The Paris Agreement is a global agreement that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to global climate change goals. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are self-defined commitments made by countries to reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change. These NDCs detail each country’s plans to reduce emissions and contribute to global goals on climate change. In 2021, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement and set an ambitious NDC to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 in 2030.
Britain has pledged to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 68 by 2030, compared with 1990 levels. The 27 members of the European Union have also pledged to reduce their emissions. Chad submitted its revised NDC in October 2021, aiming to reduce emissions by 19.3 by 2030 compared to the business-as-usual scenario. The revised NDC covers both mitigation and adaptation targets in the energy, agriculture, forestry, land use, and waste sectors.
Chad’s revised NDC commits to a 19.3 reduction in its GHG emissions by 2030, focusing on water, agriculture/agroforestry, and a climate resilient low-carbon development pathway. It started working on its National Adaptation Plan (NAP) in 2018 with full-size project funding of $US 27 million from the Global Environment Facility. As part of this process, Chad developed its first national climate change adaptation plan in synergy with updates to its nationally determined contributions.
Chad has updated its first NDC, lowering its greenhouse gas emission reduction target from 71 to 19.3 of the target. NDCs embody efforts by each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
📹 Advancing the Energy Transition in Central Asia through Nationally Determined Contributions
IRENA in collaboration with UK COP26 Presidency, has organized a series of Regional Expert Meetings on Climate Change, …
What are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases?
Fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and gas, are the primary contributors to global climate change, accounting for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions trap the sun’s heat, leading to global warming and climate change. The world is currently warming faster than ever before, altering weather patterns and disrupting the natural balance, posing risks to humans and all life forms on Earth.
Most electricity is generated by burning coal, oil, or gas, which produces carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, which trap the sun’s heat. Over a quarter of electricity comes from renewable sources like wind and solar. Manufacturing and industry also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, with machines used in manufacturing often running on coal, oil, or gas. The manufacturing industry is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
What are the top 3 countries contributing to climate change?
China, the US, Russia, and India are major contributors to methane emissions, with Turkmenistan having the highest per capita emissions, primarily from fugitive emissions. Countries with large livestock populations and significant agricultural production, like New Zealand and Mongolia, also contribute to methane emissions. For more information on climate change, refer to the data stories and visualizations in the thirteenth Atlas story.
Why is Chad the worst country to live in?
Chad is facing significant poverty and vulnerability, with 42. 3 of the population living below the national poverty line. Extreme poverty has risen significantly, with the World Bank’s Human Capital Index for the country at 0. 30. A child born today will be 70 less productive as an adult than one with quality education and health services. One in five children will not reach five, and 40 suffer from stunted growth, posing long-term cognitive development risks.
Chadian children spend an average of just five years in school between ages 4 and 18. The country also has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality, exacerbated by the high number of early pregnancies.
Which 3 countries are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases today?
Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, there has been a notable increase in carbon dioxide emissions, predominantly resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels. The three countries with the highest levels of emissions are China, the United States, and the European Union. When emissions per capita are considered, the United States and Russia have the highest rates. The majority of global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to a relatively limited number of countries.
What is a Nationally Determined Contribution NDC?
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are commitments made by countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as part of climate change mitigation. These commitments include policies and measures to achieve global targets set out in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to keep global surface temperature rise below 2°C (3. 6°F) above pre-industrial levels, with a limit of 1. 5°C. To achieve this, emissions need to be reduced as soon as possible and by as much as possible.
To stay below 1. 5°C, emissions need to be cut by around 50 by 2030, taking into account each country’s documented pledges or NDCs. The Paris Agreement requires each of the 193 Parties to prepare, communicate, and maintain NDCs outlining their intentions to achieve, which must be updated every five years. NDCs are more committed but not legally binding, unlike the non-binding intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that were voluntary pledges made by countries prior to the Paris Agreement in 2015.
Which country contributes the most to global warming per capita?
China is the largest emitter of climate pollution, but the average American is responsible for nearly twice as much. India, one of the world’s largest polluters, has significantly lower per capita emissions than the global average. As climate chaos accelerates, scientists are warning that time is running out to cut fossil fuels. Climate Action Tracker data reveals the amount of pollution in 2022, the biggest polluters, and the progress needed to prevent a “climate catastrophe”.
What is NDC benefits?
NDC is a digital transformation strategy that allows airlines to sell their products directly to travelers, allowing them to gain insights into customer preferences and behavior. This direct distribution model allows airlines to offer personalized travel experiences while maintaining control over their offerings. NDC also allows airlines to showcase their ancillary products and services more effectively, generating additional revenue streams and improving their bottom line. NDC’s flexibility also facilitates cross-selling and upselling opportunities, with ancillary revenue reaching $102. 8 billion in 2022.
Dynamic pricing and offer customization are another key benefits of NDC. It allows airlines to implement dynamic pricing strategies, tailoring fares and offers based on individual customer profiles and market conditions. This flexibility optimizes revenue and maximizes the value of each customer transaction. NDC also supports a seamless and personalized booking experience for travelers, fostering loyalty and building stronger relationships.
The necessity of NDC adoption is highlighted by changing customer expectations, providing a competitive advantage, and optimizing costs associated with distribution. Early adopters of NDC can differentiate themselves in a crowded market and gain a competitive edge by offering innovative products and services. By reducing reliance on third-party intermediaries, airlines can streamline operations, eliminate unnecessary fees, and allocate resources more efficiently.
Is Chad trying to improve air pollution?
Chad has joined the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to increase its efforts to reduce short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), particularly black carbon. The Ministry of Environment, Water and Fishery is looking to increase its SLCP mitigation activities in sectors such as municipal solid waste, transport, agriculture, household energy, industry, and oil and gas. In 2020, Chad finalized its first integrated national emission inventory on SLCPs, greenhouse gases, and air pollutants, with the support of the Coalition, enhancing capacity for national planning for SLCP mitigation.
Which country has reduced carbon emissions the most?
Sweden is leading the energy transition, aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 59 by 2030 and achieve a net-zero carbon economy by 2045. Other countries leading the race to net zero include Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. The Paris Agreement, signed at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015, commits 196 parties to a legally binding climate action treaty.
