Is the GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM the REAL driver of climate change?

[@cbf63]

NASA is ready to land on the surface of the sun, they just have to do it at night ;)

[@hefzi-babeula8631]

😂😂🤦🏽‍♀️

[@martinnolan4800]

Great idea! I hope you told ‘em that before they took off.

[@Wil_Dsense]

Actually they're waiting for it to cool down before landing in it.

[@cbf63]

@Carl Henry lol..you got that right, the thinking by the left, Good one!!

[@MotinQ]

​@@Wil_Dsense Ha ha ha, right, and maybe in it dark side.

[@donfowler4613]

You left out earth’s weakening magnetic fields and the increase in cosmic rays

[@brettmoore3194]

Hey I agree, scroll and find my comment if you agree electrical universe

[@brettmoore3194]

@Gord Orvis actually uni means 1 and verse means statement. The masses believe in a statement issues by the 🇻🇦

[@brettmoore3194]

@Gord Orvis go forth and learn my benefactor

[@banpowel9784]

Its not weakening, its shifting.

[@brettmoore3194]

@@banpowel9784 by all accounts a slow solar wind speed is the reason how field lines are not compressed to block small wavelengths. Atmospheric compression also tends to favor better weather conditions due to a higher pressure zones and lower low pressure zones.

[@FreeDom-dh5mf]

I cringe every time someone uses Wikipedia as a reference...

[@allgoo1964]

Free Dom says: "I cringe every time someone uses Wikipedia as a reference..." == Post the better source of reference.

[@MarkNOTW]

I agree. Quote from the actual source

[@jenjen882]

I do too

[@kruse8888]

I use wiki quite often. It saves me and shitload of money buying comics😉

[@stuartkeithguitars4251]

If you are discerning about what you accept as true, you can wade through the muck to find the nuggets.

[@frankpocius6196]

When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happens. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.

[@lukasmuller4606]

Could it be that the disasters neuer came to pass, because people did things to prevent them?

[@ceeemm1901]

"Disaster never comes true"...yeah, a lot of German Jews thought that in the early 1930's.....

[@ceeemm1901]

​@@lukasmuller4606 Pompeii?, Black Death?, Ghengis Khan?, Great Fire of London?, 1906 San Fran Earthquake? 2004 Tsunami? Alzheimers?, etc,etc, ad infinitum...not really much control, is there, eh?

[@MadTracker]

The irony that Climate Change is coming to pass as people watch in real time while simultaneously denying it could be man made, no matter how well it’s acceleration matches industrialization statistics, is an embarrassment to the assumed intellect of our species.

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

Your children will suffer from the climate change caused by excess CO2. Many people have already died because of it.

[@terryowens3860]

I'm gonna call bullshit on this. Too many assumptions for me and alot of others to be comfortable giving people I already don't trust more power and influence.

[@terryowens3860]

@Gord Orvis there are research papers you can look into that dive into the other types of energy and particles that come at us and the impact they have on our weather and climate. It is not to deny science or even climate change, but to look further into why it is happening. Though I have seen enough to make me question the narrative doesn't make me care about the planet less. I personally want better restrictions on pollution. From farms to produced goods, we are literally poisoning everything around us and killing other species in droves. As far as people's carbon footprint, we would do better in stopping consumerism. Teach people to be happy with themselves and not covet all the material bs we leave behind when we die.

[@allaboutstupid2228]

@Gord Orvis The papers are invisible lol.

[@strongangel]

@Gord Orvis kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5DconygaJ2Io7s

[@lillybloom1590]

Over the last thousand years, we've always had drastic changes in weather around the planet. Remember that Greenland was once a land of beautiful, green pastures. We know this because everywhere we've cut into the ice, a few feet below we find residues of those grasses. In North America, the 1920s and `30s produced some absolutely horrible weather. Claiming that today's weather is so much worse than ever before is nothing short of a huge lie. Something else this gentleman and other Warmers do constantly, which is a common argumentative fallacy, is to take what they see as a terrible and tragic event that occurs in one tiny part of the planet, and they extrapolate that into the entire planet, as if the exact same thing is happening all over the planet-when it is not! It's akin to walking out your backdoor after a rain storm and the yard is muddy and puddles are everywhere, and then saying, Wow, the whole planet is one big mud puddle. (The man in the video above did exactly this by pointing out what he sees as terribly tragic weather in the middle of the US., and then, of course, tying that into "global warming." The extrapolation fallacy.) Some do this because they're ignorant (local weather people, for example), but those who are the most strongly promoting "global warming" know exactly what they're doing. And they do it to deceive a public-school educated populace, who have no understanding of argument or how to keep these devious bastards from deceiving them into believing that they need the Warmers to help them survive and to save them from the doom and disaster they claim is about to come on them. And in order for these scammers to save them, the people must give the Warmers and their politicians more power over them to control them. Nice coincidence, is it not? Here is some evidence proving how the Warmers purposely deceive the people, and the information will help folks keep them from conning them. This is only a scant tidbit of what these relentless deceivers do. Tony Heller Exposes How the Scamming Warmers Deceive the Public, the Politicians, Scientists, and Academics into Believing the Seas are Rising, the Earth is about to Boil Over-and That Humans are the Cause of these Phony Claims (12:50) kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmWYZn57ec6nprc

[@lennywalling3478]

lilly bloom very well said 🙏🏼

[@stalemateib3600]

Yes, it is very important for us to remember the 1930s Dust Bowl era and how hot it was back then. I'm not sure I agree with Tony that it was hotter then than now. Assuming that the journalists and what not exaggerated a bit back then as now, it may be that the temps are about the same in the 2010s as they have been then in the 30s. That's still something noteworthy though, since CO2 levels were lower back in the 1930s.

[@michelangelobuonarroti916]

You mean because we've had changes in the weather in the past means that it won't be expensive when Florida floods out? Oh, okay. Thanks for that info, trumpie.

[@stalemateib3600]

@@michelangelobuonarroti916, who even mentioned Trump in this thread? Now, as it concerns Florida, we have more to worry about storm surge from hurricanes than aggregate sea level rise from global warming, in the near future. Folks thought that the Maldives would have been underwater by now due to aggregate sea level rise from global warming, but the Maldives are (as of 2019) still with us.

[@lillybloom1590]

Not sure you're with us, @@michelangelobuonarroti916. Perhaps where you are there is a placed named Florida that is "flooding out." But the Florida where I am is healthy and the sea levels are steady. I don't think it would hurt you if you would take a long, serious look at the video I provided. You might return to the same planet that the rest of us are on.

[@jkwan89]

2020 the year that just keeps giving

[@yassinahmed5972]

The years after will be more

[@batfink274]

Thank you 2020, may i have another?

[@ronway4133]

@@batfink274 amen

[@gracecole1]

Bring on the ice age!

[@indoysabado4523]

justin 2020 is the year of VIRUS

[@peterwright5311]

There is an error in your calculation of the solar forcing. You divided the amount of forcing by 4 to account for the difference between the Earth's surface area and the actual area of solar irradiance it intercepts, but if you do this then you should also do the same for the irradiance figure of 1361 Wm^-2. The same applies for the albedo correction. Both corrections would apply equally to both the irradiance and forcing figure, meaning that including them makes no difference to the ratio you end up with. The change in the forcing will simply be the ratio of the change in irradiance to the total irradiance - roughly 1/1361 = 0.07%. You'll note that the actual figure stated on the report you show at 9:10 is 0.05%, whereas you state it is 0.018%.

[@flynnfogerty6402]

Take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive

[@EA-tc6kb]

Doesn't matter, solar irradiance is minuscule compared to the magnetic and electric fields that charge up the sun and the earth's atmosphere.

[@drcthru7672]

BFD

[@tammiking9919]

... did he really just use Wikipedia as his source? If his point on how minimal the suns affect is, wouldn’t the same apply to the minimal amount of trace gases man is responsible for adding to our atmosphere? Only 0.04% of our Atmosphere is Co2, and of that 97% is naturally occurring. That leaves only 3% of the total 0.04%, that’s less that half of one percent of an essential gas to all life on earth that’s man-made, and beneficial. If we could reduced it, only the vegetation would suffer. Nothing about climate change rings true.

[@edearl8675309]

Twice.

