

@grindupBaker Well, I AM a teacher! :)

[@glenmccarthy8482]

Thanks again , but this situation is irreversible . Most of us are in a subconscious stupor.

[@NPC-iy5ih]

The end is nigh has been screamed since the 1800’s without any of the global cooling/warming/heating alarmists’ prophecies ever coming to pass... if their is a stupor it’s clearly the zealot of the climate alarmist cult that tend to use child actors and mentality challenged kids as shield and cudgels of their politically motivated agenda.

[@carlosbelo9304]

The sad part is, it's irreversible not because it is actually irreversible, but because people don't want to change :\

[@PeterKnagge]

Apparently even showing the slightest empathy and compassion for your fellow human is considered weakness and automatically makes you a “male feminist”. I just witnessed a mob of pathetic men libel, slander, harass, and abuse a vulnerable crying little girl, she wasn't even there to defend herself. Is this what we now call a just and decent civil society? Enough of the witch hunting! When the dawn breaks the guilty won't be living this down for a long time! Stay safe and good luck!

[@barrynorthmississippiprepp5777]

Ppl cant change climate dumb asses

[@pretorious700]

You're right. You are in a totally fabricated hysteria. This same alarmist nonsense has been around for about 75 years.

[@domitron]

All I can say is "So long and thanks for all the fish, Earth". Wow we really screwed up the place, didn't we? I'm so glad I don't have to look my kids in the eyes each morning as I don't have any. I'm not sure I could bear it. Right now a hell of a lot of suffering is being couched in nice figures and charts, but as the shit hits the fan, that's going to matter a lot less as the reality of what those charts and figures are saying sets in. Large regions of the Earth are going to be totally blown away and there is nowhere for those people to go. The political strife will be ungodly. This is going to make all the world wars in history look like child's play in comparison.

[@brucenassar9077]

thank you for not having kids

[@Peter-nv3wu]

And the crazy thing is that this has almost certainly happened long long ago in the past, us humans never learn do we !

[@tomr5104]

I wish the IPCC would just forget about 2100! All new studies shows these catastrophic events happening way earlier.

[@PDLH2024]

ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#wildfires

[@Mishn0]

@@PDLH2024 Wildfires kill about 1% as many people in recent years as they did at the turn of the 20th century. Most of them in the US now are due to poor forest management because so much "public" land is barred from cutting and people not cleaning underbrush from their property.

[@PDLH2024]

@@Mishn0 yip

[@johannesschaller5510]

Mishn0 Data source would be helpful here, otherwise your 1% claim is completely arbitrary.

[@Miata822]

Useful, Informative, and Depressing.

[@Brian-gk2hg]

not really ,, hogwash swilled down with gallons of bull,,

[@Miata822]

@@Brian-gk2hg It may be surprising to you but saying that doesn't make it true.Saying it sneeringly doesn't convince anyone to believe you. Your onanistic rant only make You feel good, and that feeling doesn't even last, does it?

[@Brian-gk2hg]

Kerr, Whats your scientific point? Ipcc cant win in a debate because all they use is projections and cherry pick data,, And the IPCC has been exposed,for what it is of Donna lafromboise a few years ago

[@Brian-gk2hg]

Kerr,, The data from the stratosphere where the warming should be largest shows very very little, The models are failing and imperical data of actual temperatures show this,

[@Miata822]

@@Brian-gk2hg Why should the stratosphere be warming? Almost all of the additional CO2 is in the troposphere. That CO2 is blocking IR from the surface actually reducing the IR exposure of the stratosphere. The models and predictions are actually pretty close, some areas running far above predictions. You should read the science, not the blogs or politically motivated speakers like Moncton. You will find that many of the sources that gave you the "facts" you used either don't give published sources or misrepresent those sources when you go read it yourself.

[@uswilkibr]

Of course, 'business as usual' is unrealistic, many large nations are getting richer and living more and more like Americans (such as myself). CO2 emissions will continue to increase for as long as unfettered capitalism is in the driver's seat because it's entire focus is short term profits to reward executives and share-holders. Oil companies also have to continually show viability with several years worth of oil reserves for investors, which is why we're in perpetual war with any country who has oil and refuses to fork it over to oil corporations, a morally and fiscally bankrupt endeavor that leads ultimately to self-destruction.

[@davidmchugh9404]

antithetical 1 Thoreum Reactors would be a way to transition from high energy societies and lower populations.

[@1LSWilliam]

Thank you but I never confused Gore with the IPCC! Gore's book sensationalized the climate scare and that certainly did affect a host of people of every age and not one, not one of his host of predictions in or out of his book has been fulfilled. Climate alarmists took that book to incredible levels of prominence without ever denouncing its fraudulent assertions. Countless grants with fat checks were cut on the basis of Gore hysteria. Every member of the IPCC read that book. As to your comment onoil companies I do not know what to say. We have 200 years of oil-related assets and do not have to do any such thing. Regrettably, there are far too many producers where nations are vulnerable, corrupt, etc., and their oil just makes everything worse. Human malfeasance and weakness are to blame, not fossil fuels for this mess.

[@paintedwings74]

I appreciate that you included comments on the shifting goal-posts. I spent some time on the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis website, and found myself growl-grumbling when I saw that the baseline they're comparing to is 1981-2010. Totally pointless comparison points! So I went back and used their charting feature to compare 1979-1990 data with the 1991-2000, and 2001-2010. Each average was completely different, of course. The three decades, separated out, show that the shift from ice cover toward an open Arctic has been much more dramatic. The "normal" is to have a whole hell of a lot more sea ice than what they use as a baseline for normal. So what you mentioned about the Pre-Industrial average air temperature being more like five degrees below our current average--you've run the math for me, thank you. I've questioned that 2-degree warming figure ever since it came out, mostly based on my own experiences in 45 years of life on earth, compared to the tales of my grandparents and great-grandparents. Blizzards beyond belief; doubts, a century ago, that the fruit orchards I ran through as a child would even survive the cold on the foothills of the mountains. They survived; by the time I pilfered apples and peaches from those trees, they were some of the best orchards in the country. But originally, that wasn't remotely possible, because it really was too cold in the 1890's. This long arc of history has always been difficult for humans to grasp, but our connections to our elders started to die out in the 1950's, so I was lucky to hear any of those stories, and lucky to remember them as the data on climate change started to pile up when I was a teen. The kids now don't have a shifting baseline to compare with, of course--they have an exploding baseline, and the Internet to learn from. Alas, it is their grandparents who seem determined to ignore the difference between their 1940's and 50's childhoods, versus today.

[@robmcilroy1894]

That thing about trees is a huge thing. There is a push at the moment to plant more trees ,which is great ,however ,trees can't adapt to how rapidly the climate is changing. What trees in a given area will be viable in ten , twenty or more years with the rapid changes. I spent ten or so years as an arborist and while studying it was a question I formulated many times with no real answers from my world renowned tutors . I have lived in a subtropical rainforest for nine years and planted citrus trees anticipating that as things changed they would start to thrive. Interesting this seems to be happening,while at the same time endemic iconic species are struggling and failing mainly due to pest and disease due to warmer climate. There was a documentary on Greenland( Sixty minutes australia),which showed some forty year old conifers that have doubled in stature in only the last ten of those forty. One plant although an arborists nightmare are Phoenix palms ( possibly date palms may be also viable) as they seem to be very robust in various climates. The conifers will be the first taxa to be completely wiped out I'm thinking?

[@dalecrocker3213]

Paintedwings74 Wasn't there a huge heatwave in 1897?And again in 1936?

[@JustHaveaThink]

You have an invaluable historical experience there, that's for sure. In fact the very first IPCC reports compared current warming to 1750 levels instead of 1850 levels, and I think on that basis we're about 1. 4 degrees Celsius warmer today and on track for perhaps 6 degrees Celsius warmer by 2100 if we carry on the way we are. That, I'm afraid, will make the vast majority of land area on the planet more or less uninhabitable on any kind of permanent basis. The equator will become a 'zone of curiosity' in hundreds of years, a bit like Antarctica is today. You and I will be long gone by then my friend, and I for one am quite relieved that that is so. I weep for my descendants though. Gonna be a tough ride for them.

[@dalecrocker3213]

No wonder you always look so worried.

[@Souljahna]

Just Have a Think: I am a very old lady, and I remember the stories of my grandparents & great-grandparents who hailed from Pennsylvania and the upper mid-west U.S.A. I could tell similar stories to those offered by Painted Wings74. The deep cold and snowfall of the winters I remember have not been seen even by my children. I am always impressed by the reasoned and detailed manner in which you bring us the bad news. As another viewer mention, your graphics are also wonderful. Your skill is much admired. But most of all, I appreciate your relatively calm tone. Like you, I have children (and grandchildren) whose probable future causes me great distress. I also am a great lover of the natural world and all its creatures great and small and grieve for them all. And although not many people mention this, I also experience tremendous sorrow at the evaporation of all the wonderful cultural forms humanity has fashioned, in both the arts and sciences, and all the fantastic dreams for the future we will never see come to fruition. To think it will all turn to dust and not a trace left behind. Woe are we.