Since then, countries have implemented measures to limit global average temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1. 5°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that limiting global warming to 1. 5°C requires a 43-percent decline in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
What are the national NDC contributions?
An NDC is a climate action plan established by each Party to the Paris Agreement, which sets targets for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate impacts. These plans outline how to achieve these targets and elaborate systems for monitoring progress. Climate finance is crucial for implementing these plans, and NDCs should detail a financing strategy. The Paris agreement requires countries to update their NDCs every five years, but due to the large gap between the required emissions cuts and the current plans, the Glasgow Climate Pact in November 2021 called for all countries to revisit and strengthen their targets in 2022. Each new round of updates is expected to increase ambition through steeper emissions cuts and more expansive adaptation measures.
Why is Chad the most climate vulnerable country?
Chad, one of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), is highly vulnerable to climate change, with about 75% of its territory being desert. The country faces periodic droughts, floods, and locust plagues, which have accelerated desertification in the northern part of the country, causing agro-pastoral areas to decline and livestock grazing areas to shift further south. Drought and overuse have also contributed to the drying up of Lake Chad, a large freshwater lake located at the confluence of Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Niger.
Climate studies predict that Chad will become increasingly hot and arid in the 21st century, resulting in lower crop yields, worse pasture, and a harder life for those dependent on Lake Chad. Since the 1970s, Chad has experienced an increase in mean annual temperature of 0. 7°C, which is projected to increase by 1. 0-3. 4°C by the 2060s. Low yields and declining harvests are exacerbated by weak forecasting, preparedness, response, and adaptation.
Lake Chad, once one of Africa’s largest freshwater bodies, has shrunk by 90% between the 1960s and the 1990s due to overuse, mismanagement, and climate change. The Lake Chad Basin region is facing one of the world’s greatest humanitarian crises.
📹 NEW STUDY : Greenland is melting seven times faster than 30 years ago.
There’s been debate and dispute in recent years over whether Greenland, and Antarctica, are genuinely losing ice mass. But now …
30 years ago the UN said that the Maldives would be the first victims of global warming and rising sea levels (1 to 2.5 m above sea level). Now we’re at that 30 year prediction and the Maldives are actually growing in land mass and inhabitants. I am not saying that we cannot treat our host better but these predictions come and go. I think that we’re just witnessing and recording planet earth as it evolves. Humans are only a tiny speck in the earths timeline.
The 7.5% per year reduction is based on the artificially warm baseline 1950s. When compared to the 1750 pre-industrial baseline we are already at 1.4C. Micheal E Mann acknowledged this and agreed a reduction of 15% per year is needed along with negative emmisions to have even a possibility to reach the 1.5C goal. Please like to get this into the next vid. TIA
I think many people fail to quite grasp the immediacy and enormity of what we are facing. I live in eastern NSW and in the last 4 weeks over 20% of our natural forests have gone up in smoke and it’s not even summer yet. These are the worst fires ever recorded in Australia. Many people have lost their homes. We didn’t burn here but the fire got into the Norther suburbs. We are constantly blanketed in smoke just to remind us of what is happening. We are in the grip of the worst drought on record and next week we are going to have the worst heatwave. By Friday of this week parts of the state will reach 50 °C. We are forecast to get 37 °C here. If this carries on for another year and looking at the weather patterns it looks like it will, we will become climate refugees, forced to move to Tasmania or NZ to survive the summers. I leave you to imagine all the knock on effects to land prices, agriculture, infrastructure, government debt and hundreds of other things I don’t know about. There is absolutely no up side to this. You say humans will adapt and for a few this may be true, but millions will face financial ruin followed by starvation.
4:14 – “this year Greenland’s ice loss amounts to 370 billion tons” (370,000,000,000). That’s a hard number to understand. So I divided it by 12 months.. then by 30 days.. and by 24 hours, by 60 minutes, and 60 seconds. That’s better! Only .0000118 billion tons. Wait a minute.. that’s still 11800 tons. Your average elephant weighs say.. 6 tons. If you do the math that is darned close to 2,000 elephants a second throwing themselves into the sea every second! Imagine, a vast herd of elephants pushing and shoving, bellowing and trumpeting, stamping and shitting all on their way off the ice, off into the sea.. This isn’t natural. We can’t ignore this.
Flashback: 1980 “Ice age has Begun, North America and Europe will be uninhabitable by year 2000” “Mass extinction of Arctic wildlife inevitable as Sea Ice grows thicker” “Another year without a summer in the arctic as sea ice grows year round” Question is, What happened? We were told this was inevitable. cyclical to do with orbital variations and the wobble of the earth on its axis and was “Overdue”
At what point must we ask, does democracy need to be temporarily suspended in order to successfully battle climate change. I think we need a scientific dictatorship to take control for at least the next 10-30 years if we are to avoid this. I love democracy, but I cannot see any way that democracies can adequately respond to this problem.
We will end up decarbonizing (possibly faster than even the most radical environmentalists demand) in a chaotic way. What’s going on with global agriculture at the moment is still unclear, but I suspect we won’t need a full blown BOE to shake the foundations of our civilisation. What happened in the US and Australia this year was already pretty scary and you can’t trust the markets to give an indication of how bad things are.
I do not see a path in today’s political environment to reduce CO2 emissions to a safe level. All I can do is reduce my own impact. Which I have done. I live In a small energy efficient home with solar panels. I drive EVs. And I limit my meat intake. The rest is up to politicians. And I expect nothing from them. So I vote.
What information can you offer regarding long-term history of ice mass on Greenland and Antarctica? We know that Viking colonies existed on Greenland ~11 centuries ago, then disappeared when Greenland got colder again. Quoting a graph of ice mass over the last ~14 years amounts to an extended weather review, not a climate report. Even the IPCC recognizes that climate trends require at least 30 years of data.
I appreciate what you’re doing with these articles. I shared this one to Facebook and said: I made the statement the other day that climate change would put hundreds of millions and probably even billions of people at risk, all around the globe, including here in the US. That probably sounds alarmist, until you look at the facts. This guy’s YouTube website is one of the best I’ve found for a rational, dispassionate and highly intelligent presentation of the science behind all of these things. This particular article is a year old but he’s got current articles and articles from several years ago. He’s been steadily examining all the angles of global warming for a long time, looking at what is being done, what isn’t, what the scenarios are, explaining the science behind all of it, letting people know what they can expect, all without any type of emotional cries of “save the planet”. If you’re looking for a rational take on climate change, you won’t find anything better than this guy.