[@bobmester3475]

I think additionally that the extremely small percentage (3% of the 0.04%) is man made could cause a 2W / Sq meter change is completely unbelievable. More IPCC BS data..

[@tim1883]

No it wouldn't, your whole thought process is ass-backward.

[@forestdweller5581]

Actually, wikipedia has been found to be a very reliable source. Sure, someone can always put some nonsense on there but others will edit....the whole voluntary concept is pretty cool i think. There is a wealth of information on there about pretty much any subject you may be interested in. In a way it isn't really a single source but a whole bunch of sources.

[@tim1883]

@@forestdweller5581 Ya, the encyclopedia's of yore were the same way actually.

[@jamesfulp104]

You failed to explain why the earth’s temperature was warmer several times in the last several thousand years, including 1,000 years ago. The Greenland ice cores also reveal that during every warm period, an increase in temps always proceeds an increase in carbon. Also, study the amount of carbon cause by human activity in relation to what naturally occurs.

[@Tengooda]

1. The earth's temperature has not "warmer several times in the last several thousand years, including 1,000 years ago." That myth has been debunked many times, most recently by this comprehensive paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2 discussed here: www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-study/global-warming-dwarfs-climate-variations-of-past-2000-years-study-idUSKCN1UJ2DC 2. "Greenland ice cores also reveal ..." So they do. So do Antarctic ice cores. What else would you expect? Surely you understand that - in the absence of a major change in CO2 sources such as anthropogenic emissions or major volcanic eruptions - warming the Earth should cause atmospheric CO2 to increase. So what? 3. As for "the amount of carbon cause by human activity in relation to what naturally occurs". Those same ice cores that you evidently trust (as you should) ALSO show that atmospheric CO2 was very stable until humans started emitting large amount of CO2 by burning fossil fuel, as shown by this graph: scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png Those human emissions have now increased atmospheric CO2 by nearly 50%. In other words the NET amount of carbon cause by human activity, currently around 50 billion tonnes per year, greatly exceeds natural emissions that are now actually NEGATIVE, since there is a net flow of carbon from the atmosphere to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

[@donfields1234]

Funny these greenland ice sheets didnt melt away like they are now back then though, or you wouldnt have a recor...but...oh ya, your an idiot, i forgot. My bad. Bwahahahahaha

[@fredrikastrom4683]

@@Tengooda Vikings lived on Greenland, and called it green-land. So it may well have been warmer and less ice there.

[@jamesfulp104]

Don Fields - only the outside perimeter melted during the warming periods. Scientist are reporting that these glaciers have reversed course and have begun to expand in the last several years (Danish Meteorological Institute). Iceland glacier have also begun to grow, but only for one year.

[@jamesfulp104]

Tengooda - you do realize that the same scientist were claiming these same climate cycles until well after 1992, using there own data. It was in 1992 that they admitted the need to get rid of these climate cycles, and so they did, without providing any justification for doing so. Listen to their own words!

[@Alan62651]

With 270+ days in a row with no sunspots, we may be already in GSM.

[@davidwatson7919]

Very cold and fall was almost hard core winter with freezes before Halloween in West Texas. Mild summer number 4 or 5 in row. I wore a jacket in beginning of june to walk my dog. NEVER ever needed a jacket in june in all of my 48 yrs.

[@petermuller4417]

@@davidwatson7919 yes I think the IPCC reports predicted more extreme weather events e.g. cold an apps will be colder and heat waves will be hotter , floods would be more extreme and cyclones more severe all because of increasing co2 above 400 parts per million now hasn't been this high for 200,000 years apparently

[@DD-yr6wc]

@@davidwatson7919 maybe u have a medical condition why you need a jacket in the summer. Its been a very mild winter in midwest

[@davidwatson7919]

@@DD-yr6wc maybe because it windy overcast and in the 50s on a june morning?

[@proudhon100]

And no sign of global cooling. 2019 was the second warmest year on record - the warmest non-El Nino year.

[@KatyRovetto]

Just a thought... If GSM is predicting a mini ice age (and I've heard that since my college days in geology), it seems like having an increased atmosphere of CO2 heat may be beneficial in many ways. We just may need that shield of heat.

[@penguinuprighter6231]

No one is predicting a mini ice age, except for some idiots. So no, it's not a good thing.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

There is no mini ice age. A drop of a half a degree during a GSM will be noticed by exactly no one.

[@geekchameleon]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 ...But a rise of half a degree will result in the end of life as we know it...

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@geekchameleon I love when people make things up so they'll have something to scoff at.

[@TheDesertRat31]

@@geekchameleon that's not what climate scientists are saying

[@Adapt2030]

Nice explanation of the workings of the Sun, but perhaps its electrical and that oscillating wave amplitude explains the solar cycles. The wild card is the volcanic eruptions during GSM's usually in the VEI 7 range, which would result in a cooling planet, not from the TSI decreases. Best example Late Antique Little Ice Age (LAIA).

[@christopherescalante2324]

@Gord Orvis Telling people that you can control the weather and climate of Earth by controlling CO2 is misinformation!

[@petezahutt5174]

Thanks David for pointing this out

[@penguinuprighter6231]

Some dumb shit here. You will never catch up to Ben, but keep trying.

[@RealKutcha]

I was looking for a comment, which mention David Dubyne....

[@MrMezmerized]

When talking about the "Little ice age" starting 50 years before the Maunder, you failed to note the Wolf and Spörer Minimum. The Wolf wasn't a big one but the Spörer was. Not as deep as the Maunder, but it lasted a lot longer.

[@davidwilliams-xt7pe]

Mr mesmerised can you back me up in my comments above with swiftly tilting planet and get others to do so. We have had a gutsful of the rheteric and narrative of man causing weather when it is the sun. With their debunked fraudulent reports that they use to debunk science with to keep the scam going why we ate robbed of carbon tax. GSM is here now, finished them.

[@MrMezmerized]

​@@davidwilliams-xt7pe I will not back you, because you are wrong. For the past 60 years the Sun's activity went from a "grand" maximum to a minimum in (roughly) a 155 year cycle. If it's all about the Sun... we should have had global cooling since the early 1960's. The exact opposite happened. Oops. "swiftly tilting planet" -- That is just wrong on every level. The planet itself is not "swiftly" tilting, it's the magnetic north pole that's on the move. And it's not tilting, but the exact opposite: it's moving towards the geographical north pole. Thirdly. I am quite certain you have absolutely no idea why this shift supposed to be relevant for your claim. Check the trajectory of the magnetic northpole over the past millennium and cross reference it with cold or warm periods (you never did that, right?) and you get an idea of how little relevance it has to your claim. "With their debunked fraudulent reports" -- I get the feeling you never fact-checked those alleged "debunkings". And how can you even tell what's science and what's fraud? In just a few lines with superficial catch words and claims, you already made some very simple, bad mistakes. "with to keep the scam going why we ate robbed of carbon tax" -- Even if the carbon tax is misguided, that doesn't make the science wrong. Bad argument. "GSM is here now, finished them" -- I repeat... despite this... there's still global warming, not global cooling. Good luck explaining that away

[@davidwilliams-xt7pe]

@@MrMezmerized there is no warming, temperature has been fairly steady.

[@kyrnsword72]

In The 70's we had global cooling 80's global warming today the liars come out with so called Climate Change all hoaxes for money and power to the rulling elite mostly within a certain political party. Eugenicists! Hold your own breath Patriots will rise up and peacefully stand strong!

[@davidwilliams-xt7pe]

@@kyrnsword72 yes. Agree. Make some comments to swiftly tilting planet above in comments section in support of me. We must attack these criminals so others can see comments and prepare for grand solar minimum we are going into now.

[@ericfranklin6290]

The GSM proponents I’m aware of aren’t concerned with waning thermal output from the Sun, but the diminishing of its magnetic field which they claim shields us from cosmic ray bombardment. They’re basically claiming that when cosmic rays pass through Earth, they agitate silicates in magma, resulting in more volcanism to the degree where massive ash clouds cool the our planet. Additionally, they claim that cosmic rays increase cloud nucleation and hence, the size and ferocity of storms. Both of these phenomena take a toll on crop production to the degree that civilizations are in put in jeopardy. Please address these claims in another presentation. Thanks!