[@stephenverchinski409]

Question. Do we have good bit of data on ocean stratification and temperature for each layer globally?

[@JustHaveaThink]

That's actually also in the report Stephen. But it's pretty technical and I thought it would just overload this particular video and really make people's eyes glaze over (if I haven't already done so!)

[@stephenverchinski409]

@@JustHaveaThink You are doing just fine. Vids are great. I know that as you go deeper water temps generally dive as well (used to scuba). I wish I had a copy of the report to puruse to read the info on overall stratified temperatures and trends on overall heat changes. Remembering that wierd sea temperature anomaly off the southern tip of Greenland in one example I recall.

[@acmefixer1]

@@stephenverchinski409 Go to ipcc.ch and download the reports. The one about oceans is SROCC.

[@stephenverchinski409]

@@acmefixer1 thanks will do that.

[@LightSearch]

I think there needs to be some research on the IPCC itself. I suspect a significant % of scientists suffered some sort of abuse from some kind of feedback loops in their childhood and the resulting trauma makes them avoid dealing with them nowadays.

[@clivemitchell3229]

I seem to remember the 1.5C report of 2018 saying that we would have to halve emissions by 2040 to stand a chance of keeping below 1.5C. Perhaps we should look at forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=133418;image and work out where the average 2030s Arctic sea ice volume line will be in relation to zero? Melting ice absorbs a lot of heat at a constant temperature. No ice, lots of temperature rise. Just like ice cubes disappearing from your drink at a summer BBQ.

[@macmcleod1188]

Something's off there. We should be passing the 2C carbon budget limit in 2026. There's really nothing we can do to avoid it. We might be able to avoid a 3C rise but carbon emissions actually Rose last year instead of continuing to decline. We should be passing the three C limit in 2059. But right now we stand on the brink of several natural forces releasing huge amounts of carbon as methane.

[@roslyndecanio81]

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide!

[@macmcleod1188]

@@roslyndecanio81 yes methane is 28 times more potent at trapping infrared heat radiation than CO2. And it degrades into CO2 and water vapor eventually.

[@clivemitchell3229]

@@macmcleod1188 In the short term, methane is closer to 100 times more potent than CO2, weight for weight, but relatively quickly degrades into 2.75 times as much CO2, weight for weight.

[@clivemitchell3229]

I'll just spell it out. By drawing later decadal average lines on the graph, the average summer Arctic sea ice volume for the 2030s will be seen to go below 0, i.e. no sea ice for most of the summer. The heat which normally melts ice in summer at a constant temperature will have no-where to go, so Arctic temperatures will go up like a rocket. Discussing rates of temperature change in a multi-phase climate is lies to children.

[@quintinphillips]

According to Australia and the US if it's not in the Bible it's not happening.

[@Mishn0]

If by "Bible", you mean "actual historic weather data", you're right.

[@RojohII]

Well, then "they" haven't read thorougly - They probably skiped the entire Revelation of John and especially chapter 5 and on...

[@savtraffic]

One of the smartest men of our time, Stephen Hawking ,said that climate change is the most immediate and urgent danger to humanity there is in our lifetimes. Doesn't take a physicist to realize 97 degrees in October ain't right. Never happened before in my 61 years on this rock and from what I have gleaned from CREDIBLE sources it's only gonna get worse. Our children don't deserve this outcome. One small example of something that could be done are the mechanical pumps that operate on wave action that could be strategically placed in the Atlantic ocean along the established course hurricanes usually develop which would pump cold water from the depths up to the surface effectively slowing down or theoretically even stopping hurricanes in their tracks. Yes this would be expensive, but not nearly as costly as the billions of dollars and horrific loss of life that the hurricanes themselves cause. Seems like it would pay for itself in just a couple of major hurricane events. Looks like the powers that be are just gonna keep crossing their fingers hoping for fair weather while they keep their pockets lined with the life saving fundage. Go figure.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Mark. A friend of the channel, Patrick McNulty. has also proposed this idea, called Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2OtgGmZj7ljo7M

[@savtraffic]

Real shame it will probably never happen because of the tremendous cost though, here's an idea, instead of building the wall along our southern border,let's build it around California and freely admit all the immigrants who want to come. The cost of building it around California could be enough less that there would be some left to build the pumps to stop the hurricanes. This would also solve the illegal immigration crisis at least temporarily , maybe long enough to stop a couple hurricanes and save a few hundred thousand lives. This is of course only an attempt at a small bit of humor. PEACE.

[@davehendricks4824]

Mark Wilharm it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature. Humans destroy everything natural with their ‘ideas’.

[@Jimmy4video]

Great video, thank you. High quality graphics, content and presentation! The news isn't good, but it's good to be informed and it is really hard to find this level of depth anywhere else online.

[@Brian-gk2hg]

Awful video , but great, it really shows the scam,,

[@Jimmy4video]

@@Brian-gk2hg your account is a scam

[@Brian-gk2hg]

walrave,, eh how does anyone reply to your highly detailed view of anything lol great video? yeah for scaring kids,,with nonsense ,,

[@johnglavis2358]

The chances? Out of 100 I'd give it a solid 3…..

[@creativeandaliveat65]

Optimist!

[@buddha1736]

It sounds like to me the IPCC latest report is being even more Conservative than they were before. 🤢🤮

[@Ctrl_Alt_Del_USA]

@D. you got any evidence of this conspiracy? No, you don't.

[@cbromley562]

Come on D, you must have all the data and compelling evidence to hand, in order to make an emphatic statement like that. Let’s see it.

[@christinearmington]

Osama Number5 “And I am a material girl.” Id to my ego. 😉🌚🌗

[@Peter-nv3wu]

Whats new ?

[@PeterKnagge]

Apparently even showing the slightest empathy and compassion for your fellow human is considered weakness and automatically makes you a “male feminist”. I just witnessed a mob of pathetic grown men libel, slander, harass, and abuse a vulnerable crying little girl, she wasn't even there to defend herself. Is this what we now call a just and decent civil society? Enough of the witch hunting! When the dawn breaks the guilty won't be living this down for a long time! Stay safe and good luck!

[@jonovens7974]

The IPCC is one of the reasons we (globally) have done as little as we have - the IPCC have taken what the research science has said then watered it down to make it more palatable to the governments - this has gone on for 30 odd years - It was set up by governments to stall the process while looking like they are doing something. Ever since the science was settled 20-30 years ago - gov's have know it was impossible to make the change required without throwing out the capitalist economic and any idea of democracy - A global totalitarian gov would be required and no one would agree to that (no matter what the conspiracy nuts would have you believe)

[@Jimmy4video]

Well with mouth pieces of the industry in government it's hard to see what the IPCC could actually get done unfortunately.

[@cncshrops]

So, 'blame the scientists'? Report after report for over 30 years. What were they supposed to do? The responsibility lies squarely with those who have led and misled publuc opinion and expectations.

[@christinearmington]

Jon Ovens The totalitarian leaders we’ve got now are the opposite of helping stop 🛑 the carbon explosion.

[@dalecrocker3213]

Jon Ovens One can only hope that the science WASN'T settled 20-30 years ago. We mustn't forget that carbon behaving the way it does in the laboratory and in computer models doesn't mean that it behaves that way in the real world. After all, Einstein said in 1917 that he thought the atmosphere must be thermodynamically stable and the recent study using data from weather balloons suggests he may have been right. It's a long shot -but where' there's life there's hope.

[@jonovens7974]

@@dalecrocker3213 You can hope all you like, reality doesn't give a rats arse. the last 20-30 years have just seen the general prediction proved correct again, and again, and again - the thing that was wrong was the time scale - at first we had 200-300 years, then 100-200, now its within a life time.

[@simonjackson7]

Great summary of a complex and important topic. Well done and thank you. Beggars belief that world leaders can continue ignoring such clear evidence. It can only be deliberate. Surely, no one is that stupid? Your point on nationalism is well made. Our future depends on whether we turn toward each other, or against each other. United we stand, divided we fall. #TeamMuskOx

[@brucenassar9077]

buffy greta needs you

[@handyallen]

The only answer is managed grazing together with no till, cover crops and diversify. Only thru these methods can we capture enough carbon to effect the climate crisis.

[@Jimmy4video]

There is no one answer or magic bullet. This doesn't even deal with the main driver, energy use.

[@Ctrl_Alt_Del_USA]

"The only answer..." STOP. Shhhhhhhhh. No go away. Now one is even talking about Hemp.