As a friend of mine said a while back… “Its a race to the edge of the petri dish” implying that we have no control over ourselves and that once the resources have been wasted it gets very ugly. Right now our leaders our failing us spectacularly. My guess is, when the arctic ice sheet does go things happen far more swiftly and those countries that are fairly miss-managed – India for example – will be the first to fail due to lack of food. We are,all of us, in for a very wild ride 🙁
Another excellent article. I really do fear for future generations (I’m 59 so may not see the worst effects of global warming) and I wonder why the message is not getting through, not just to politicians but to the people that elect them. I really like the way your articles are presented but I’m a career scientist (retired biologist) so I’m used to understanding feedback loops, looking at graphs and extrapolating from data sets to predict future outcomes. I fear that “joe public” has insufficient science education to do this so while you do a great job I am concerned that you might not be reaching enough people. I wish I had a clever suggestion to make that would help but I don’t at this time. I will let you know if I think of something.
Dear Simon, Thank you for your great articlecasts. What is probably the main reason climate control mechanisms have stalled is that everyone needs to heat their homes and there isn’t anything out there that can turn things around to use renewable energies right now. The politicians speak government and they know they have two dials they can turn: Turn up the volume on the climate activists, give them a nod and a listen. Turn down the dial on doing anything but practical things. People are losing jobs like there’s no tomorrow; they agree things are out of control but cannot do much more
Hey Bro I am calling it! and didn’t really want to mention and alarm people but all the trees here in south west Western Australia are dying or dead not sure if it is the dry or the wifi. Is there any scientist who may want to do a bit of a study. I mean everywhere I look now dead trees small ones, big ones, gumtrees, all sorts of trees in the city of Perth as well. I am thinking of doing a bit of doco on it somehow but might need help. Bro get the word out it is happening right before our eyes but everyone has there head bowed to the phone, look up and have a look. I wonder if we are a bit or a barometer, for what is coming.
with the uk electing an idiot, leaving the EU and general “meh” attitude to the climate crisis doing just the bare minimum to make it look like they are doing something plus the attitude of various governments around the world its hard to see any hope for the world. There are great things going on in the world, which mostly seem to be empowered by Elon Musk, the rest of the time its horribly depressing to see the direct we are going!
Nice summary! Permafrost melting and outgassing, however, along with the wildfire increase, looks set to push the net CO2 emissions over the tipping point even if fossil fuel use is rapidly curtailed, and there is very little indication that fossil fuel use will decline over the next decade in any major economy. It might be time to admit that the trigger has been pulled, and start thinking about how to pull back from the coastlines.
I often wonder how much the oceans will expand especially when deep crevices like marianas trench or the general deep ocean heat up even a degree since often the temperatures will be close to freezing. Lake Nyos disaster was a real eye opener to me when I associated carbonic acid stratification in a water column along with other gasses perhaps one of the reasons we see dramatic changes in ocean levels due to degassing perhaps related to temperature. Is the water column above dense enough to maintain pressure?
Thanks for the interesting summary from the CoP discussions. I think that if there will be real action to reduce co2 emissions it we be by households, villages, districts etc, and those large corporations with intelligent leadership, taking it upon themselves to ignore their lily livered National leaders and cut emissions for their areas. Will there be enough such local actions though?
As extremely frustrated I am after shouting this WARNING since the mid 90s, this is my question at this point. WHY do I still watch these? NO one is listening to me, I’m stressed out every time I see that all the warnings and coming true. What can we do that can make a significant difference? I’m thinking, I need a beer.
People think everything is always going to stay the same, that your guaranteed to have the same job with the same pay forever, that will have enough food without any food shortages, that earth isn’t allowed to shift weather patterns from this part to another part, there’s no set guarantees, everything changes, seeds are planted, and everything grows
Sometimes the doom and gloom can seem overwhelming. Have just read a report on the extent to which the oil and gas industry in the USA are lobbying State governments and Utilities to stop rolling out so many EV public charging points. Of course they want to keep burning fossil fuels for as long as possible. Yet into the mid-winter darkness here is a beam of light. ‘Wells, Wires and Wheels’ is a report by BNP Paribas, a hard nose look at the economics of investing in oil to power vehicles or renewable energy to power EVs. Makes for interesting and encouraging reading. docfinder.bnpparibas-am.com/api/files/1094E5B9-2FAA-47A3-805D-EF65EAD09A7F
Serious comment:- I live just on the 10 metre line, a predicted line for sea level rise. Whilst I could call my house ‘Beach Cottage’ in the future my route to the open sea would be through Portsmouth and Hayling Island, both of which are in the process of spending large amounts of money to mitigate the effects of sea level rise. Would it make more sense to plan big, to build a bund between Selsey and the Isle of Wight, together with one between the Needles and Old Harry to protect a much greater area, and reclaim land to house the millions of refugees that will hit the UK in about 40 years time?
This so called huge amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere which sustains all plant and algae on the Land and in the Sea is currently at 0.041% of the Atmosphere or 410 parts per million whereas Oxygen is over 20% or over 200,000 parts per million, we are in more danger of CO2 dropping below 150 parts per million and “starving” plant life than the effects of this almost trace gas has as a Greenhouse gas. I support every effort to clean the Land, Sea and Air, but although this is beneficial for all and makes the World a better place we cannot control the Climate which is driven by Planetary and Solar factors way above our ability to control!
Our Australian leader Scott Morrison, has his head stuck firmly in sand. His arrogance will not let him see what others are saying. His concern is for what the big end of town wants, they need to lean heavily on him. But they need an increasing population if they are going to have increasing profits, so they will not do anything. If they could do nothing when 10 years ago when it was easier, how can they do it now when there will be greater disruption.
The real reasons why the Planet is warming are mainly twofold,the cyclic warming caused by the Sun and the fact that we have had a huge hiatus in Super volcanic activity. Normally a Super Volcano erupts around every 60 years and knocks the Planet temperature back about 2C as happened twice in 19 th Century,Pinaturbo and Krakatoa, but we haven’t had one for nearly 150 years. When we do everyone will be moaning about how cold it is and crop yields will be terrible causing starvation in many parts of the world.