[@GordoGambler]

electroverse.net/new-scientific-study-finds-we-could-be-entering-the-next-grand-solar-minimum/ Yah Gord O .... We are making up FACTS. LOL Kiss yer flyspeck CO2 GloBULL warming BYE. ROFL OMG HILARIOUS.

[@GordoGambler]

@Gord Orvis ... Your CO2 QUACKERY THEORY is looking more and more STUPID every day now. LOL

[@Dundoril]

Well the volcano claims are basically guess work.. They are basing it on a short paper showing some possible correlation between solar activity and some big vulcanic eruptions... The paper does not address the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures... And those are important for crop production... Because there is none...

[@mikefabbi5127]

I didn't realise the solar cycle was only eleven years, that's peanuts in the scheme of things. Can you do one on the Milankovitch cycles please?

[@lasthopelost9090]

It’s prefect for us not to long but not to short

[@haroldburrows4770]

With CO2 at 400 + ppm the Milankovich cycle is pretty meaningless and lost in white noise. If CO2 levels were as high the last few million years as today we'd have never had ice ages .

[@mikefabbi5127]

@@haroldburrows4770 I believe we are slaves to them but I don't like being cold, perhaps extra CO2 is a good thing? What is CO2's saturation point? How many ppm?

[@bingpz]

It isn the time it takes for magnetic pulses from the poles to reach the equator and cancel each other out

[@patriotsvnwo5217]

@@bingpz What do you mean?

[@donkique956]

Aliens. We need aliens to complete 2020.

[@Blaishon]

The military gave us aliens earlier this year. We're missing the time travelers. Where's Marty?

[@Toxic2T]

Yeah I barely saw any UFO this year. They dissapeared on the last 5-10 years.

[@roro-mm7cc]

@@Blaishon UFOs don’t mean aliens simply unidentified flying objects... and the worse your are at actually identifying things the more UFOs you will see. Watch thunderf00ts series debunking these incidents “nasa ufo busted”

[@stronghold500]

@@Toxic2T da. Cv19 lockdown. They even control the f$%kin aliens now. Lol

[@Toxic2T]

@@stronghold500 Dunno if aliens, but the governments have something to do with them on our airspace.

[@maryistulsafox]

Blame the Sun or blame yourselves either way you need to learn some personal survival skills Community survival skills just saying

[@phrispirit]

By far, the BEST hedge is an abundance of low cost reliable energy and that is what the IPCC and others do NOT want. Being prepared is a great idea.

[@restoretheearth2829]

Tulsa Fox- Everybody needs to learn to farm and garden for themselves and this guy is a NWO probably paid-off liar.

[@restoretheearth2829]

Also known as a shill. Bald head and all.

[@dedriannehartgers629]

That is so true. What generations before 1950 considered common sense behavior: storing food, extra blankets and being self-sufficient is now called "prepping" and criticized for being extreme. Granted the critics go to the grocery store for their protein.

[@allgoo1964]

Tulsa Fox says: "need to learn some personal survival skills Community survival skills just saying" == Rising temperature will continue hundreds if not thousands of years. While you can be dead in two weeks without food from agricultural failure from climate change. How are you going to survive that? Hunt wild animals, while millions trying to do the name? What kind of survival skill do you have? Do you know what will be most helpful skill? Know how to cook human flesh. That would be the only thing plentiful around you, at least for a while. You'll find out what your son or daughter, or mother taste like.

[@paulgranner9305]

Haha all these indoctrinated kids dont remember 6to14ft of snow every Christmas and rarely more than 2to3 weeks summer pmsl

[@GabrielleTollerson]

for real

[@jamespenn5788]

When my mom was a kid in Iowa they had snow to the roof tops. My mom was born in 1928.

[@drkstrong]

Snow is a local daily weather phenomenon. climate is average weather measured over decades. So you snowfall is irrelevant

[@sedigives]

@@drkstrong And Greenland was ice free but full of Vikings! How far back should we go? By the way co2 was estimated to be under 200ppm. and during a very cold snap it was est. over 1,000ppm? makes no sense right? just like this bull.

[@sedigives]

@@jamespenn5788 The hottest times on record in the US was the 30's. The dust bowl. Several day's above 90 in all 50 states. Bad news, after this next cooling trend temps are going to drop, then go up again? I can guess too, but not to take every ones money, it's because the real data supports it. Look around please, do we want to see even more people scared? Anything but naïve! But hey the man of the hour, Dr. Vaccine himself, and now the renowned Climate Scientist, is pushing to inject baking soda in the atmosphere? This is like a cartoon, & people even missed the sign's, like "The Science is settled" RED FLAG!

[@anniegaddis5240]

Thank you, about TIME someone talked about thus! Am sharing this on my MeWe page!

[@carefix6400]

Also, the verbiage: "Our sun is reaching the end of it's normal 11 year cycle and is now approaching a period of minimum solar activity. This one's being dubbed the Grand Solar Minimum" i.e. the first thing stated above is false. The now current minimum of solar activity is NOT the GSM. Further misrepresentations. The GSM is NOT a normal solar minimum it is a period of time encapsualting one or more low periods of maximum solar activity.

[@johnramirez5032]

I think he said it right. The sun has 11years cycles and its in a min cycle thats going beyond 11years. I guess ill have to watch the video again. Over all i thought it was well presented

[@johnramirez5032]

You do realize the scientist have a relatively small section of cycles to compare

[@carefix6400]

@Andy Theber ... Well (and I hate quoting them) NASA reckon we are as did Landschiedt and Zharakova. The signs are everywhere with massive crop losses across the planet, new all-time cold records everywhere and the odd warm one too. Both are signs of the developing GSM. Real cooling does not properly begin until 2020. Current cooling (about -0.5C since end of 2015) can be mostly attributed to ENSO. Global warmists make accurate predictions only after the event. Remember snow and the ice caps melted a long time ago. Many times in fact. Of course NH snow mass was 3 sd above normal earlier in the year.

[@davidwatson7919]

GSM... that will destroy the climate scam. Of course we know media will say the GSM is worse from manmade climate change. Bet your lifesavings on it.

[@numagama]

Have u watch the video? He is not saying it’s gonna happen but he is showing scientific evidence that it will not slowdown global warming that way we would like to. Fighting reality won’t save us from unnatural climate change either. We gotta make a change, and believe me we will live a lot happier in a healthy world.

[@ArcaneBear]

Grand Solar minimum is part of a much larger 400 year cycle not 11, please get the information correct.

[@nude_cat_ellie7417]

I’m just starting to research this. Do you have some good resources you can point me to, please?

[@ghostrender-]

Not really, space and it's matter can change it's cycle when it wants to, just like you change your diet and lifestyle. Was you alive 400 years ago? Who did you get your source from? An ice lolly stick. Leave the guy alone and enjoy the video he made for entertainment. Go and look down your toilet for facts, there you will find your worth in how your seen and smelled.

[@dogpatch5220]

You forgot to mention plugging up all the active volcanos.....one good volcanic eruption puts out more green house gases than man ever thought of!

[@deathgatedeathstar9259]

not true by a long shot deniers keep spreading their lies

[@dogpatch5220]

You obviously weren't alive when Mount St. Hellen's erupted back in 1980. It was the worst summer for triple digit heat I ever lived through in the Midwest. triple digits even through the night....but you can go on believing your lies!!!! @@deathgatedeathstar9259

[@deathgatedeathstar9259]

​@@dogpatch5220 im sure it was awful but in terms of emissions Vulcanos just doesnt come Close www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/ !According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.! www.nbcnews.com/id/6635776/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/mount-st-helens-top-washington-polluter/#.XV7hmnduKLQ "Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities." so no

[@madshagen5849]

No. Just No. As Deathgate Deathstars link in this thread shows it is miniscule compared to human emissions. In historic time, volcanic eruptions have caused significant disruptions in global temperature patterns -but that is on the downside (Tambora -1816 The year without Summer or Pinatubo 1991 -a one degree C drop in global temperatures for a couple of years). Even supervolcanoes in the distant past like Toba or Yellowstone only cools (albeit massively). It takes a flood basalt eruption to match the current volume of human emission of greenhouse gasses, but emissionwise they are nowhere near the PACE of human activity. The Siberian Traps eruption (252 mya ago) or The Deccan traps (66 mya) were CONTNENTAL-wide events that unfolded for MILLENIA! On some info on REALLY BAD volcanic eruptions: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaXCY3aVjNeqaqM

[@dogpatch5220]

@@madshagen5849 I pointed out to him that he probably wasn't alive when Mt. St. Helens erupted, I live 1800 miles away from it and we had the hottest summer ever in my 67 years...triple digits through the night.