[@donfields1234]

Yeah, that idea is a great idea to implement but hardly the ONLY answer, its merely a small portion of whats neccesary, carbon capture is almost certainly mandatory, and im afraid a good deal of luck is as well. Some new technologies, some natural cooling maybe volcanism, and most importantly some intelligent politicians/ceos/business leaders/groups etc to implement a global effort similar to what the usa did for ww2. Freedom gardens, all manufacturing focused on this issue, a "draft" of sorts whereby the population can be organized and financed for this sole focus. We COULD do so much, humanity has incredible potential thats really stagnating in so many ways, but WILL WE? Not if we bicker amongst ourselves as we have been for 100 yrs or thousands of years, or even longer depending on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go. I suggest we bottom out and find the actual truth, its there, waiting for us all to realize it honestly. If only we would, most will scoff at just that statement as some crazy hocus pocus or whatever, but most are lost sheeple so, baaaack off😂

[@macmcleod1188]

We only answer is returning the population to between 2 and 3 billion. Just over the last 20 years maximum population estimates have gone from 9 billion to 14 billion. 9 billion wasn't sustainable. At this point we're deer in an overcrowded Forest just waiting for whatever event sets off the death. We seem to have beaten the food problem. I don't see any way we beat the chromium magnesium manganese problem. And I don't see any way we beat the heat pollution per capita problem.

[@donfields1234]

@@macmcleod1188 *The... and again dropping the population is a great "idea" but hardly the only solution, why must people be so absolute and definative with ideas. At the very least we should be stopping the incessant population growth and we also should hope that a little understanding, wisdom and intelligence will weave its way into society upon "awakening" resulting in a population decrease naturally. But this is just one assisting factor in an extremely complex problem considering we have already loaded this system with more than enough energy to bring on the 6th mass extinction even if we stopped on a dime now. It seems plenty ugly enough to me to motivate everyone to assist in mitigating whats happening all around us, yet we still sit here bickering and "debating" wasting precious, time, energy and resources. Deniers... just study climate 101, if done honestly, 99% of climate scientists assure you that you will agree our planet is screwed

[@malawby]

A scientific paper published by a team of Australian researchers has revealed a startling find: Scientists at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) have been “adjusting” historical data regarding tide levels in the Indian Ocean. Their “highly questionable” activities have depicted rapidly rising seas - but the truth is that there is no reason to be alarmed at all. Scientists have found that sea levels are stable - and have been for the entirety of the 20th century.

[@mwhearn1]

Here is a study that concluded that south indian ocean is rising faster than the world ave. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-019-04795-0

[@simplethings3730]

In the United States, counties directly on the shoreline constitute less than 10 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 39 percent of the total population. From 1970 to 2010, the population of these counties increased by almost 40% and are projected to increase by an additional 10 million people or 8% by 2020. Coastal areas are substantially more crowded than the U.S. as a whole, and population density in coastal areas will continue to increase in the future. In fact, the population density of coastal shoreline counties is over six times greater than the corresponding inland counties. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[@donfields1234]

Well depending on how fast these feedbacks kick in and where they hit, particularly hurricanes and "regular" old 100yr storms that hit every other week now, as well as tornados. Im waiting for the cat 6 and f6 designations to occur, its fairly likely the storms intensify enough to justify it, but whether new levels get designated...maybe not. Let the deniers invest in the coast, and the flood plains, AND good luck getting insurance or a loan. Insurance is already pulling out of some areas so time will tell. Maybe buy near naval bases depending, the military has had climate mitigation on their agenda since the 80's or longer. Some of those locations may get protected, or maybe they just build a few carrier type vessels and float the bases...that seems intelligent to me. Probably why so many yachts are owned by the elite? Thats where i would throw my money...time to play lotto again i guess. Lol ✌👍💪😌

[@gsmscrazycanuck9814]

@@donfields1234 maybe look at the data? Sea level is rising and falling at the same rate since records began. Violent storms are throughout history and they were even worse. The only feed backs are from external sources. One volcanic eruption VEI7 and its agricultural failure again. That is what you need to be looking at. Every grand solar minimum sees at least one VEI7.

[@NPC-iy5ih]

So your source is the same organization that made up their numbers back in 2014 so Obama had something to bring to Paris? If someone is willing to lie just to make someone else look good politically can they really be trusted?

[@simplethings3730]

@@NPC-iy5ih Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Source: Merriam-Webster

[@PalimpsestProd]

On the bright side, when the really bad weather hits we can just hand out a regional Darwin award.

[@ashoakwillow]

Thanks Dave for explaining these complex interactions. Maybe our understanding is getting more sophisticated?; It wasn’t long ago that a geologist did geology, an oceanographer did oceanography and a biologist did biology, but many, many disciplines now come together in climate science. I remember reading James Lovelock’s ‘Gaia’ when it was ridiculed by many, even though it developed from his work for NASA in trying to assess if Mars had recent life. Thankfully he is alive and well and able to see his ideas validated.

[@davehendricks4824]

James Brooks I too bought that book. Still have it.

[@kennethbynum4253]

glad to see the tree plantings, try for broadleaf trees, the falling leaves also insulate the ground and help retain moisture, just as nature intended

[@cheviousmis1720]

Unless you're in a drought stricken area, in which case they simply pile up, dry preserved fuel, creating a serious fire hazard because there's no moisture for decomposition. So Cal wildfire central here. All leaves, deadwood, grass and brush must be cleared. By law, and also if you don't want to die in a 2,000℉ inferno.

[@deanwhite9386]

Thank You. Sorry we suck so bad. Perhaps the next IPCC report should show ways of generating profit while sequestering carbon?

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

What are you getting at? Something is missing. IAC although CO2 removal will be essential eventually, and in general terms I totally support it, I have no illusions that money can be made with it. Not even close.

[@DocJaeBass]

Once again, an excellent presentation.

[@waldekbudzynski9370]

Please make polish automatic subtitles available. Thank You for Your job.

[@michaeloconnell7827]

Projecting to 2100 seems to be a waste of time.We won’t be here.

[@ahaveland]

Wow. You might not be here then, but billions of people will still be suffering on a degraded planet.

[@KateeAngel]

You won't be there. 10-11 bln. people still will be

[@robmcilroy1894]

Going into third year of grain consumption outpacing production. Third year of eating into our grain reserve. Production is faltering ,even with more land area being opened up (eg Brazilian rainforest)as crop failures are becoming more problematic. Consumption is increasing due to population and increasing demand for better nutrition ( can't blame the third world for wanting a full belly). Even storage is being affected ,look at all the grain silos destroyed and or damaged due to early season flooding in the US mid west. This is happening now ,so ten billion in 2100 , I don't think so.

[@jonfairway8235]

@@ahaveland chances are if we carry on like this... he means everybody will be gone... no humans..

[@ahaveland]

@@jonfairway8235 I know what he meant and he's wrong - there will be humans, but whether we have organized civilization with infrastructure that works to support a massive inverted pyramid of humans depending on that infrastructure working is another question. Climate change threatens everything, so to risk f*cking with it is a really really stupid thing to do. We're not going extinct, but decimation is a real possibility as people fight over food and water while the rich try to survive in their walled gardens. The internet also depends on a stable civilization, people and energy to run it, so even that will be at risk too.

[@None12445]

As always, your vlog is fantastic. Thank you! (I missed this, just seen it today 😉)

[@2ezTimmy]

You can always assume that the climate is changing faster than the IPCC predicts. Next rapport will be scientists coming out with a sigaret betwix their lips and a single piece of paper that says: "We're up shit creek without a boat"

[@earthgirl0225]

Lol

[@micwilliams7743]

Just wait until the Grand Solar Minimum really kicks in, probably in 2025 to 2028 when things will get much worse, COLDER!! Also look for colder winters and longer one's starting this winter. Nothing we can do to save the whole population except go under ground to those cities the governments have been building for over 50 years now, maybe expecting this upcoming ice age. But I do think citizens can prepare by building their own greenhouses to grow food, but it looks bleak and hopeless for much of man kind and animals after all there have been five extinction events in the past. So it looks like our turn.

[@mikeharrington5593]

Not sure where your sea surface temperature anomaly chart came from at around 6 mins. Is it in the IPCC report? I don't yet understand percentiles, as applied to this data, so are the colour coded anomalies in the chart(s) comparisons with the 1982-2011 baseline for September?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Mike. Here's the original page of charts directly from the report www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/SROCC_SPM1_Final_2481x.jpg

[@mikeharrington5593]

@@JustHaveaThink Thanks.

[@brianholding4357]

Thank you AGAIN!

[@channelwarhorse3367]

WOW. Am blocking Blue Ocean Event this year and working on slowing down the thermo gradient on ice when formed in the north pole. So I have to sail boats with sails to block a line of sight of the sun... Boats have to be in position and we pump ice up to freeze layers. Block Blue Ocean Event Operations....come in...SRM cheap....block.....block....block..