Don’t worry our leaders just decided in the COP25 meeting that next year they will solve the problem. You know what they say try and try again untill you succeed. Also they say there is always next year. And when you try something 26 times there is more chance of success than when you only try 25 times.
Melting of ice cap is also an opportunity. The meltwater could used for hydropower plants on Greenland. Off course the hydropower plants should be built first on Greenland. There is enough meltwater to provide Greenland with 100% renewable energy and export electricity to Europe with submarine power cables or by producing synthetic fuels like hydrogen or ammonia.
It’s the big money in the political realm here in the US that is stalling change. I think what could help would be adopting the Swiss form of government, allowing citizens to amend our Constitution by popular vote, and then pen into law the necessary changes to limit influence by a wealthy minority, thus allowing honest representatives to prevail. We could even state the right to have a healthy environment, essential for all life.
I try to have hope…always….*but* with the US, China and India refusing to participate sensibly in talks, with the western world giving right-wing politics more and more power, and with the simplest negotiations failing…it is clear that humanity (or at least those in charge) has no intention of really changing anything in time to save the planet. I fear it will take truly catastrophic events involving the deaths of many thousands of people to force global leaders to take the critical steps necessary. Greed for wealth and power, as ever, shape humanity. And that, ultimately, will be our downfall. I’m so sorry for every wonderful species unfortunate enough to share this short time that humans have been active on our beautiful planet. We will annihilate them as we annihilate ourselves. Those in power and with enormous wealth have no intention whatsoever of giving up their status, and as long as that is the case – as long as humans tolerate the huge inequality between rich and poor and the living standards that result – we will never see change. While right wing politics dominates powerful nations, that inequality will only continue to get worse. It is utterly devastating that we truly could have lived peaceably on Earth and enjoyed a wonderful life…but instead we chose economics and capitalism and greed, and we have doomed the human race and every other large species here with us. (Edited for clarity)
It’s hard for people to imagine future events realistically – Strike 1 It’s harder to get people to sacrifice (comfort) for strangers – Strike 2 -Even if people did the items above, it’s impossible* for anybody to appreciate things that DIDN’T happen – Strike 3 (*at least in this case) Sorry, just sayin’….
Just think of how devastating this was to people who lived in the Mediterranean and Black Sea areas when the world warmed after the ice age. Many civilizations are under water. This has been going on for a long time. Man may be accelerating it, but we can’t stop it. Only mother earth, the sun and the universe is in control here and where it ends nobody knows. I consider it as the seas cleaning and re-fertilizing the land.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING, (that is not talked about in the news): 1. Microwaves, like the ones generated in a microwave oven, primarily vibrate water molecules in the food or drink in the oven. Vibrating atoms and molecules is considered ‘heat’. 2. Humans have been dumping microwaves into the atmosphere ever since they figured out those waves existed and how to utilize them, even sending them all the way up to satellites and back. 3. Here again, microwaves vibrate water molecules. 4. Moisture in the atmosphere, snow capped mountains, glaciers, polar ice caps, oceans, would all have water in them in one form or another, would all have their water molecules vibrated, generating ‘heat’, which would also contribute to the melting of snow and ice and all that follows in our apparent cause and effect state of existence. 5. Humans are also causing climate change due to microwave usage in the atmosphere. * Who’s willing to give up all their microwave driven communication devices? I’m thinking not many. Guess what happens next. (And this does not even address what nature itself is going to do to this Earth and species upon this Earth).
I can’t help but sense that this civilization is about to or already has walked off the cliff and taking most every living thing on the planet along in our demise. As a global Ego of humanity we just can’t see the facts in front of our very eyes. I wish the planet a complete recovery in our passing. 😞
I suspect that the feedback loops have already begun. There was a big release of methane from around the area of Barrow, Alaska in August of last year. This is the feared result of an ice free arctic. Look for more releases of methane from permafrost late next summer. People who are clamoring for action in the way of cuts to carbon emissions likely don’t understand the positive feedback loops, but it’s just first year science at a decent university. I suppose that those with kids and grandkids need to assuage their conscious.
We are on the horns of a dilemma. If we cut back on energy production we court catastrophe as great as if we just go on burning fossil fuels. Let’s determine for once and for all whether or not if fusion is possible as an energy source. If yes then we need to put 50 times the resources into it to make it a reality within 5 to 10 years. If no then we need to build hundreds of fission reactors across the globe. Solar, wind, etc. is woefully inadequate. Unfortunately, those who are most passionate about the subject think otherwise.
I have been thinking, which is of course the purpose of your youtube website :). And I thougth: the sealevel is rising (fact) and the space we use for agroculture is converting into soil with less biomass so it can soak up less water. Can we, as humans, if we change ALL our agroculture land into regenerative agroculture, lower the sealevel by storing more water into our soil. I think we can store a TON of water, say if we can change human-made-deserts back into the original landscape and vegetation on top of all our agroculture land. I would love to hear from you!
Scientists have estimated that most species on this planet (including plants) will have to “move” faster than 1,000 metres per year if they are to keep within the climate zone which they need for survival. Many species will not be able to redistribute themselves fast enough to keep up with the coming changes. These species, as far as we know given present knowledge, may well become extinct.
“John Hall”: Why do you say the Greenland ice sheet is melting 7 times faster than one specific year and Antarctica is melting 3 times faster than another different specific year. How about showing us charts for total ice every year data is available? ———- It isn’t for “one specific year” so you are simply incorrect and not bothering to educate yourself on what it is. It’s 7 mm / decade for 2008-2017 versus 1 mm / decade for 1993-2002 so it’s 7x for 9-year averages. Paradoxically you are correct that the “7x” is infotainment (even though it’s correct and in the source document) for 3 reasons that I’m not detailing until I can locate a Jason Box paper I’ve read. One obvious reason though is that if 1993-2002 had happened to be 0 mm / decade instead of 1 mm / decade then the correct headline would need to be “Greenland now losing ice at an infinitely faster rate than the 1990s so will be ice all gone before tea time today !”. That’s the underlying unscientific stupidity of this infotainment reporting method that I realized the instant that I saw it. It’s uninformative is the issue with it.