[@mybuckhead]

So in order for me to keep my fleet of cars and two private jet, someone else needs to give up their carbon foot print for me.

[@penguinuprighter6231]

Yes..preferably the family that saved for years to take a trip.

[@brendn1264]

Done you can have mine 😉

[@penguinuprighter6231]

@@brendn1264 Did you delete your other thread?

[@brendn1264]

@@penguinuprighter6231 yeah not engaging. Too much hassle I can't be bothered arguing with close minded people. The main stream quackademics and their defence of mere ideas just isn't worth it. Let them off. Enjoy.

[@penguinuprighter6231]

@@brendn1264 So you're a chicken and an idiot. Great combo.

[@giorgiocooper9023]

Correct ! It’s time to start talking about global cooling ! The influence of human CO2 emissions on global temperatures is so insignificant that we may as well move on to resolve real problems on this planet !

[@allgoo1964]

Giorgio Cooper says: "Correct ! It’s time to start talking about global cooling ! .." == There's no sign of cooling. Where did you find it? assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2017HottestOnRecord_TopTen_en_title_lg_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg

[@IShallNotBeSilent]

@Giorgio - You mean the influence of all the heads of each country raping our land for all it's resources, Their factories, and waste disposal of their factories. Humans have a very small effect on this but that is what they want you to believe.

[@barrywilliams991]

People who put a space on both sides of punctuation are either ill-educated or overly dramatic ! ! ! !

[@barrywilliams991]

@@@IShallNotBeSilent Well then, YOU are part of the problem since you use said products (unless you posted here by pencil and paper), use electricity (most of which is generated by fossil fuels), eat (unless you grow and harvest your own food), and defecate (unless you shit in a hole you dug). So . . . FOAD already. Oh, and STFU too.

[@allgoo1964]

@@barrywilliams991 says: "use electricity (most of which is generated by fossil fuels), " == Because the fossil fuel industry isn't giving it up. Not because it's what the people want. Solar, wind power energies are actually cheaper already and will be even cheaper in the future. How long are you willing to pay for the higher cost for the electricity knowing somebody paying politicians to keep it high? www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=KZlpXfCvDsyctAWDmIPICA&q=renewable+energy+cost+less+than+fossil+energy&oq=renewable+energy+cost+less+than+fossil+energy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.23517.29092..30958...0.2..0.287.1398.0j6j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j33i160.Gva02gehhNY&ved=0ahUKEwiw6LXqyKvkAhVMDq0KHQPMAIkQ4dUDCAs&uact=5 You didn't know this?

[@mikeep666]

There's more to the sun's influence other than irradiance.

[@jackpleb2360]

There seem to be many dozens of variables from solar forcing. They look at just one in irradiance. Lol

[@davevoce]

@@jackpleb2360 Suspicious0bservers did a good breakdown of the additional solar forcing factors

[@hermanvanniekerk1270]

Mike Peacock the moment they ignore water vapor as by far the most significant greenhouse gas I know they have an agenda.

[@billymodo7555]

Just for fun.... try asking any of these so-called experts what the 'right amount' of C02 should be.

[@billymodo7555]

Aren't you paying attention!? It's all down to folks like you leaving your phone charger plugged in too long. Unplug it right now so I'll have 11 years left to live before mankind self destructs instead of 10

[@davidwynne2005]

Suggest you have a listen to Zharkova .. and read Svensmark.

[@deathgatedeathstar9259]

its not like Zharkova is the only solar physicist out there or like her predictions have been that amazing NASA predicts that solar cycle 25 will be a lot like solar cycle 24 btw

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@deathgatedeathstar9259 Zharkova has been discredited by her peers. Always wise to hear all sides of a controversy before forming an opinion.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Meh Zharkowa is an armateur. Listen Patric Moore - the founder of Greenpeace...

[@restoretheearth2829]

@@WadcaWymiaru + I used to support Greenpeace until they started up with the global warming politics imstead of rescuing sea mammals.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

@@restoretheearth2829 That is WHY Patric left greenpeace XD

[@dmco123]

Would be interested in thoughts on volcanic activity during a Grand Solar Minimum, especially with regards to Co2 output.

[@brianfitch5469]

The volcanoes are still responsible for 99% of emissions regardless of the solar minimum or maximum.

[@titusnelson9499]

You are right on topic. Lot left out here only to shrewdly promote global warming, Oops climate change.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@brianfitch5469 At the moment, volcanoes are responsible for only 1% of the CO2 emissions coming from humanity.

[@brianfitch5469]

@@kevinpils4716 not in the slightest. Humans barely make a dent in what is released. It's not even disputed by the most hardcore climate people. The only thing they don't agree upon with the majority is that instead of 99% the most hardcore brainwashed climate people say that volcanoes put out 96- 97% of all emissions. Volcanoes don't have to be erupting to be spewing out hundreds of tons of gases. Further more over the last twenty years the earth has greened over 5% this is area large then the Amazon rainforest. Look at the satellite image photos. With this came evapotranspiration, which is why the term changed from global warming to climate change. As the earth greened with higher CO2 levels it's cooled half a degree worldwide. Which is why the name changed. Your not told about this on mainstream media. They have to keep the trillions in tax money and the cost of energy high. As CO2 levels rise we will continue to see the earth get greener. CO2 is plant food, look at the difference CO2 makes in green houses. You can grow grapes the size of apples pumping co2 into a green house. When co2 levels reach 1000ppm hopefully in the next few hundred years deserts will complete turn back green again. The 5% turning more green is areas encroaching on desert areas taking it back. As CO2 levels make plants drought resistant. They lose less water to for photosynthesis.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@brianfitch5469 I would love to see a peer-reviewed study that validates your claim.

[@SummerCrowfpv]

You know this is extremely accurate when KZbin feels the need to put a Wikipedia link to climate change and global warming under it 🤣🤣 Thanks for pointing me at the video I need to watch KZbin 😂😂

[@jhbrown53]

Your spot on, the global elite will use this natural cycle to loot & gain control from the people in the name of saving the planet. Every time I see the propaganda link I know there over the target & should pay attention.

[@claudiafahey1353]

KZbin sucks ass...heaven forbid actual science be discussed...

[@sixtus9559]

So what if we go into a solar minimum? We've got lucky that we're further allowed to pump our atmosphere with co2 and methane without too many consequences. But what happens when this minimum ends in 100-200 years, we raised the co2 amount in the atmosphere very high and the people living then have a big big problem. So your solution is to push the question of using renewables to further generation so yours can live an easy life?

[@claudiafahey1353]

@@sixtus9559 there was a ton more CO2 back when the earth was much younger....we'll be fine relaaax

[@sixtus9559]

@@claudiafahey1353 yeah but you do know in what time intervall this co2 accumulated in the past right? Hundredthousand, million years not hundreds and the temperatures were up to 12 Celsius higher than now. Let's add everywhere 12 Celsius, in how many places is it nice to live now? Nearly none just some furthest north.

[@yorkiedanMC]

Turn the sun off and then you'll see just how impactful it is ;)

[@atxlionheartdw]

Exactly, and no one either believes, wants to hear, wants to talk about nor wants to PREPARE, ESPECIALLY People with KIDS and GRANDKIDS!!! It's a EXTREMELY DIRE SITUATION and FEELING, and their NARCISSISM and EGOS WON'T Change Until Kids and Grandkids Struggle and Rage at their FOOLISHNESS of Not PREPARING them WHEN They Had the CHANCE.🤔💭😳🤯🤬😭😵 😬OHH THE HORRORS!!!😱

[@OverTaxed42Long]

Other comments about yours show just how unbelievably dumb most people are. They don't even get that if the sun went away then that alone would end all life here. Everything is dead without the sun. They seem to think of the poles shifted or CO2 levels rose astronomically or sea level rise by a foot or twenty meters but the sun still shone as usual it would destroy all life and destroy the planet. They can't grasp the fact that the sun is why anything and everything lives, has lived or will live and without it nothing lives or will live.