[@thalesnemo2841]

The momentum of the atmospheric physics is unstoppable on terms of human lifespans! The inflection point to affect the rate of climate change WAS FIFTY YEARS AGO! All humanity can do presently, is to adapt to our own uncontrolled experiment of the past 270 years ! The current rate of climate change from 1750 to the present is greater than that of the PETM and the Permian mass extinction!

[@endeavorwebs719]

Fantastic presentation, thank you!

[@trendyasdabbers]

So you in your opinion we will somehow be able to slow down the rate of extinction please explain how this works exactly.

[@karenhill8686]

Please include Geoengineeringwatch.org when looking at climate change. Which causes more heating through the use of Solar Radiation Management.

[@roslyndecanio81]

Yes, Karen--the oceans are absorbing for now most of the heat!!!

[@albertoscatto5796]

How odd is the people greeting each other during the Paris agreement when actually they just condemned the whole world by choosing to do nothing deliberately. Feedback loops are the most terrifying events which threaten humanity and it scares me as shit! There is something thou that can can stop emissions as it has always done seen in history: an economic crisis in a country that quickly spreads throu the world. Really soon, even Octobre I'd say... maybe. Precisely when there will be disruptions to the economic system itself from the group Extinction Rebellion has planned to do since the 7th. This is all so exciting in a way or in the other.

[@JP212nyc]

lets just castrate every man on earth and we have solved global warming, and not just that.

[@albertoscatto5796]

@@JP212nyc your answer is so inhuman on many levels

[@JP212nyc]

@@albertoscatto5796 true, but i am afraid i am correct nevertheless. sadly, we wont find a humane answer to climate change, as anything with the 2 words "human" and "climate" in it has already become totally toxic.

[@albertoscatto5796]

@@JP212nyc We already know the peaceful solution to solve this crisis, reducing the demand firstly and then supply what we actually need from sun, wind, termich, sea, heat etc

[@johannesschaller5510]

Great summary, as always. And you seem to get more than a few dislikes, which in my book means you’re doing good work. Keep it up.

[@andrewcheadle948]

Maybe he gets a few dislikes as some of us think it's bollocks? That ever cross your mind?

[@johannesschaller5510]

Andrew cheadle It’s the people who think it’s bollocks who have the most to learn.

[@andrewcheadle948]

@@johannesschaller5510 learn what? That there's no empirical evidence that man is the driver for climate change? That all the climate computer models have failed? That pre industrial revolution co2 was 280ppm, at 200ppm broadleaf plants start to die. We're currently around 400ppm, in the past it's been in the thousands of ppm, and life flourished. Michael Mann has just lost his court case against Prof Tim Ball. Mann is the grand architect of the now famous hockey stick graph. He lost as he refused to provide the data as to how he arrived at his graph. The UN predicted in 2005 that there would be 50 million environmental refugees by 2010, there were none, so they pushed it back to 2020. We're there now. And if the IPCC has given us just over a decade before catastrophic climate meltdown, then how is manufacturing shit loads of turbines in foundries and billions of solar panels in the petrochemical industry going to lower co2 within that time frame? Prof Judith Curry's report on sea level rise from 1900 to now concluded that the 7-8 inch rise is within its natural variables. Two irish scientists Michael and Ronan Connolly have analysed millions of bits of data from weather balloons, ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, tidal gauges, historical temp data etc etc, and they found man has little or no influence on the climate. You can see their papers on their website if you like. Actual hard data, from various sources, not data from a computer model. No do you see why I think it's bollocks? If not we can then discuss the economics of the 'green' agenda, and how the poor will get hit hardest.

[@johannesschaller5510]

Andrew cheadle Your sources have been debunked, especially the Irish pair. Try reading some of the objective analyses. And a 2 minute search is enough to show you that Ball didn’t win, quote: “The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defences were valid.” On top of that, it was a libel case FFS. Rather than regurgitate the pseudo-science of the shills, just have a think.

[@andrewcheadle948]

@@johannesschaller5510 haha! 😂 Ball won his case against Mann, it was a libel case, and Mann could have won, if he'd shown the data for his bullshit graph which was what the libel case was about. Ball said he should be in state pen not Penn state for manufacturing his graph. But Mann was never going to show his data was he! Wonder why not!? 😁 The IPCC used manns graph on their website, and I believe that manns famous bullshit graph has been debunked in the past before his court case loss! Ooh and Prof Peter Ridd has just won his court case against James Cook University. He was dismissed for saying that man isn't killing the great barrier reef and its in good health. Ridd is a top reef expert who had worked for JC for 4 decades. You're going to tell me that rubbish too. The Irish pairs work hasn't been debunked. Better try harder there. Now then what do you think is the optimum mean surface temperature for the planet, and optimum co2 levels? How much will it cost to get to these optimum levels. Who will pay for it? What countries will be able to afford the 'green' options? And what time frame are we talking about? Just so we know what we're aiming for? And have you got that elusive empirical evidence that man is the driver for climate change? Ffs! 😁

[@byronlaws7193]

The study this report was largely based on, was retracted (due to being fatally flawed) the day after the report was released.

[@Marco-it2mr]

This is a lie. The report was not largely based on the retracted Resplandy et al paper. Although it was cited, it was cited in error (another Resplandy, Keeling et al 2018 paper should have been cited). Only two other references in this report cited that retracted Resplandy et al paper, and it was not a foundational paper in those two others. Consider my comment carefully: I called it a lie. I did so because it is. You are thus getting your information from sources who lie to you.

[@MotherNatrsSon]

The IPCC has always been a day late and a dollar short. It is far worse then any predictions they publish when they publish them.

[@n1mbusmusic606]

silica spheres to prevent the melting of the merafrost!!!!!! brian von herzmon! we can still survive, but we gotta go go go!

[@1LSWilliam]

Your charts perfectly illustrate why Heller's approach matters, because these charts start at favorable points and ignore all the data from beforehand which challenges these charts.

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

Nice try, you quickly deleted the thread where I called you out on your claims. First you tried to claim the IPCC was always wrong now you're claiming his graphs are wrong. If you take issue with his charts, please show the data!

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

NB, he actually gave two charts with two different start points, if you take issue with both of them, are there any start dates that you don't think are 'favourable'?

[@1LSWilliam]

@@LudvigIndestrucable I have no idea how to delete any such thing. As to the data, go on KZbin like I did and look at a few of Tony Heller's recent posts. FYI, unlike Heller, I do accept that anthropogenically caused global warming is a thing, but insist that it must be assessed within the context of normal glacial cycles.

[@1LSWilliam]

@@LudvigIndestrucable Please consult the obviously relevant KZbin postings in the last two weeks by Tony Heller. He documents such cherry-picking beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that does not mean we must draw the same conclusions Heller does.

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

@@1LSWilliam If you're disputing a specific graph/data set, please state which. I am uncertain as to what you mean by this context, are you referring to land level changes due to decompression after glacial lode (which is factored into most costal-relative sea rise calculations). What do you mean by glacial cycle and what effect do you feel is being ignored/not included?

[@DavidWilliams-DSW558]

A couple of months ago, you mentioned an obscure fact about the latent energy in the ice and that the same amount of energy as is required to change water's state from ice to liquid (the enthalpy of melting) would then be sufficient to raise the water's temperature to something like 79 °C. Could you provide further detail on this please, as it sounds pretty astounding to me, even though I have a degree in chemistry and should know things like that.

[@Marco-it2mr]

Melting enthalpy of 1 kg of ice is 333.55 kJ. It requires about 4.184 kJ to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree. Divide 333.55 by 4.184, and you get about 79 degrees

[@DavidWilliams-DSW558]

Thanks, @@Marco-it2mr! That is a worrying thought!

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@DavidWilliams-DSW558 You're welcome.

[@DavidWilliams-DSW558]

@@Marco-it2mr Bedankt!

[@kocotube01zacasni85]

IPCC report got out on 24.sept. 2019 and one day after, on 25. sept. 2019, the main climate paper on "Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition", part of IPCC's report was retracted in the Nature: "Retraction Note: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5 So one of the most important ocean climate papers of 2018 was retracted just one day after IPCC's report got out, retraction admitting "systematic errors and random errors leading to roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity". Talk about that retraction also in your video, if you want to inform viewers, otherwise all this is just a fear-porn and manipulation.

[@tangohotellima1895]

Thanks for this; any lay folk haven't had the time to dig. Oh, and don't worry about the channel. He'll recover from the ko blow you'd just dealt him, but he needs his rest now. 😜

[@Marco-it2mr]

That paper (cited in error, wrong Resplandy, Keeling et al, 2018 paper) in this IPCC report, would have CONTRADICTED the IPCC, finding a larger heat uptake. It is thus NOT part of any IPCC report.