Solution: give up grass lawns and plant some bushes and small trees EVERYONE! put the blame on the engineers that created the mechanics fueled by hydrocarbons. By encouraging them monetarily to create and operate atmosphere emission scrubbing devices. Bring back wild cattle grazing and reverse desertification.
This article mentions some days when there was a lot of ice loss in Greenland, but somehow forgets to mention the days when there has been a massive increase, due to very heavy snow storms recently. This is the kind of propaganda put out by the BBC and Guardian which regularly try to give a false impression. Why does the article not mention the two Greenland glaciers which are currently growing in size? When you consider the total amount of ice in Greenland, even at the highest rate of loss mentioned, it would take in the region of 10,000 years for it to all melt. By then the earth will be well into the next ice age and anyone alive then will look back at the current alarmism with incredulity. Ice gain and loss is cyclical as can be seen by going back in time. A regular poster by the name of Tony Heller puts out information that shows how journalists and so called client scientists attempt to deceive by being very selective with their starting points. It seems clear that they have an agenda. Could it be to keep their funding going? Anyone interested in pursuing a more balanced view could start with the following two articles. Tony Heller quotes recognised institutions and newspaper reports from the past. youtube.com/watch?v=2tdqsNivoMs youtube.com/watch?v=ieDl06jLLfY
Interesting content…….I struggle to understand the failure of all countries to make any attempt to re-forest the vast tracts of unused land all around the globe, as an essential part of challenging climate change…..While the world looks on in dismay at Brazil’s obsession with destroying the Amazon rain forest.
Question: “How do we prepare our grandchildren for the coming climate change of tomorrow?” Part of the answer is easy—- ESTABLISH PROPER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS FOR ALL EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES along with the realization that their products are far more likely to become plastics and roads rather than fuel for prime movers of economies in the future. Extraction industries have taken up a disproportionate space in our financial, economic, and political spheres in whatever country you would like to talk about. Many countries like the US treat the extraction industries using a “Lassies-faire Capitalism under God ” approach as long as they keep themselves out of trouble. The cash cows of extraction— the oil companies—- are all seeing what we are seeing: a future of alternate and renewable resources cutting ever so much more deeply into profits every year. The sense of urgency we used to see from the Koch Brothers in politics was not about grand ideological aspirations but about selling the assets in the ground at the highest prices possible before the ball game is over. In California; energy displacement from alternate and renewable energy is actually displacing coal generated electricity to the summer tune of over 75,000 tons a day (see Cal Iso Reports). The way to stop the consumption of fossil fuels and the extraction industries is to put a stop to their ability to make money through market actions, legislative measures, taxes, lawsuits, and boycotts. Imagine some fat-cat smoking a cigar with his feet up on his desk with a cowboy hat — that is a sample of what it is many of us are going to continue to be fighting over the remainder of this century.
So sea level rise of 17 cm by 2100 means we should double or triple what we pay for energy? Why not just let these folks know they may need to move to higher ground in the next couple of generations? If they are truly among the world’s poorest, who would want to keep them locked out of the progress that the rest of the globe is experiencing? If they are wealthy it’s their problem they overdeveloped the beach. He did not mention that current IPCC published levels of sea rise are currently at .3 mm per year, or 2.4 cm extrapolated out to 2100, which seems much more believable than attempts to measure ice volume. Is there anyone on the alarmist side of this thing that uses real, hard info and data??
More hand-wringing over nothing, more citing of projections as reality, more citing of 2019 stats on the Greenland Mass Balance without mentioning 2017 and 2018; more thinking that climate only started in the past 30 or 40 years, never considering that the data starts with a very cold period in the northern hemisphere, no understanding of cycles, more appealing to authority without a citation for such statements, more assuming that if some weather happens, it must be AGW. Well done, comrade.
To talk about Greenland melting and not talk about the oscillations of climate variability, seems intellectually disingenuous. These well documented and accepted long term changes in our climate, including the 100.000 year problem, millennial, centennial and decadal oscillations, form a pivotal role in our scant understanding of the climate.
This inability to agree to reduce CO2 indicates to me that we need to have a low cost zero CO2 emitting substitution to current energy needs. The only such source of such energy I can think of is nuclear energy. There are currently reactor designs that have have the potential to greatly reduce the cost and increase the practicability of using nuclear power. We really need to invest into the development of these new reactors since once developed the low cost of their energy will economically put high CO2 emitting energy sources out of business.
You forgot to mention when talking about how hot is was for a few days at the largest glacier, Jaacobshavn, that per NASA it has GROWN over the last 3 years. A small amount at the mouth (tidewater glacier)…. but huge gains inland. Does not correlate with melting. Nor does DMI data match what you say as the last 3 years we have had Gains of 160GT, 500GT and 540 GTs. Here is a jpg from NASA present is at the bottom. eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/145000/145185/jakobshavn_omg_2016-2019_lrg.jpg
Your time scales are too small to be taken seriously. I have a copy of the full report and in exchanges with one of the authors it is clear there is far too many assumptions over data. Very nicely presented science article, but just more of the alarmist narrative. From a data point of view, I prefer the presentations from Tony Heller. Had this been 1970 your comforting smooth voice over would have been warning us of the coming ice age and why we have to accept those new controls and taxes. If this reply is not deleted people, search windows on the world . net The Man Who Saw the Future. It explains how people like this guy fit into the Totalitarian agenda.
Correct physics allows us to understand why greenhouse gases like water vapor (and a dash of carbon dioxide – about 1/65th as much) can only COOL us, which is why rain forests are COOLER than regions with average water vapor. Learn about the new understanding of atmospheric and subterrestrial physics at climate-change-theory.com and in the linked papers and articles.