[@Tengooda]

@@OverTaxed42Long Nobody has the slightest doubt that if the sun "turned off", then we would all rapidly perish. But since that has not the slightest chance of happening, there is little point in worrying about it, or allowing such a possibility to distract us from the very real dangers of global heating.

[@traditionalfood367]

Even NASA has quietly announced that Solar Cycle 25 will have fewer sunspots than any other in the last 200 years. Prepare for a Year Without Summer like 1816.

[@Tengooda]

@@traditionalfood367 The 1816 Year Without Summer was mainly caused by the eruption of Tambora (Indonesia), and possibly also other volcanic eruptions earlier. There were widespread reports of haze or fog obscuring the sun. Large volcanic eruptions blast both volcanic ash and sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight back into space and reduce global temperatures. The summer of 1816 was actually just after the maximum point (March 1816) of the sunspot cycle 6 that started in c.Jul 1810 and ended in c.Apr 1823, although this was in an overall period of lower solar activity known as the Dalton Minimum. Average global temperatures are already well over 1degC warmer than during the Dalton Minimum, and there is no known prospect of a large volcanic eruption (though these are largely unpredictable), so there is no reason to predict a similar "year without a summer" is imminent.

[@Wraith40A]

It's strange how this video is in my recommendations every day when I watched it a month ago.

[@TheSaint135]

Google wants you to eat this up quickly. And they also don't want you to learn about solar particles (hundreds of millions of times more powerful drivers of weather than the CO2) and solar magnetic fields.

[@TheSaint135]

@Gord Orvis I doubt it's Google as a company, but a few key decision makers carefully placed at the top.

[@TheSaint135]

@Gord Orvis suspicious0bservers.org/

[@TheSaint135]

@Gord Orvis zero dollars.

[@TheSaint135]

@Gord Orvis no, WTF?

[@canyonroots]

He is good at repeating concensus science.

[@peterazlac1739]

This video is misleading in that it only examines the effect of solar irradiance on the climate and gets that wrong by dividing the changes in value by four to get to an average for the Earth. Whereas what matters is where the radiation is received, such as in the tropical oceans of the Southern Hemisphere where the effect is greater due to the obliquity of the Earth. It also ignore changes in solar UV and the effect of ozone production both in magnitude and where it is produced in the stratosphere, and the effect of the changes in solar energy flow on gamma ray entry into the atmosphere and cloud formation as well as changes in the magnetic field. So if you were in my University class you would get an F-

[@GordoGambler]

Greta didn't even go to class. LOL

[@nsfeliz7825]

insufferable knowitall Hermione granger😬

[@randyross5630]

So... What did this have to do with the biggest Ozone Hole that just closed, during the lock down?

[@swirvinbirds1971]

There is another factor you missed. It's not just how much received but how much is reflected back into space and how much is trapped by greenhouse gasses as well. It's a balance game.

[@utGort]

It also completly ignores the most powerful greenhouse gas which is water vapor.

[@handley2645mh]

Biggest problem with using just the TSI as the sole indicator of the energy and forcing from the Sun, is that it only accounts for the UV radiation. The Sun also gives us x-rays, visible light, gamma rays and ionized electrons. These mostly come as a result of solar flares and CMEs (coronal mass ejections). Interestingly enough when you look at the TSI curve and match it to the know solar flares, the TSI strongly dips, like the UV radiation has been blocked. How can that be? There are just too many assumptions and misinformation or missing information in the speech to cover. For example, misleading is leaving out water vapor, clouds and oceans in that little forcing chart. Also misleading is taking about cleaning up the environment. Climate change had nothing to do with environmentalism. There are so many reasons to find another energy source beyond fossil fuels but CO2 is not one of them. It's just the easiest one for the politicians to tax.

[@jennilycos2251]

We also need to consider solar and galactic weather too. I'm sure wherever we are in the galaxy makes a difference too.

[@seanp9277]

Exactly. Reducing the sun's influence to TSI is one of the biggest blind spots in climate science.

[@protosspc]

H2O number one greenhouse gas by far... no mention of it. No mention of cloud cover variation whatsoever. Water vapor is not only two orders of magnitude more volume in the atmosphere than CO2, but clouds have a dramatic cooling effect by reflecting radiation back into space. So water can both warm and cool the planet depending on variations in quantity and surface area. What video also fails to mention is that cosmic radiation has an effect on cloud cover and cloud cover is increased when the Earth is hit with these particles. There's also a variance in the distance the Earth sits from the sun. When a solar minimum lines up with an apex in distance from sun, more cosmic radiation hits us, and condensation increases in the atmosphere... causing excessive cloud formation and precipitation. This causes cooling. And this is why temps are going to drop over the next decade.

[@genericdude6551]

An atmosphere composed of 0.04% carbon dioxide of which mans contribution is 3% of the total is causing the greenhouse effect? I think not. There has got to be other factors involved.

[@House_Stark]

Your numbers are correct. However, what you may have not looked into is that for 10's/100's of thousands of years, natural Co2 emissions have been balanced out by natural Co2 absorption. In the last 100 years or so, human activity has added billions of tonnes of Co2 to the atmosphere of which nature cannot absorb. And since Co2 can sit in the atmosphere for years and/or decades, Co2 levels are now rising faster than they have for thousands of years! This is a concern because nature cannot keep up and adapt to that change!

[@fredblogsmac.5697]

every time the temp takes a tick down we in northern europe take a hammering in winter, where do you think the cool air comes from, it comes out of the artic hamering northern places in europe

[@ttystikkrocks1042]

It comes from weakening Gulfstream current due to increased fresh water from Greenland due to... Global Warming!

[@sodalitia]

@@ttystikkrocks1042 oh snap, you broke his hammer!

[@fredblogsmac.5697]

@1 thepackgawd good post ta,,

[@treescape]

Zharkova has given a frightening explanation.

[@gsmscrazycanuck9814]

you don't see any of that in this video. Only TSI, nothing about the sun earth connection.

[@TheMrCougarful]

Not everyone in the science community agrees.

[@Royelsworth]

@@TheMrCougarful only the ones who are paid by geroge soros don't agree people with an agenda

[@barnsej98]

@@Royelsworth That reptile gets everywhere !!!!

[@ksartar]

@Andy Theber If he were a physician with the same qualifications, would you go to him to treat your cancer? I don't care how good his bedside manner is I would not.

[@flywhereangelsfell3172]

This is a direct result of Daylight Savings Time.

[@KetOMAD]

How does this only have 30 likes?

[@budbud2509]

@@KetOMAD Because people dont believe him ? He is trying to blame it all on man made CO2 , and at 0.042% its unlikely he is correct , add to that the fact that out of 31 units of CO2 released to the atmosphere only 1 was man made. Yes thats right the 96% of CO2 released was completely natural , and the 4% ( that I have rounded up from 3% ) was man made. we could bomb our economies back to zero CO2 emissions and it would hardly make any difference.

[@dacejaunzeme4849]

🤣🤣😆😆😆

[@guybramwells]

@@budbud2509 Exactly. Who is this guy, who pays him? Where does he get his information from?

[@davidgeary490]

@@budbud2509 Termites emit more GHG than humans do (methane mostly) estimated 6 - 15 % - compared to 4 -5 % GHG from all human activity. Water vapor & clouds are WAY more influential, 95% , than GHG on climate. By the way, the whole "climate crisis". "climate catastrophe", "climate Armageddon", "climate End Times", "climate end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it" scenario ...seems to be a big issue only in Christian countries, not non-Christian countries. Know what I'm sayin'?! Just sayin'!

[@justgivemethetruth]

First time I ever commented on music being too low to hear. Odd. I was just curious as to what the music playing in the background of your video is?

[@rftulak]

People have got to wake up !! We are not only warming OUR planet but Mars as well !! We have totally screwed up Mars ice caps as well over the last 30 years!