[@kocotube01zacasni85]

That study was foundation paper for numerous others in the report. But now retracted (after it has done its "damage", sew new seeds) and not even part of the report it is as it never existed. It is like pouring gasoline on a cigarette and then offering it to some bystander to smoke it. Gone.

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@kocotube01zacasni85 Ah, that's a very easily testable claim. I doubt you did, however. Better to just handwave and make claims based on what you *want* to be true, rather than reality. For those who are interested how easily this can be tested: Step 1: go to Google Scholar Step 2: Type the title of the paper Step 3: click on the "cited by 31" link under the paper. Note that it was 31 when I checked (October 1st) Step 4: go through the list of papers that cite it and compare them to all citations in the SROCC report. You'll find TWO that cited this specific Resplandy et al paper Step 5: Check how these papers use the Resplandy et al paper. Is the latter paper a foundation paper for that specific paper, or just one of several papers cited and discussed? Step 6: Wonder why some people are so happy to make up stuff, just to hold on to their dear belief that climate science must be wrong.

[@kocotube01zacasni85]

To evolve, one needs to doubt others and himself. Hence my doubt (doubting in coincidences in such an important topic) is not making stuff up. It is doubt in wholeness of the climate model "picture". And climate model is far from being comprehensive. I hope you can muster enough doubt at your point, to consider, at least, that if the climate science is not wrong, it possibly is not right either. Your reasoning doesn't fail you. It is climate models that fail, ignoring most of the Suns influences (forcing), which are many fold, not just it's total irradiance. Watch this video to see what is ignored in those climate models: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHa6oIOwlqmghaM Don't be dismayed in your doubting by simple, partial and "apparently logical" explanations. Not only the Sun, but also outer giant planets and the Galaxy are climate deciders. As far as greenhouse mantra goes, the Earth is not a closed system, so the Venus heating runaway scare craze scenario (another wrong model) is not possible at all. Be happy while it is still hot enough here, because "the winter is coming". ... Eventually. Climate change propaganda is not meant to control the climate, but to control the people. And the Money (old Phoenician Aristocracy families) are behind it all, yet again. Nothing new in the last 5000 years. In other words, make as much CO2 as you can, but don't pollute while doing it. Life will thank you.

[@miachavez517]

It would be really helpful If the editor can add subtitles, it would be easier to understand the video.

[@donfields1234]

Always useful, always informative, always a pleasure to watch your productions. You have come a long way with the whole utube video presentation, your getting more and more complex and visually stimulating each time with all the effects your adding in. I notice 😀👍👏💪✌👋👊👌🙏😌 humanity thanks you...well the wise ones anyhow, not the sheeple maybe but many had their minds made up already damn what science or reality may show different, thats the trouble with belief. It isnt based on reality so much as a story, or an unsubstantiated theory. Anyhow, thank you for all your effort in our climate "fight"...hard to "believe" we have to fight ourselves to save ourselves from ourselves huh?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Don. It really does make a difference when folks notice that sort of stuff. Makes it feel like there's a glimmer of hope and purpose to the channel :-)

[@donfields1234]

@@JustHaveaThink i assure you your many fans that comment as well as many others that dont truly appreciate all you do. You give detailed looks into the many intricate aspects of our climate quagmire. I could blabber on about the ignorance of mankind and their self manipulating dellusions forever, but i find its just too draining, depressing, infuriating and demeaning. Knowing that "heaven" is right here in the midst of us...after i stumbled into enlightenment/zen/nirvana etc, makes it all the more aggravating bieng aware exactly how the sheeple get lost and why, and that by "fixing" a few fundamental thought processes we can experience the state of mind and literal life experience they call heaven. Im assuming anyone reading this has not experienced this enlightenment im speaking of, and so i must just say its real, its all true what the "ancient master" wrote and taught. So just let me plant that seed of possibility, so that maybe it motivates/encourages someone/anyone/EVERYONE to seek it...and thats really all it takes, honestly whole heartedly seek enlightenment and "it" will sort of find you AND you will fully understand all the universe. It is the most incredible experience we can have in this form, and you will know it when/if you decide to "go there" for absolutely everything becomes simply self evident, obvious, and absolutely perfect in every way. Best wishes to all, seek the ultimate adventure into your/our true selves, free your mind and thus yourself from a prison most are unaware they are in...we need you all to awaken to the truth to assist in the grand awakening of the human species. Sounds a bit kooky i know, but life is infinately deeper, better, magical, and astounding than we can even imagine. 🙏🙌👌👍👏💪👋👊😌 please seek the ultimate truth and free yourselves into the bliss we all are supposed to be, its real, its awesome, and its right here waiting always. 😀😉😜☺😄😃😝😛😁😂😅😋😇😏

[@donfields1234]

@@JustHaveaThink oh and its truly my pleasure, we cant thank you enough for creating these little masterpieces. Hopefully they work as we need them too, helping others that are somehow confused to examine the facts and realize the truth. 👌✌👍🙏 sorry to ramble on

[@grgmetube]

Don Fields Your right "Anyhow, thank you for all your effort in our climate "fight"...hard to "believe" we have to fight ourselves to save ourselves from ourselves huh?" but I hope this does not get out of hand. Imagine how people will be blaming the other side if and when climate is really getting unmanageable and things are breaking. It might be a different generation or the people in their teens now when that happens. There will be those teens from the denier parents rebelling (as some are now to a slight degree). They will likewise also call the ones who believed there was a problem, "pussyfooters" or a similar term. The believers now even a few in governments cannot do much if they know their electors will throw them out in the next election.

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

Our biggest problem is that most people still believe in gods and demons. They believe everything that happens is directly caused by one of those two and not by humans.

[@shawnedward6686]

Actually, the peer reviewed paper that the IPCC cited to make this bold claim, was retracted 1 day after the IPCC said all of this. The science is wrong. There is no direct scientific evidence to support C02 induced climate change. The problem is that humans are too stupid to do ANY research for themselves and rely on authority to make decisions for them because the majority of people are followers. Not leaders. This is what makes Democracy so dangerous and why this country was founded as a REPUBLIC. Science today is no different than religion. The dust bowl? 1936 was the hotter year in recorded history. The Hockey Stick model showing C02 rise and Temperature rise for the last 70 years was Fabricated By Michael E Mann (IPCC) the man is not a scientist. Has no education in science . And was just found guilty IN COURT for not providing the publically funded data. There is no data. For 400,000 years of climate data. every single data set shows temperatures rise then C02. This time it's our fault?????? Please.

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

@@shawnedward6686 where did you find that the article was retracted? You are right, people are followers and just follow the few that will tell them what they want to hear. If you did your research, you would find out why past global warming events started with an initial warming before the CO2 feedback kicked in. You would also find out how the current situation is unprecedented in the geological record. In fact hugely different.

[@James-ke5sx]

Even Aliens have renewable energy problems so don't expect a solution anytime soon. 5,000 years after building the pyramids they still crash land at area 51 after running outta fuel. HA!

[@rodg011]

LOL

[@lorenzoblum868]

There is no such thing as clean energy. It's the usage of that energy that determines its cleanliness level

[@bazarov3857]

Lucid, focused discussion of the key data and key issues. Balanced, yet uncompromising. Thanks more time!

[@bazarov3857]

..ONE more time.

[@neilmon11203]

Please do a video on global dimming?

[@JustHaveaThink]

I may look at that in a later episode. Very contentious issue of course.

[@neilmon11203]

@@JustHaveaThink it's not going to be less contentious when clean air policy kills us lol

[@EmeraldView]

Can we just admit and accept that it's over?

[@DrSmooth2000]

Life goes on after the dreaming is gone

[@garyc9908]

Nothing will change get on with your lives kids This is scaremongering writ large Even if true nothing we can do But it's totally exaggerated

[@jerrybarr3354]

Absolutely correct. It's just another way for the governments to take our money.

[@atheistconservative7860]

@@jerrybarr3354 hopefully climate change will eliminate ignorant disease parasites like you. Stupid people.

[@atheistconservative7860]

Why should we believe you over the scientists studying this stuff? What credentials do you have other than your biased opinion? Cite the peer reviewed studies you conducted to refute the science on climate change. Otherwise stfu you are just an idiot.

[@ianwatson2285]

@@atheistconservative7860 Tony Heller. just facts, all the facts. And anyway, why would you think the climate would not change? Humans in their present form have been around for an incredibly minute period of the planets existance. Of course the the climate is going to change. It is an enormous, complicated system. Being abusive to those who have the audacity to contradict your opinion shows you to be the idiot.

[@atheistconservative7860]

@@ianwatson2285 What is hilarious about your opinion is you actually think you know more than those SCIENTISTS who are actually studying it. Let me clue you into the fact YOU DON'T. Sorry to inform you that your opinion means little to nothing. Most of us sane people will go with the proven methods of science over conjecture and biased opinion. Dunning Kruger effect - stupid people don't know they are stupid.