Putting aside our differences, have you considered what will happen if climate activists (XR) are right or wrong? Assuming XR are right, they still have to convince the big nations such as USA, China, Russia etc to adopt IPCC recommendations which isn’t going to be anytime soon and certainly not within the time frames set. Considering the the majority of Kyoto signatories did not meet their obligations, the same is expected for the Paris Accord members. So we are all doomed whichever side of the fence we stand on. Considering the “wrong” scenario, certain people and nations that would have heavily invested money to lower their carbon emissions will have been severely disadvantaged compared with those that made few or no changes. Humanity will have to acknowledge its vulnerability to the might of the universal forces. In summary whatever the scenario, XR efforts are futile and even dangerous. If they are right we all die. If they are wrong our longevity depends on forces beyond our control and we need to get off earth before fate makes a radical turn which means we need to become an interplanetary species, to take advantage of every opportunity to colonise other heavenly bodies. So “vive l’industrie pétrolière”. “Vive de dioxyde de carbone”. “Vive SpaceX”
David, looking at this closer on the NOAA site and Artic Ice program does not associate Greenland ice melt with warming. The conclusion (by NOAA) is that Greenland ice melt in 2019 was primarily affected by low precipitation ie snow during the preceding winter and a prolonged high pressure system over Greenland. Even considering temperatures 2018 was record breaking cold while 2019 had many record breaking warm, hence we don’t have enough data to associate any temperature trends in Greenland or their affect. Calving has been actually steady or declining. By jumping to conclusions we are creating another “Polar Bear” story and risk anesthetizing persons on climate prediction whereas persons lose interest in curbing human impact. One of my Sources (quick primary, easy read): arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019/ArtMID/7916/ArticleID/842/Greenland-Ice-Sheet. Thanks for your excellent work. As a person on this planet regardless of the news you HAVE a responsibility to minimize your impact on this planet!
total bollox, Snip; There has also been a succession of heavy storms hitting Greenland. Starting in October these storms have dropped a lot more snow than average over Greenland, particularly on the eastern side and in the south. This increasing mass has not gone unnoticed and we have received a number of questions about it, so here we attempt to summarize what we know and can infer about the winter 2016-2017 and what it might mean to the overall surface mass balance year 2016-2017.
I’m concerned about the numbers constantly changing. I always hear “this was wrong, it’s actually that this percentage is melting, warming, etc much MORE than previously thought” so I have a hard time believing that scientists have an accurate guesstimate now on how fast change is taking place. It’s unnerving to think that but we always get it wrong, so why should anyone think oh well, scientists say this is happening this fast? If scientific evidence was stumping us before then when are we going to be on point? And will it be too late?
Would you people, John i guess is his name, start using SPECIFICS when mentioning temperatures! 20 degrees warmer, 20 degrees WHAT? Fahrenheit or Celsius? It makes a HUGE difference and is done by almost everyone I hear talk about this. BE SPECIFIC when quoting data! You were specific enough to use the specific number-20-but NOT the scale. WHY?
Great upload great website. We as a race of beings have continually refused to follow spiritual principles in this existence and thus our materialistic approach will reap what it has sown. If you would like to expand your knowledge and have an open mind on how this has all come about, get your hands on a little book called ” The thief in the night ” by William Sears .
Sorry but u need to explain how sea level rise causes flooding, most floods are by rain falling rapidly in some hill or mountain region causing a low area to flood, if that many people live 1 meter above the high tide level then a 10mm or even a 10 cm Sea level rise is still not going to effect them, unless of course the land is subsiding at the same time
IPCC has been signalling that Economic costs of CC are low & so many countries approach the COP as an aggressive trade negotiation – the reality is much graver than this economic forecasting suggests & emitting entities will be held accountable through new technology/satellites so new investment & subsidises in fossil fuels is bonkers even from a conservative economic perspective – progressive global community should come together in a tariff bloc as suggested in the EU’s Green New Deal & promote co-operative solutions like giant seaweed farm promoted by Flannery that sequesters carbon & can also feed the world’s poor – this could happen on a limited budget from present foreign aid & should be started immediately
* PART 3 OF 3 * The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”. The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres —> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called “downwelling LWR radiation at the surface” and I’ve explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface. That’s the lower end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works. ——— Note 1: I haven’t yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don’t know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn’t find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2. Note 2: I’ve read on the internet that spontaneous emission of a photon of LWR by a GHG molecule with MVE will typically occur after ~1.
Would be great to have a article comparing the NDCs of each country in figures, vis-a-vis the emission per capita of each country. I mean, I’d like to see what the NDC of each country is and where its per capita emission will go if it is to meet its NDC. I’ve strong hunch that if, say, Sweden is to meet its NDC, its per capita emission will remain way higher than China’s per capita emission would, if China were to meet its NDC.
It is amazing to see that there are still deniers of climate change, it seems that they live in a parallel universe, for it must be easy to deny physics, mathematics, chemistry, probably because it has no mental capacity to understand the risks to which we are being subjected. congratulations on article and search, the website is very good
The only way to get action of the sort needed – that is, emergency action – is a mass popular movements, worldwide. I would guess mobilising 10% of a country’s population would do the trick. I’m not saying anything about to what degree the action will be effective but the only moral and reasonable thing to do is to at least try.
The solutions to these problems have been around for more than fifty years but those that sell energy and those that invest in them have put a stop to it each and every time these technologies have tried to come out. Engines of practically all types can be converted so that as they are operated they actually clean the air instead of polluting it. The propaganda that these people put out is still dominating the scientific communities on a global scale as their funding is tided to those that are long on the current system of fossil fuel use. It’s gotten so bad that when I speak of these alternatives that will transition the world from using fossil fuels to using hydrogen derived from water I am practically laughed out of the room with no real reason for them doing so other than the fossil fuel sellers propaganda being summoned out of their heads without even thinking about what they are actually saying. It’s sad to see but this is what happens when greed and lust for power work together hand in hand for more than fifty years.
We broke 1.5 in March 2016 berkeleyearth.org/temperature-reports/march-2016/ If we get tipped over the edge by 1.5, (which I think we do) then that’s our current atmosphere. You might argue (incorrectly) that the Paris agreement was for 1.5 averaged over a year, or a decade, or some other period that you’ve pulled out of thin air. It’s not. But that’s beside the point. If 1.5 is where we lose control, and it appears that’s the case, then even if it’s only 1.5 during unusually hot times, then we’re out of control during those times. So during those times CO2 will be emitted, and the next out of control time will last longer. Once you’ve started on that path, there is no coming back. Now I’m not arguing that means we should relax into it. I’m arguing that our situation is desperate. It requires a war footing level of response similar to that seen in WWII. Not trading of carbon, but rationing. Strict rationing. Emergency closures of all coal mining. Conscription of workers into reforestation and renewable energy projects. I’m already on water rationing as a result of climate change. It makes no sense that I’m rationed on something as essential to life as water, yet I can buy and burn as much carbon as I want.