[@kirbyflk3969]

Haha 😂 lmao

[@terrencekelly1256]

What????lol

[@restoretheearth2829]

rftulak++++ Wow, you sound so serious to be so hilarious. Oh, the neighbor went to his outhouse after eating too much chili and beans and the planet Jupiter had a melt down by the red spot!!#

[@duanesamuelson2256]

Yeah, Mars temperature is totally ignored at this point....and will be until someone comes up with a theory to make screwed up models to prove it's our fault unless we all become hunter gatherers again, except for the elite that will save us all

[@bobwargowsky1703]

Boom!

[@augustswift5947]

If you haven’t, please consider addressing ‘global dimming’ or ‘aerosol masking’ (especially if it poses a paradox with CO2 reduction).

[@ZigZagHockey]

I find the fact that this sort of interference is taking place more scary than anything else when climate systems are clearly not fully understood. The result of 'dimming' on food production could be severe especially if carbon dioxide reduction programs are pursued at the same time.

[@worldbridger9]

Correct! The issue as a multiplier where we may be caught in a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" particularly with reflective particle emissions... Many curious as to how bad is it or how much influence? And can it be used for geo-engineering?

[@Flyingdutchy33]

@@ZigZagHockey Well, if we manage to elimate ALL of our CO2 production and stopped breathing, we're still left with 97% CO2 production. You see, humans only contribute 3% of CO2 to the world. A fact conveniently left out of any of their arguments. In the past year numerous scientific papers have come out addressing the "albedo effect" issue. As far as the effect of this dimming on global food production: It isn't really an issue in my opinion as the amount of light that plants can get even at high lattitudes on an overcast day is still more than enough to photosynthesize, even with our current relatively low amount of CO2. The real issue is more indirect: the cooling effect will slow down plantmetabolism to a crawl and many crops will be impossible to grow at higher lattitudes because of this. The most hilarious and ironic thing about this whole debate is that nature would actually love for it to be a bit warmer and CO2 rich. In fact, _all_ previous biological blooms in this planets history have happened at our peak CO2 levels which I believe are over 2000ppm. But goodluck telling these fanatics.

[@ZigZagHockey]

@@Flyingdutchy33 Yep, Moore, Happer, and others are saying a doubling of the current levels of CO2 would be a good thing for the planet and the people of the planet. These scientist get labeled 'deniers', as if denying the validity of the bull-shit we are fed by the IPPC and the mainstream media is a bad thing.

[@dnboro]

@@Flyingdutchy33 "humans only contribute 3% of CO2 to the world. A fact conveniently left out of any of their arguments. " And you conveniently left out the bit where the natural carbon cycle takes the 97% back out again each year. You need to learn about the natural carbon cycle (a nice equilibrium) before making such a ludicrous and ignorant comment. scied.ucar.edu/carbon-cycle

[@scottferguson866]

How dare you!

[@davidwilliams-xt7pe]

Lol

[@NarrowRoad4Jesus]

Voted best overall reply. Hilarious!!!!

[@f.fields2703]

He references the IPCC and trusts their data, however not a single of their models was able since 1988 to accurately predict temperatures. All these models are running much too hot, that happens when you need a predetermined outcome and weighs the influence of CO2 far too heavy. The presentation started well but soon enough came down to the fantasy world of activism.

[@House_Stark]

For one, the IPCC is a review body. They have no original data they use. They review and post data that's already been published in the scientific literature of science. Two, the models the IPCC has posted have predicted temps very well. See "Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase". Risbey et.al. 2014. Also, climate models are mathematical equations that use past climate data. So they hindcast with almost 100% accuracy. Their forecasting ability is based on scenarios of Co2 emissions. The more we emit the more they predict warming and so on! So i'd love to see this "website" you got your info from that says models haven't predicted well!

[@MegaPatients]

@@House_Stark Your quote ..Also, climate models are mathematical equations that use past climate data..maybe this why they are changing historical data with AC v 1 - 2 🥶

[@woody3307]

Glad to hear a voice of reason. I will never read the comments here again though.

[@MaturePatriot]

Probably better for your sensitive nature!

[@thehellyousay]

Trolls smell truth and but down to smother it in shit. Funny how the truth still shines through anyway, ain't it?

[@waitinginberniesbreadline922]

Good call

[@dinorl]

Human activity is blamed to give us a sense of control (hope). All we can do is prepare to mitigate the effects.

[@tim1883]

No, sorry that's wrong, we did it. However we are pretty much to mitigation at this point.

[@dinorl]

@Truth that, too

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

Well... You could pray about it. Only a fool would believe that humans can do whatever the F$#K they like without it having consequences.

[@Mephilis78]

@@tim1883 Yeah we killed those poor dinosaurs too! Damn those humans and their climate changing activities! They've caused so much damage to the climate that our CO2 went back in time and ended the Ice Age!

[@tim1883]

@@Mephilis78 An asteroid killed the non-avian dinosaurs. Your response makes me sad that so many are so science illiterate. What you say is like peeps stating that evolution is JUST a theory. You do not know enough to realize how focking stupid what you say is. Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[@taranwitt8480]

Winter is coming

[@atxlionheartdw]

PRECISELY!!!😨👍🏽 Costco has excellent cold weather clothing, and for unbeatable prices!!!👍🏽 They have this brand called 32° for $1 over cost😍, and the Department stores at malls have it for $20 mark ups, INSANE!!😡

[@MukarramAli98]

What if "winter is coming" was predictive programming?

[@temijinkahn511]

As carbon levels go us so does the growth rate of plants on land and in the sea. As temperature increases, the air can hold more moisture. As the moisture laden air rises it condenses into clouds that reflect sunlight back into space. Carbon captured from the atmosphere by plants. Sunlight reflected back into space. Two natural processes that help to regulate earths temperature.

[@prioris55555]

you global warmer shills are spinning another narrative. use to be we were burning up. now you'll have to weave another story to show why it is cooling

[@penguinuprighter6231]

Confusing couple you are.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@@prioris55555 We're not cooling. 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record. Did you watch the video?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Yes, and as CO2 goes up, the icecaps melt, sea levels rise, high tide flooding increases, storm surges elevate, hurricanes intensify, and wildfires, drought, desertification, extreme precipitation events, heatwaves and marine heatwaves increase. The additional moisture held in the air then works synergistically with CO2 to drive temperatures even higher. All the latest data shows that increasing clouds in the future will not be cooling us, as they largely do now, but will increase warming still further. ( Imperial College London, the University of East Anglia; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)

[@temijinkahn511]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Read the book Global warming. Hot topic cold science by Fred Singer who was actually an award winning meteorologist. Climate change is a religion now. Honest scientists are afraid to speak against the ideology. Climate change is this generations “Acid Rain” cause celeb.

[@dwaynezilla]

Even if the Maunder minimum was a notable contributor to cooling, if we're seeing warming during a time when you'd expect cooling, then we'd basically be _even more_ screwed than what we realise.

[@mark4asp]

Most the warming in the last 40 years was caused by changes in amount of low-lying clouds. Fewer clouds let more sunlight warm the surface. It's nothing to do with "man-made warming". Man-made warming, or anthropogenic global warming, AGW, is an untestable, non-validated hypothesis. The only so-called evidence for AGW comes from models, written by modelers, who assume humans are to blame. Such models only confirm the bias of the modelers.

[@nihilistcentraluk442]

@Nob the Knave how much of the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthroprogenic? It should be relatively easy to find out.

[@glennjones6004]

@@mark4asp Please cite your credentials and research. Otherwise, stick it where there are no sunspots.

[@crazyscott2646]

@Nob the Knave no you found someone that is no a moron like you! These scientists are paid by the government to do these experiments. The scientists will publish only what the government wants. So climb back in your hole and pay your carbon tax with no squabbles. Dipdhit

[@lrvogt1257]

@@mark4asp : That is false but cloud cover is affected by warming. Your entire second paragraph is demonstrably untrue and it's a cheap argument to slander climate scientists.

[@yuenin5318]

"Global Cooling" KZbin Context: Global warming. bRUH

[@GordoGambler]

Search anything.... you will get the opposite Lefty approved results. Like Piers Corbyn will get 3 results and MORON commie brother will get a thousand.

[@Herr_Damit]

@@GordoGambler But the video is about global warming, did you watch it? And also do you know how search algorithms work? Are you imagining them to be little leftist Kobolds who manually alter every search-result?