[@The8224sm]

Once Rupert Murdoch says that climate change is not a natural cyclic occurrence but man made then the politicians and governments who fear him will start take some positive action.

[@Brian-gk2hg]

Every graph shows modeled projections,, horrible junk science,, and sounds like the presenter is on board 100%,, High cringe factor video,,

[@mikegolmon8375]

Brian he is definitely on board. Told me I was another doubter with no proof. I sent him the proof and that was the end of the conversation.

[@ElkoJohn]

Dave, I'm your big fan from Nevada. How about a video on ' 'adaptation ' ' so if the rulers of our planet don't do anything, I can at least advise my grandchildren on how to best adapt during the coming crisis. Thanks for all your informed research and for caring about our planet.

[@chriswest7220]

The IPCC 😂😂😂

[@smallbluemachine]

It’s better than getting a real job. Public money and no accountability. Sweet!

[@atheistconservative7860]

@@smallbluemachine idiots with freedom to spew their toxic garbage like you. Idiot.....

[@aubreymccollam7088]

I am curious on what exactly is heating the earths core up triggering volcanos, many in which are located in the oceans.

[@deathgatedeathstar9259]

earths core is heating up? source?

[@aubreymccollam7088]

@@deathgatedeathstar9259 Read about it on live source in 2011. Interestingly about a year ago some wealthy lady chimed in on a discussion i was having with a friend and she said something about an planet nibiru and how it is causing the sun issues and earth. She said its going too get worse i guess. Supposly rotates around a brown dwarf and swings in every so often. Oh and has tail or something and supposedly why bunkers were built for continuity of govs after its done with earth.

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@aubreymccollam7088 I sincerely hope you're able to extract yourself from the claws of those Nibiru cranks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm

[@TinaBen14]

Excellent as always!!

[@patrickmcnulty848]

And of course Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion can reverse these disastrous trends of all the things you mentioned Dave. Excellent show again... Computer modeling will verify...

[@ericnordman5893]

Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion will locally mix colder deep water with surface water. The thermal expansion of the water will be unchanged so sea levels rises will continue as before. While there may be value in Ocean Mechanical Thermal Energy Conversion plants they will not reverse the disastrous treads.

[@petersmith4518]

A simple question, who decided the normal earth temperature? It was relatively cold in the 1800s, not so strange that it’s 1deg warmer now. It was even warmer on earth during the Middle Ages, about 1 deg warmer than at present. So what’s normal?

[@Marco-it2mr]

A simple question: why is it not strange that it is warmer now than in the 1800s? Another simple question: since when did earth in the Middle Ages only consist of those regions that show an apparent warmer period during that time? When did all those regions which had cooler periods join the earth? See www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2 to understand what I mean.

[@TheMrCougarful]

Excellent reporting.

[@sharonbryce7724]

Just discovered this channel. THankyou so much! Trying to get up to scratch on this whole existential dilemma and feeling overwhelmed. Trying to talk to friends and family. I will devour these videos.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Welcome to the gang Sharon. I hope you find the videos useful :-) All the best. Dave

[@Jeff-gq2tq]

Another excellent video, keep up the great work!

[@BHFJohnny]

How dare you present us facts and science?

[@greenhubert]

Something about you calm, rational and dead pan delivery makes this slightly more bearable... not sure why because my understanding of our shit creak improves with every video. If you get chance come see us in London next week. We are in open rebellion against the irrationality and inaction of the UK government. I'll be helping out at the Rewilding North site.... Thanks for all the bad news! If there is anybody else watching this video that can get down to London 7th oct onwards please do. It will be epic and we need your help. Love and rage

[@murraygrigg]

Awesome! I will look for your other videos on the other IPCC special reports!

[@aubreymccollam7088]

Ask the dinosaurs and mammoths about a stable climate on earth. There is no such thing as a stable climate when the earth is subject too other planets, space weather, space dust, meteors, asteriods, volcanos. Most volcanos are in oceans. Maybe somebody should ask whats interacting with the sun in space. Some kind of mass i presume.

[@paulwoods1950]

Another professional high quality info session, man you really do kick Ass, I'm a professional sustainability specialist, well versed in the science and on my game, your weekly updates are my most eagerly anticipated media viewing each week. AWESOME. In Australia, we suffer from a lying, coal carrying, insufferable, genocidal government, maybe you might like to do a round up of nations, words (policy) verses outcomes, just to remind us all why the Paris accords are just another huge joke.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Wow Paul. That's praise indeed from a professional in the field. I really appreciate your feedback! I take your point about the current shower running your country, although we're no better off in the UK right now of course! You make a good suggestion to run through the 'progress' that nations are making on their so-called Nationally Determined Contributions. They all have to come clean in 2020 in Glasgow, so I suspect there will be a flurry of activity over the next 12 months to try to make the accounts look better than they currently are. Most of them still seem to think it's a political tick-box exercise. Absolutely insane!

[@refusoagaino6824]

You said it all, better than I ever could. Now to get people to listen, while they think.

[@ramblerandy2397]

Great video, as per usual. Not much to say about this latest IPCC report, other to say bravo for the truth of the reporting. I think it might have put a firecracker under politician's backsides, this time. I sense that the response by the politicians has begun to be less than self-congratulatory, and more to be self-chastising. Previously, the only time they haven't sat on their hands is when they've been applauding each other. This time, one cannot omit the impact that a Swedish teenager, with some very choice and precise words, has had on these politicians, and should have ourselves looking at our lifestyles. All of the hot air means nothing if we don't start the process of minimising our own environmental impact. We have to stop waiting for governments and scientists to find the answer, and start to curb our own excessive behaviour. We can do our bit too, and a lot of it is down to small adjustments. JHAT has already made a video which highlights an excellent handbook to inform and guide us. _There Is No Planet B_ by Mike Berners-Lee. Every time I dip into it I see more and more things I can readily do, and I am 30 years into curbing my lifestyle: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZTQZWl5qdNjf8k&t There are other publications, but this is one I have first hand experience of, and can thoroughly recommend. And on ebay it's less than a tenner.

[@TheSpirituralWackadoo]

You only left. About only half of the data f****** sad

[@atheistconservative7860]

Not a political issue fuckface this is a human issue that goes beyond politics, I am a conservative and understand that climate change is a threat to humanity.

[@TheSpirituralWackadoo]

@@atheistconservative7860 the animals for leaders are the f****** problem. There's a whole group of scientist world-renowned that ain't Kickin It with the animals for leaders. Come have a whole different set of data the Tells a whole different story. Oh my God you can look all this stuff up. Look at NOAA data look at SoHo and Yoko. We've been monitoring the Sun since 1980. With telescopes in space. Every single one of us can look at that data. Understanding how to read it has been lost.

[@TheSpirituralWackadoo]

@@atheistconservative7860 look man I'm a scientist a hairstylist a business owner a musician a biker. Most of all I'm educated and fully awake

[@TheSpirituralWackadoo]

@@atheistconservative7860 THE SUN MICRO NOVAS AND THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING. GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM. We need these morons to come out with the truth dude so that we can get to work and work on the real issue. Magnetic pole reversal if you understand anything about the Coriolis Dynamo effect and magnetism you know what will happen. And we all know that the magnetic poles are moving rapidly 39 miles per day

[@atheistconservative7860]

@@TheSpirituralWackadoo you are not a climate scientist so your opinion means nothing. Your opinion is speculative at best. Fully awake would mean to examine the science something you obviously haven't done. Dunning Kruger effect. Sorry brother climate change deniers are basically bat shit crazy status.

[@yousifatobiya7279]

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

[@midlertidigjan]

Thanks for breaking down the report. I was missing a little more information on the impact of methane being released from the permafrost areas.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Jan. I made a video recently about Natalia Shakhova who has been studying methane hydrates on the East Siberian Ice Shelf for decades. There's much more detail in that one. Here's a link kzbin.info/www/bejne/paTQq4eJjrd9gKc

[@simplethings3730]

As a minor detail, how will this affect the cost of inland housing when things get bad enough that the 39% of the population on the coast starts moving Inland? Not just to escape rising sea levels but also hurricanes of increasing intensity. Not just the coast but also floodplains that are seeing increased rainfall. The economic impact of people having to abandon homes and businesses that no one will buy. Oil refineries tend to be located on the coast. Most of our shipping ports are on the coast😁. Coastal real estate in general tends to be high value property. You can't just move a naval base a few feet at a time as the water rises. Institutions that HAVE to be on the coast may even have to be moved more than once.

[@Jimmy4video]

The question is really about time scale. If enough major flooding events occur around the world over a short enough time period it's hard to see how this could be absorbed, financially, socially or logistically. So "cost of housing" may be irrelevant under those chaotic circumstances.