Our leaders are an easy target to apportion blame. The reality is that we elect and allow these very leaders to behave this way towards our climate. In the absence of the threat of losing office, these governments will fold to the interests of industries that cause global climate change. There is opposition, Greta for example leads a magnificent movement, this website promotes intelligent conversations, but overall the movements are fractured and broader populations are easily mislead by influence from industries whose interest amounts to causing global climate change, and while we have this state of affairs we cannot alter our imminent demise. However there are other industries that do behave in our favour. The solar, wind, parts of the farming industry to name a few. So not only are our movements efforts fractured, but we do not include industries whose interests are towards reversing Global warming. Without a unified climate change movement by both individuals and industries our self annihilation is fait accompli. So the question then becomes: “What can we do both collectively and individually towards quickly unifying movements and industry to put greater pressure on our governments to behave rationally in the face of this climate emergency?
I have two competing theories on Greta’s role in climate craze scam(ario): 1) she plays a role of Youth’s “ECO-STORMTROOPER” Leader 2) she plays a role of “PIED PIPER OF HAMELIN” – Youth Castrator Ad 1)… a Leader You may call me whatever you want, but don’t forget that all your actions will have influenced your children, who will be forced to pay “breathing tax” soon, if this climate change craze (promoted also by fake heroes like Mrs.Greta T. under the UN’s IPCC umbrella) doesn’t stop. Wealthy families and their MSMedia are breeding a new (better said latest) version of “Stormtroopers” now, by chiming propaganda of human “original sin” (every newborn is made guilty of living – that is guilty of producing CO2 waste – and soon all new life will be viewed as such, thus giving global bureaucrats new powers and a reason for their expansion while deciding who or what is allowed to be born). Schoolbooks and uncritical teachers are already repeating and entrenching that mantra to the 5yo children. If you think that propagandized children, once they grow up, will be able to listen to reason, then you are mistaken. These future “climate stormtrooper” will be as obedient as Mao’s China cultural revolution student activists were, or Hitler’s youths: to the point of death of those who doubt the “holy” truth – truth that is prescribed and also full of holes – and eventually to their own demise in single-minded, mono-cultural society (think obedient drones or zombies). Yes, we (people) are air and soil polluters and water poisoners – corporations and industries mainly, and those need be regulated and be forced to clean up their mess -, but all our activity doesn’t qualify us as climate changers.
Congratulations! It is quite an achievement to cram so much fake news into such a short film. Anyone who takes the trouble to look at the data of the bodies mentioned here will soon find out. Here too it is trusted that people will not do that. “There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be “the man in the street.” Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology. ” Joseph Goebels
nice calm delivery, which is appreciated:) the talking did itch one thing i’ve been wondering about for a coupla decades or so . . . i really can’t see all of china and all of america going renewables. And without them we are very likely screwed! Then theres india and australia . . . not looking too good there either. It sure does look like mankind has a hot and very difficult time ahead.
If you have been listening you would know that additional CO2 has a diminishing effect on temperature, in theory and even less that is demonstrationable in the real world. Your chemistry and math have to follow the rules or your ‘accumulated from others’ opinions are left on the cutting room floor by anyone actually following the trail of truth in this rampantly volatile topic. Sorry, can’t support camouflaged alarmism … we are just now accumulating enough data for a baseline for future calculations … these ‘conclusions’ are still just a single observation on a very long timeline.
. I am trained as a philosopher not a biologist, or an ecologist or a naturalist. Consequently my view regarding climate change takes a broad overview rather than the view of the specialist. It appears to me that we (humanity) have perhaps ten more years of relatively stable societies in which to live. As the seasons disappear so does agriculture. It seems to me that human civilization is about to collapse. This is a Greek Tragedy. We all know the fates of the actors. We know the innocence of the guilty. The actors do not seem to know their end, while the audience freely watches their fate. Herein the end of the human race. This species with no predator, other than himself, now eats his seed corn as the famine approaches. The trees are dying. The birds are far fewer. The insects are disappearing. And we humans are not and perhaps can not do anything about it. In the story of the Titanic I am reminded of the capton stepping forward fulfilling his duty as the water came rushing in, the old couple who returned to their bed gently holding each other and the band, the band played on. May we play all these roles in our life. May we be found fulfilling our duties, sharing moments of love, and may we express the beauty of this amazing phenomenon: humanity. My heart is filled with sorrow and loss, and with acceptance and forgiveness. Somehow love appears. It is my continuing experience that a life filled with empathy, forgiveness, and acceptance makes for a day of joy. I speak here of acts not of beliefs.
Spoiling action by Australia Brazil and Saudi Arabia. Right wing authoritarian states. I think trying to get unanimity is the mistake. They should just declare unrepentant opponents pariah states and go on without them. So if the internet has damage it just routes around it, that’s what we need to do with denier states.
this news is alarming but we r coming out of n ice age n the earths climate has always fluctuated, but i do wonder if this recent warming is due to chemtrails, which is of course nano particles of metals such as aluminum, strontium n other such metals n what does metal do n the sun, it heats up right, n there globally filling the earths atmosphere with this daily, hmmm i wonder
* PART 3 OF 3 * The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect”. The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres —> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called “downwelling LWR radiation at the surface” and I’ve explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface. That’s the lower end of how the so-called “enhanced greenhouse effect” works. ——— Note 1: I haven’t yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don’t know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn’t find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2. Note 2: Removed because I’ve gotten confirmation.
I’ve been perusal you for about a year now and always a well thought out episode though i think we are past the point of no return. Still don’t like the name just have a think since it doesn’t let anybody know its about climate change but whatever. Good show and if theres hope to be had thanks for keeping it alive.