[@Dundoril]

@@GordoGambler "Like Piers Corbyn will get 3 results" And all of them wrong if his history for predicting global temperate is an indication

[@lonniedobbins1195]

*YOYO EFFECTS* And Strange Temperatures Never Heard Of. *HOT MAN MADE IONIZING NUCLEAR PARTICLES RELEASED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT REMAINS 🔥 HOT FROM SECONDS TO BILLIONS OF YEARS!* Never mentioned.

[@GordoGambler]

Global COOLING came this spring, DOWN .38C. FACT

[@mikebonnell3160]

Great job! Giving lots of complicated info & data in a way most folks can understand. Brilliant.

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

Most folks _could_ understand it, but a combination of laziness and bias prevents what seems to be (if the comments here can be taken as representative..) the majority from doing so.

[@samuelshin593]

Liberals so stupid they don't understand air is made of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and 1% Hydrogen with 0.05% CO2. To top that off, 99.999999999% of 0.05% of CO2 comes from microorganisms. Every square inch of Earth is microorganisms. Why do you put food inside freezers? Cold temperatures prevent bacterial growth. Same thing with Earth. Temperatures go down, bacterial growth goes down than CO2 goes down and vice versa. Look at any global temperature graph of Earth in billions of years. Temperature always had cyclical change. Always!!. Liberals soo stupid they don't understand what the sun is, which is a fusion reaction of two different isotopes of hydrogen tritium and deuterium overcoming nuclear bonds with gravity, which is extremely inefficient and causes temperature to change.

[@RogerOnTheRight]

Doesn't Sun spot activity drive solar wind volume? And don't solar winds in turn affect cloud cover? And isn't that cloud cover (water vapor) the biggest driver of the greenhouse effect? Please explain to me.

[@House_Stark]

*"Doesn't Sun spot activity drive solar wind volume"* There's never been any correlation of Solar cycle to climate variation. There was some recent research published with results of potential cloud seed from galactic cosmic rays(GCR) which increases during minimum solar cycles, but the results were minimal and only applied to the mid-troposphere. Which doesn't affect climate globally and doesn't not account for warming land, ocean and air temps in the northern hemisphere or the rise in nighttime temps! See: Kirkby 2011. *"And isn't that cloud cover (water vapor) the biggest driver of the greenhouse effect"* Yep! But it's a feedback mechanism. Meaning, it needs temps to change in order to increase or decrease it's concentration in the atmosphere. Also, the atmosphere has a saturation point for water vapor and it either precipitates back as rain or snow, or condenses into clouds. Which reflects UV radiation, causing a cooling affect.

[@17wolf359]

Let's think logically about this...somewhere around 10 to 12 thousand years ago, glaciers that covered most of the northern hemisphere melted. Since then, there have been much higher temperatures than current temperatures without the benefit of man's contribution of CO2...I would say that the sun's cycles, along with the Milankovitch cycles are the culprits...which any self respecting scientist should agree with. Also, what never seems to be brought up is that prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were within 30 ppm of plant death...had man not evolved to the point of burning fossil fuels, when he did...everything would be dead in less than a million years because of a lack of CO2....let that sink in.

[@dnboro]

You state: "I would say that the sun's cycles, along with the Milankovitch cycles are the culprits...which any self respecting scientist should agree with." But "self respecting scientists" have calculated that the change in solar irradiance due to the Milankovic cycles are so small that they would NEVER have been able to draw us out of an ice age without the greenhosue effect feedbacks. CO2 comes out of the ocean due to a little bit of warming and this sets the whole feedback in motion for a swing in temperatures that the Milankovic cycles would never achieve by themselves.

[@dabeagleigl]

@@dnboro sorry, but you are totally neglecting to consider the fact that there have been multiple glaciations and interglacial periods for tens of millions of years, which indisputably proves that the planet can be drawn out of a glacial period without any human influence whatsoever. there is no scientific consensus on the causes of glaciations, so there is no way any of the numbers in this video can be related to any climate changes at all.

[@17wolf359]

@Nob the Knave there is absolutely evidence. ..first of all those cycles have been happening for billions of years. ..although there has only been evidence of glaciation over the last few million years, there's no reason to believe that glacial periods haven't been happening since the beginning. Secondly, the overall trend for the last few million years is a decline in temperature regardless of CO2 levels. ..both of which have been higher in the past without man's assistance and in which life on the planet flourished.

[@dnboro]

@@dabeagleigl You state: "sorry, but you are totally neglecting to consider the fact that there have been multiple glaciations and interglacial periods for tens of millions of years, which indisputably proves that the planet can be drawn out of a glacial period without any human influence whatsoever. " But I didn't say that it had to be "human influence". You are correct, past interglacial periods were indisputably not human induced. But the scientific community does indeed have a consensus that external influences like Milankovic cycles are insufficiently strong to cause the swing in temperatures between glacial periods and interglacials by themselves. For a half decent mathematician, it is relatively easy to calculate the change in forcing due to Milankovic cycles - it is quite a small forcing. But what happens is the small amount of temperature increase driven by the Milankovic cycle causes the oceans to warm a bit and then CO2 comes out of the ocean, into the atmosphere and this causes more warming! Without this feedback and the overall greenhouse effect we would not be here today because the planet would still be trapped in ice with an average global temperature around -18 degrees C.

[@dnboro]

@@17wolf359 You state: "first of all those cycles have been happening for billions of years." Do you really believe that climate scientists did not already know this. Do you really, really think that? Of course they know this. Not only do they know that there has been glacial and interglacial periods over millions of years, they have also done insane amounts of studies to understand the forcings behind these changes. As a result of these studies they know that the Milankovic cycles etc are a small forcing and when you calculate it, it cannot explain the extent of the swings in temperature that we see between glacial and interglacial periods. Now if they have their maths wrong, publish your own calculations that show the forcing without the atmospheric greenhouse effect is big enough to cause all the previous swings in temperature. What the science actually says. Previous warming to exit an ice age is initiated by Milankovic cycles and this causes some warming and as a result CO2 comes out of the ocean as the ocean warms. And because it is a greenhouse gas, this extra CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the warming from the Milankovic cycle and you end up with a big enough swing to exit the ice age and enjoy an interglacial. And yes lots of forcings, include atmpspheric CO2 concentrations have varied in the past without Man's help. This time HUMANS are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere making the driver of the current warming different to historic events. If you want to argue what the scientific literature says, then you should start by at least trying to understand what it actually says rather than pretending that all scientists are so stupid they don't know that we have had glacial and inter glacial periods in the past.

[@Horselackey]

And it doesn't explain why all the planets are having weather changes...!

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Every planet experiences changes in orbit and axial tilt, which can affect climate.

[@darinr9424]

as a south east texan.... bring on the cooling please. this heat sucks 🤣

[@deweybewey]

California is with you on that one 🤙🏼

[@87155]

Smykush I live by Toronto and it has yet to snow..

[@northrockboy]

Please send us some warm winds. Gonna be just above freezing next weekend

[@drewp9112]

@Smykush dont worry warming stops at the borders just ask China

[@fredblogsmac.5697]

move to Scotland, bring a thick coat, and that's for summer

[@sammcrae8892]

I've been living in Texas and Oklahoma for well over 60 years. We've had hot years and cold years and floods, droughts, and storms -- as in exceptional storms. However, the weather and climate doesn't seem to be any different than it has been all my life. Variation from year to year, and decade to decade, but it doesn't seem any better or worse than it's always been. We should probably look at what the climate has been since humans developed. That should give us a bracket for what we can live with. Doing that it does seem we are and have been in something of a sweet spot for global climate and it's understandable that we'd like to keep it, but it's the weather, so what you going to do? Check out the work that's been done with Liquid salt cooled nuclear power reactors -- particularly the ones that can use Thorium. They can let us get rid of the fossil fuels, pull carbon from the atmosphere, desalinizate sea water, and burn existing nuclear waste as fuel. The answer is more AND cleaner energy, and advancing technology and space travel to get resources without messing up the planet. This guy is very nice and well spoken, but I'm suspicious that he's trying to push an agenda of poverty and low prosperity (except for the elites) and if you want to talk about disaster, then that's the path of doom. Make no mistake; we're going to go nuclear and exploit space resources eventually -- the question is do we do it now when we can go carefully and safely with as little environmental impact as possible, or wait until we have no choices, at the last minute, desperate and reckless of other long term consequences in a last ditch effort to avoid catastrophe? Knowing people in general and guys like this in particular -- it's almost a certainty that it will be the latter. Okay. Don't LIKE the nuclear way? Then let's do it till we can put up orbital power satellites and beam power back here. We have the ABILITY now to fix all of our non interpersonal issues, the question is do we have the balls to DO it.