[@simplethings3730]

@@Jimmy4video what really worries me is food production. Not just here but worldwide. People do funny things when they get hungry. Hungry people with nuclear weapons can be downright hilarious.

[@JustHaveaThink]

We may eventually all need to completely re-think what we perceive of as our civilisation's current 'normal' ways of living. And that, I think, is why the world is in a collective state of denial. Just too hard for most people to countenance.

[@CynthiajKnight]

It's all very well to say we must reduce CO2 emissions but how do we do that? I have Solar panels on my home but not everywhere in the world has the infrastructure for renewable energy. We can't expect people to go without electricity or not to drive cars.

[@superkang7448]

It's not going to change the ultimate outcome but do what you can. Cut back consumption where you can, C02 footprint etc. You don't have to go back to the stone age. But if we do nothing then we are just lemmings. At least this way we can be informed lemmings.

[@williamandrews1644]

OH Please there are two reports the first IPCC report went to the government they edited the report and we the people got to read the second one the reason why the governments aint doing much is that they know the climate will change no matter what we do the question is do we have the balls to adapt that means changeing the system our way of life der

[@Ifyoudonttakeitucantfakeit]

There must be a highly secret report somewhere which our leaders see titled “ don’t bother as we can’t stop it”. Find that and perhaps people will actually do something!

[@mypetcrow9873]

The reports are there to be found if you have the brains, the tenacity and the guts. You will come upon more than one major US AND INTERNATIONAL report titled “We’re FUCKED;” yes, those words exactly.

[@Ifyoudonttakeitucantfakeit]

I’d not be surprised if this was true!

[@landcruisingdoc4137]

At 8:24, Surface Ocean pH chart you mis-labeled the chart. Instead of low acidity and high acidity you should label it as high alkalinity and low alkalinity respectively since it's not an acid until the pH is less than 7, unless you want to continue with scaremongering. BTW, if the air and ocean water are getting warmer, shouldn't the dissolved CO2 in ocean water get released into the atmosphere making the water more alkaline? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[@Marco-it2mr]

Well, that's the problem right there: if anthropogenic activity would NOT have put gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, you would indeed expect a release of CO2 from the oceans upon warming. But the increase in partial pressure of the atmosphere from our added CO2 is much larger than the increased partial pressure from the warming oceans. In other words: you get net ocean uptake. Note also that acidity refers to the the tendency of the medium to add H+ to a specific reference base. If you take ocean water at pre-industrial level as the reference base, he is right. There is nothing that says the reference base must be H2O.

[@landcruisingdoc4137]

Marco van de Weert thanks for your reply. One question on pH. Wasn’t measuring pH formalized in chemistry in early 1900s and we weren’t able to measure it routinely until 1920s? If so how do we know historic alkalinity of the ocean?

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@landcruisingdoc4137 Proxies and measurements of dissolved CO2.

[@xy-xj5gm]

The Great barrier reef is just fine according to Peter Ridd!

[@kimweaver3323]

Unfortunately, ''fine" is a relative thing, subject to opinion.

[@Brian-gk2hg]

No,, Ridd has been studying the reef for decades and it is a huge scam The outer reef is over 100 miles from the shore and pestisides etc can hardly even be counted ,, The pacific washes over the outer reef every day and the water quality is pristin,, Ridds did a very indepth scientific study on sediment which was claimed to kill the reef,, but basically there is virtualy no sediment except in some very small river estuary reef formations,,and not killing anything even close to shore,, Not even 1% of the reef so,,, So i dont thin an opinion has anything to do with Reeds scientific work,, Plus he won 1.2m AUS$ in the recent court case against the university he was employed at for 40 years,, So the idea of Universities being free places for science is just not working,,

[@kimweaver3323]

@@Brian-gk2hg The bulk of the damage is occurring due to more acidic and hotter seawater. Don't be a pollyanna, you look foolish.

[@Brian-gk2hg]

Kim,, Well you might start by taking away the acidic,, oceans are not and never will be acidic,, marine life is not suffering because of any PH fluctuations,, Now that the ocean contains 50X more co2 than the atmosphere are you maybe just waffling about things you know nothing about, in the cambrian 500m years ago the earth was abundant with tropical vegetation and dinosaurs and the co2 around 20x todays levels and they all were fine,,flourishing,, Your either an uninformed activist, a political left extremist or just swallowing the silly narrative from daily media garbage, Polar bears doing great Sea level fine etc etc

[@kimweaver3323]

@@Brian-gk2hg MORE acidic, but for the pedant, LESS BASIC. The pH IS dropping. Fact. Sufficiently to inhibit shell formation in cocolithophores and other shellfish. Read some new data, get caught up.

[@iareid8255]

Just have a think, there was a recent paper showing a sudden increase in ocean temperatures but it had to be retracted as their findings were erronous. The IPCC is increasingly getting more alarmist , based on their models, which consistently over estimate the warming. We have had decades of their models and all have been far above what was actually recorded. I respectfully suggest that you broaden you field of references as there are others wiith far more rational and fact based. Watts up with that is one excellent site with a lot of reference pages all from offical sources that do not reflect the hyperbole we get daily, not least from the BBC, the Biased Broadcasting Staion as it should be called.

[@holographicbreathing]

I really did not get what the rcp 2.6 and the rcp 8.5 were you could have spent a bit of time with that as it made all the projection pointless

[@JustHaveaThink]

It's a fair observation. We've looked at RCP's a few times over the months. I think the first time was in this program kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJvMnXmXqqmMY9k at about the 11:20 mark. RCPs are Representative Concentration Pathways, and there's 3 or 4 predictive scenarios, depending on how we respond and change our fossil fuel usage, land use and other climate impactful activities. Currently we're smack bang on the very worst case scenario pathway, which is RCP 8.5. And we're not reducing emissions, we are increasing them (largely due to China. Despite their herculean efforts to embrace renewable technologies they still get about 38% of their power from coal).

[@kenjohnson6101]

The chart @1:32 ("Annual CO2 emissions ...") is very telling, but it doesn't tell the whole story. While emissions are increasing almost everywhere, emissions in the U.S. have stabilized -- at about 3 times the global-average, per-capita emission levels. Its strong economy has been fueled by one-quarter of the cumulative atmospheric GHG emissions. You would get a very different perspective from a plot of annual per-capita emissions, or of cumulative rather than annual emissions.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Quite true. Ken. Still the world's biggest emitter along with China though.

[@AlexandreLollini]

It's a shame that such important data is skewed, they should always show temperatures relative to pre-industrial, witch is 0,3°C below 1850-1900 mean. because when you want to see the difference between two graphes or understand how thing work, you need those with same scale. We are roughly at +1.5°C relative to pre-industrial now. This drives me nuts becuse by changing the reference point you completely destroy the dates at witch it's estimated that we cross +2°C, ine the skewed graph this is after 2050, while on the unskewed one it's much earlier.

[@Mishn0]

You can always pick a good point to start a graph to prove your point. If you start it in the 1890s, we're cooler now. 1890 isn't pre-industrial, but it's a point at which man-made CO2 has basically no effect. But yet, it was hotter then!

[@AlexandreLollini]

of course but no matter the starting point THEY SHOULD ALWAYS USE THE SAME ! every time they change reference point this disrupts the common sense and the ability to correctly learn and classify data in a regular brain. In maths we invented numbers, in business we invented currency : those have in common a zero witch is a reference point, and are best used when comparing different numbers. Now if we say temperature compared to pre-industrial : this should be defined and then referred to in all relevant figures and graphs. This must be basic and robust.

[@AlexandreLollini]

around 1750-1800 should be okay, because it is after the little ice age / munder minimum and before most steam in England.

[@Mishn0]

@@AlexandreLollini That would make some sort of logical sense, wouldn't it? But, that's not what the climate alarmists are interested in. They want to make it look as dire as possible in order to obtain "research" grants. (no one would fund a study titled, "Everything's fine, the climate is the same as it's always been", now, would they?) Also, without the populace driven to panicking all over the place, how can the powerful justify grabbing even more power in the name of "saving the planet"?

[@AlexandreLollini]

Most efforts to "save the planet" or "trajectory change", even the void created by stopping an action needs energy and ressources, thus accelerating the problems. Because energy is the ability to make change to a system. Even the most extreme switch to nothingness and return to middle age renewables would require energy between states of that system. And then with an even greater problem, we would have to face it with less population and productive systems. The most missing ressource is TIME : on a planet where everyone need 100% of time (no holidays, no retirement) to care about food and soil, there is no space for industry, science, procrastination, advertising, banking, etc. Today we have time for this and that because machines do the job and we are well fed. You can not succeed in a sizeable garden if you do not dedicate your time to it thus making you less available to study etc.