If there was a threat of a nuclear bomb going off I’d hope we would do whatever we could to stop it. Climate change is that threat but in slow motion on a global scale. Seems that we are more content to suffer in slow motion rather than in a fiery instant. If such a threat is presumed to exist we should be working more actively to uncover all the facts and find mutually agreed on solution(s). Leadership is required but it appears all we can do is disagree about whose perspective is right and those leaders who seem to be focusing on perceived threats to their leadership. We have such beauty all around us yet we are likely to lose it because we can’t agree. Hopefully our vision is not so narrow as it seems.
imagine, soon it’s going to be named greenland because its green like in the days it got that name from the norsmen.. since the time they all died of moved from there because it was uninhabitable due to that friggin cold it should have been called iceland 2 or whatever.. what is my point here? well back in the day when they lived there the relative good life, it was warm without co2 from industrialized humanity. it was the result of something else then, likely the sun and cycles and stuff.. i asked this website multiple times the check out the charts on declining strength of the magnetosphere and it’s exactly the opposite of the temp charts, now as i’m not retarded i know layers of atmosphere and magnetic/electric fields and their potential are interconnected and even if some look separate at first glance more research always eventually comes to some proof of connections previously not considered.. i’m lately wondering what is the biggest scam, the virus and its economical and social manipulation potential, or “global warming” and its polarizing potential. social engineering comes to mind but that must be a conspiracy, it just must be..
The warming is measured by 3,800 self-profiling floats called “Argo floats” and is +0.11 degrees / decade for the shallowest 750 metres. The stratosphere is cooling. The 1st gives the quantity and the 2nd gives the cause. Only an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. An increase in solar radiation cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. A decrease in global average cloud cover cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. A decrease in air pollution aerosols cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. No increased form of energy entering Earth’s atmosphere from space can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. No decreased form of energy entering Earth’s atmosphere from space can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. No increased form of geothermal heat can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. An increase in heat leaving the oceans cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. Only increased atmospheric GHGs can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere, and that is what’s been happening the last 50 years. It’s the smoking gun for increased atmospheric GHGs being the cause.
“Southtown Hick” “It’s almost like this has happened before”. “grindupBaker” “It’s almost like 56,000,000 years ago, except 50x as fast and 50x as exciting”. “Southtown Hick” “Except it’s not”. “grindupBaker” ” @Southtown Hick 24,000 / 50 = 480″ (Are you all keeping track of ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly ?)
I’m afraid it looks like “Oh dear Oh dear” for this one. According to glaciologist Jason Box there’s serious bad cherry picking going on with this “seven times faster than 30 years ago” quoted from the study. I’ve not time to study in detail Jason Box’s 1840 AD – 2010 AD Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) mass loss history plotted as “Accumulation” & “Runoff + ice discharge” plots but just approximately (not too rough though) it’s like: Gt/year loss 1840-1900 zero 1900-1925 70 1925-1970 130 1970-1998 65 1998-2010 258 Those are very quick eye balling but they are the right orders of magnitude. You see the huge 50% drop in loss from the steady 1925-1970 trend to the steady 1970-1998 trend which was (maybe unintentionally) cherry picked by Mister Think’s source organization. I think a big point on the science for those few of you who are interested in the science is that I’ve commented to you’all until I was blue in the face for 6 years now that something huge ENSO began in 1995 when Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started increasing. The Greenland ice loss took that humongous increase you clearly see above and there was also a humongous El Nino 1997/98 which the coal/oil shills used to great effect for 10 years by starting the “pause” or “hiatus” in the middle of it. A smaller thing is that Greenland ice loss has been absolutely all over the place recently, from anomalous losses 2010, 2011, 2012 which then returned to the ~200/year sort of value and then stopped completely 2016-2018 with no loss and now a humongous anomalous loss again.
Even your visuals lie by omission. What is missing 15 seconds into article? All of north pole’s arctic sea ice. It gives false impression that Greenland is an island of ice surrounded by liquid sea water that spans all the way to the north pole. That is subliminal suggestion to unsuspecting viewers that when Greenland’s ice melts, there will be no more arctic ice left.
” grindupBaker”: “Yes. Humans aren’t the norm for the Earth. Many present species of Life aren’t the norm for the Earth. It’s all gotta go then”. ——- ” Ben Jamin” @grindupBaker “Nice straw man”. ——- “grindupBaker ” @Ben Jamin “Agreed. It’s irrelevant to the topic whether or not humans and other present species of Life on Earth continue to exist or get replaced by some prettier things, maybe jellyfish”.
So the people going to the north pole don’t need air assist available 24/7 from Norway. And people need of assistance don’t get it because there are those who have gone to the north pole and need it more. For people at Finnmark in Norway just have to cross their fingers that they don’t need air transport to a hospital, up to a days wait. Because those pole travelers. Because that pesky ice don’t go away… yet again. About Greenland, it’s called that because the Vikings. They farmed wheat, barley and other corns up there. You cant do that there today. All you need is to see to history. That is how simple it is. There was a higher melt at the era of the Vikings as Greenland was actually green and hot. The natives say them selves that it is cycles based. Well ofcourse that’s those who get paid to say what ever they are asked on TV. Another thing, only on summer time there is this melt, now on the winter there is none. Weird isn’t it. What ever the leftist socialists discover and make up as facts is today per to perr reviewed facts. Earth is not gonna end the human race, nor the climate. Humans them self will kill humans race. We are already hearing about imprisonment on people that don’t embrace the climate hoax. Then there will be camps. Then no one hear from those people again. People wearing armbands and taking people in the night away to never be heard from again. That’s the future the new green deal wants.
You are an excellent speaker and when I was twenty I wouldn’t have been able to see past the deception. Since you like math, let’s examine yours. Florida “where I live”: Has an area of 65,755 mi² . . Why that state? and how does that relate to the global sea level rise? Surface area of the world’s oceans is 139.4 million mi² a little division and we get 2,119 So it takes 2119 florida’s to be the equivalent of the earths oceans. So what? The effect globally IS negligible. 7.6 percent reduction a year is 76% in 10 years! That is not even remotely doable unless you nuke China and India and turn off every light in the USA. Your style is very seductive and also probably convincing to many. Sad.
“Charles Rablin” typed “nature doesn’t work in simple proportion. They are called confounders. They are the things lets out of the very best of scientific studies, causing huge errors. I wouldn’t bet two bob on your predictions” @Charles Rablin It’s irrelevant whether you bet two bob on my predictions because paleo climate studies aren’t my predictions. You are babbling nonsense.