[@DoctorDARKSIDE]

I'm just learning about all this science and I was wondering about what other independent reports there are aside from the IPCC's?

[@thathobbitlife]

You can go to pbs eons and they have Lots of videos filled with lots of links to independent reports. Lots of nature and science magazines and/or websites all have scientific data available to review or links to view more.

[@bryanchannell7715]

Thanks again bro

[@TN-pw2nl]

At 3:28 you show a quick video of the polar ice cap shrinking rapidly. Can you explain the length of time that covered? Was that just normal summer melt, not showing the normal increase during winter? If so, that is deceptive, especially to gullible teenagers.

[@iancampbell6925]

Never mind teenagers, its taught to 4 year olds

[@TN-pw2nl]

At the same time as the melting ice cap, he showed a calving glacier, which is normal, but a gullible teenager will think it’s horrible, lose all hope, and then give a speech at the United Nations.

[@leax_Flame]

I doubt this report will do much to convince most of the deniers but I remain hopeful. I live in Florida, not near the coast thankfully, and the constant fear of hurricanes is rough. I can’t imagine how the island nations are feeling.

[@Mishn0]

Hurricanes are less of an issue now than they were 100 years ago if you consult the actual data. The dollar value of damage is way up but that's because of far more people living in hurricane affected areas, not the strength or frequency of the hurricanes. They're now actually NAMING tropical depressions to make it seem more frequent. Next they'll be naming cloudy days...

[@ambientac7795]

There have always been Hurricanes!

[@francoispellicaan8538]

Humanity is faltering. It is entering a time of great travail. It is entering a time where the fruits of its ignorance and competition and conflict will bear out. It is a time where people will have to choose whether they will unite and cooperate to save their communities and their nation or whether they will fight and struggle and maintain their ancient animosities, using politics and religion as a pretense, when in fact it is a struggle for resources. ~ From the book The New World by Marshall Vian Summers (free available online)

[@davehendricks4824]

Anybody done a study on what the effects will be on stress of the earths crust, due to the redistribution of the weight of water after ice melt?

[@davehendricks4824]

grindupBaker 😂😂😂👍

[@doritoification]

I always wondered if it could ever be viable to recycle plastics into floating reflective artificial ice burgs and just letting them loose in the arctic. It's a bit of a crude solution with obvious drawbacks but doesn't seem too far fetched either. Pretty simple way to create some extra albedo cooling for centuries to come

[@Jimmy4video]

I'm not a fan of dimming from space, but I'd pick that over dumping tonnes of plastic in the arctic.

[@doritoification]

@@Jimmy4video whats wrong with dimming from space? Other than cost

[@h2opower]

Here is the science those that sell energy don't want the world to see: Mitchell's Theorem - "All Molecules can be separated into their component atoms by taking away the electrons from the atoms that make up the molecules." Basically what is being done to break the bonds of the water molecules is mimicking the way a thunderstorm works. By subjecting the water molecules to a high voltage potential difference the atoms that make up the molecules start to eject their electrons. This process produces hydrogen, oxygen, and electricity as those electrons don't go along with the hydrogen and oxygen gases that are created but stay in the medium. A cloud is a capacitor and this charges up that capacitor to the point where it will make lightening strikes and also spark ignite the hydrogen when it reaches the top of the cloud creating the ground shaking thunder we can feel and hear. This is not electrolysis as like a thunderstorm only high voltage potentials are used to perform the work of breaking the bonds of the water molecules. The technology has been shown to actually clean the air as engines are ran on hydrogen: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXvRZmyfq7ejh7M

[@JP212nyc]

and your point is ... !?

[@h2opower]

@@JP212nyc My point is simple with this technology we have the ability to reverse the damage we have done to our atmosphere and as a bonus no longer need to pay for energy ever again.

[@percyhigginbottom7155]

Clear, accurate and frightening. I fear it may be too late to avert disaster.

[@paulwoods1950]

Ps how can I send you a video of my efforts at Finniss SOS project (sustainability on steroids)

[@donfields1234]

Do you have a website? You peaked my interest, always interested in new/different etc ideas, tactics, thoughts

[@JustHaveaThink]

Not quite yet Don. I've got one that's sort of half ready, but not quite quite complete, and I want to make sure I can maintain it properly once it's launched, which in all honesty with a very busy full time job, as well as the channel, I'm not sure I would be able to achieve as well as I would want. I'm planning to reduce my working week from 5 days to 4 at some point in 2020 so I hope to really turbo charge the JHAT thing then with a website, probably a Patreon page with an extra news roundup programme each week, and may be even a podcast. Fingers crossed, and watch this space...

[@AlexandreLollini]

Altitude ice loss vs river flow is the shortest term killer, addressing this in a world of collapsed banks can be easier, or not?

[@globaljobber]

I'm neutral on all this, am not a climate warming denier, am an environmentalist and vegan, but also don't want to be led by mass histeria - which appears to be happening. Yes we all see clearly that glaciers are melting fast, etc., however I want proven facts. The earth could be warming due to natural cycles too you know - but this fact may be being hidden from us due to political aims! The IPCC has its critics who claim that it bases its reports on non-factual science due to its own political aims. I have seen it's reports, as everyone has, but also took it upon myself to see what the other side says. The 'other side' to my surprise says CO2 does not affect climate warming, and which is (to my surprise) in fact beneficial for this planet! They also produce science apparently backed up by open research which anyone can view for themselves. The IPCC on the other hand, does not have the same openness I find. Additionally, the 'other side' has plenty of evidence showing how climate data has been badly collected and put together, including throwing cold water on the so called 97% of scientists who claim to agree what we are doing is affecting the earths climate. As said, I simply want to know the truth, and from what I have found so far, it seems we are not all being told the truth, and it does look like people are being used to push a political agenda. Just posted this so throw a cat amongst the pigeons :0) We need to think for ourselves and not be led by mass histeria and panic.

[@markstaddon4993]

The sunpower looks stronger is my personal observation. People get more skincancer ,the eye's of some animals are affected. And I can feel it .

[@markstaddon4993]

@grindupBaker Its based on a long year observations memorable timetable

[@l.r.norris6519]

Molten salt reactors

[@frankblack1185]

L.R. Norris What ? Never heard that before.

[@Flumstead]

@@frankblack1185 Where have you been all these years?...call yourself a science junkie?????

[@frankblack1185]

Flumstead So what is it then ? Seeing as how you seem to profess to be a font of all scientific knowledge.

[@frankblack1185]

Flumstead It seems you have no idea either then . . . .

[@hightechredneck8587]

​@@frankblack1185 It is a style of Gen 3 and Gen 4 Nuclear Reactor capable of running on thorium or uranium. It is a highly stable breeder style reactor with a design that is physically incapable of catastrophic meltdown due to a combination of fuel suspended in coolant and a little invention called the frozen salt plug. Additionally it runs at a very high temperature and almost atmospheric pressure which means high efficiency and no risk of thermal explosion (ie Chernobyl). The Gen 4 variant is so efficient in its breeding process that they say it is capable of even running on nuclear waste, but alternatively, if they fueled it with a high grade fuel it would be able to cycle and refuel itself for the entire life of the plant ~80 years. Not to mention by operating at "Very High" temperatures it can be dual purpose and also produce an environmentally stable hydrogen without use of fossil fuels. In other words damn near perfect.

[@mayflowerlash11]

Has the biosphere and the organisms in it, worked to capture and store huge amounts of carbon in buried coal, oil and gas, and permafrost and in the ocean as carbonic (sic) acid and in the flora of the forests during the recent 100 million years? And has mankind managed to unintentionally release these huge stores in the last 200 years?

[@mayflowerlash11]

@grindupBaker Of course you're right, coal was forming back in the Carboniferous, I should have known that. But my point was that Gaia, or the biosphere, or what ever you want to call the living part of this planet, may have been systematically (but not consciously) storing away C so that the environment was more suitable for life to evolve.

[@MtnHarp]

This is a great video series. Congratulations on it, and thanks. What you say late in the video concerning the IPCC report’s discussion of extreme sea level events is entirely accurate, but the way you put it might give a false impression: that the IPCC projects that sea level extremes occurring historically only once per century will become annual events in the intermediate term only under the high emissions/business as usual scenario RCP 8.5. The report’s Summary for Policymakers states at section B3.4, “Local sea levels that historically occurred once per century (historical centennial events) are projected to occur at least annually at most locations by 2100 ***under all RCP scenarios (high confidence).*** Many low-lying megacities and small islands (including SIDS) are projected to experience historical centennial events at least annually by 2050 ***under RCP.2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5.”*** In other words, the IPCC projects that many highly populated coastal metropolises will soon be hammered on an annual basis by what is now considered the hundred year sea level event whether the world succeeds in reining in its carbon emissions or not.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi GB. Indeed yes. Thank you for adding this detail. Fair comment. All the best. Dave