[@tenbroeck1958]

Nice explanations and summary. Not sure why these twats always try to subtly weave in their small-minded thinking, in the form of Socialism/Communism - for us commoners, of course. I am actually concerned about the problem of climate change, but we have all of these polarized politicians pushing more division, so we get absolutely nowhere, or only a step forward.

[@sammyojeda9288]

Lost me at "Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change".

[@penguinuprighter6231]

Those commies are after your bodily fluids.

[@samhunt9380]

@@penguinuprighter6231 Not only your bodily fluids but your organs as well!!!! :-))

[@penguinuprighter6231]

@@samhunt9380 Your purity of essence.

[@sammyojeda9288]

keep reading, there might be a book that teaches text comprehension and even spelling.

[@penguinuprighter6231]

Maybe God and Beck and Crowder and Prager and the drug addict Peterson have something to do with your denialist stance.

[@lucidmoses]

"We all have to change our lifestyles radically". I'm not convinced that's true. As a small example of what I mean, Changing to an electric car from and ice car doesn't feel like a radical change. Changing to the new meatless meat patties doesn't feel like a radical change. etc... In fact. Think of all the changes that have happened from around 100 years ago. Now that's a radical change. The amount we would have to change to completely offset co2 seems quite trivial in comparison.

[@idiotbox4180]

Lucid Moses that’s what they all say. 🥺

[@calamityjean1525]

You can still have a weed whacker. You just need to get a battery powered one.

[@lucidmoses]

@grindupBaker I have a battery one and a bigger yard then most brits

[@dougmc666]

We don't have to change our lifestyles radically if we can find a way to continue using a similar amount of energy, I doubt that's possible over the next 20 years.

[@lucidmoses]

@@dougmc666 It's not the similar levels of energy that's needed but rather the same amount of work done. For example. Old incandescent vs led lights. Same work. Less energy needed. Now only if everything else was as easy. As for how fast we are changing over.... Yes, we should be doing better. Yet sometimes I’m impressed buy just how fast some things are moving. Small energy companies are already starting to annoy the large energy providers by dropping the price on them. Soon they will not be able to compete if they don’t start major investments in zero energy input systems (solar steam, solar, wind, hydro, etc).

[@dougthethug2405]

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

[@sedigives]

As long as you wear two mask's in you house while running!

[@RevoTheGoverment]

It is the 21.06.2021 in north portugal and we have right now at 11:45 am, only 13°C normaly around this time of the year, we have burning 30°C to 40°C in the day. Also in the summer it never rains. There is a deffenet strong dry season and forest fires are an issue every year. Its been grey and cloudy for at least a week and longer. Also it rains multiple times everyday basicly. if not day, then in the night. Also we had storm like winds. very strong. For this time arround, it seems odd and way off. I am here for 2 years now, wich is not a lot. but this weather is usaly more likely acouring in winter and fall. What do you think? How is the weather changing after all across the planet? Am i curently witnessing the effects of the solar minimum? And what do you think about unconventional clouds (possibly man made clouds) that havent exsisted 30 years ago?

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record. 2020 tied for first. Your local weather has nothing to do with global climate.

[@House_Stark]

I believe European weather is being influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation or NAO. Which is a product of both decreasing ice sheet cover in the Arctic and changes in the Polar vortex. Both of which are directly related but have nothing to do with solar variability and everything to do with Climate change. Specifically, the extreme warming of the Arctic! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

[@IsaacBeck]

Winter is coming. Horde cold weather gear.

[@atxlionheartdw]

PRECISELY!!!😨👍🏽 Costco has excellent cold weather clothing, and for unbeatable prices!!!👍🏽 They have this brand called 32° for $1 over cost😍, and the Department stores at malls have it for $20 mark ups, INSANE!!😡

[@traditionalfood367]

Alaska becomes sub tropical during grand solar minima. Greenland ?

[@michellesartori6695]

@@mickhealy572 Don't think it will last mate. Here in the Blue Mountains I have been giving my new alpaca coat and yak socks their very cold weather trials and I now see how these creatures can live where they do. We will have a long drought in Australia, but our climate WILL become colder although not as significantly as the Northern Hemisphere.

[@kenziecallsit2122]

@Hate Hustle Flow i am sure his reasoning is due to the 'real' facts

[@Adagio1.62]

@@mickhealy572 During the 1980's we had 9 years of drought in Charters Towers Qld. Temperatures regularly up into the high 30's mid 40's .If you put a metal bar flat on the ground, you'd better wear a thick glove to pick it up. By 9 am the trees looked like they were shimmering and dancing on the heat wave. The City ran out of water. It is not in the desert. I don't know what the weather is going to do. I do know Govt.s lie, then lie again. One way or another huge changes are coming and we would be wise to prepare to take care of our families.

[@seggy224]

Thanks for that. I am very undecided on AGW as there are seemingly excellent (and dubious) arguments and evidence both for and against AGW. By arguments I mean I read and watch all sorts of sources and find believable and unbelievable information everywhere. However I also notice that appeal to authority and promoting fearful consequences if we don't do something is a significant part of the mix especially on the pro side of the discussion. Whilst I enjoyed and learned from this presentation I noticed that towards the end it became a little more equivocal. There were several examples but just looking at one - "The reality is that for several decades now climate scientists have been warning us that precisely these sorts of extreme weather events would occur if we didn't make wholesale reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions" . I personally would never accept the truth of this without a very specific reference to who those scientists are and what exactly did they say and what evidence supports the claims. To quote Carl Sagan ""One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." As you plainly state this without further reference I see you as being the authoritarian referred to in this case. It may be you have already covered this in another talk - I haven't seen them all but what I have seen I congratulate you for the factual and thoughtful approach. You invited me to have a think - this is what I thought. Best wishes. p.s. I drive an EV, have solar panels and grow much of my own food and further more I do believe we need to have a long-term strategy about our dependence on fossil fuels.

[@MarkNOTW]

seggy224 Google Medieval Warm Period

[@billhart9832]

@seggy224 this comments section is awash with disinformation trolls. Try the following: skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html There are more than 100 well-referenced articles sorting out the scientific truths and shooting down the many myths of Climate Change (ex. humans create more than 100 times the CO2 of all the volcanos on earth per year, TRUE!). Google searches frequently pull up disinformation sites that "sound or look" like science sites, but they are not. The disinformation is spread by; "The Merchants of Doubt", www.merchantsofdoubt.org fossil-fuel funded former tobacco lobbyists like; Lawyer Marc Morano, www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/climate-change-misinformer-year-marc-morano and; Economist Myron Ebell, www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the-climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/ Mainstream science and peer-reviewed aritcles from professional journals and academic institutions are always your best bet, NASA, NOAA, DMI - The Danish Meteorological Institue ( for Greenland info) NSIDC - National Snow Ice Data Center. Avoid "TheNoTrickZone", "WhatsUpWithThat" and unfortunately many science sounding sites. Facts are seldom packaged attractively. Many disinformation sites are slickly produced. Choose wisely.

[@charlestongren2860]

Research what major climate scientists have stated. Temperatures will continue to rise exponentially & there is no technology that can reverse it.

[@Ladco77]

Instead of just saying "the science is settled and if you don't believe global warming you're an ignorant, evil person" (like so many people do these days), I really appreciate how you present the science in context and illustrate the varying levels of impacts.

[@kevinpils4716]

Just read through the comments on this video. He presented papers and the actual science and there are still people that say this is bullshit. Why would anyone bother with discussions and presenting the actual science when there are dumb fucks who then simply say 'nah thats wrong'?

[@grahammillington790]

That is not what he does. He cites ordinary weather events as due to warming and suggests they were predictable when the truth is the accuracy of predictions made by climate alarmists have been pretty much 100% wrong. he is talking about predictions not real events. He is suggesting the alarmist scientists have been accurate which is a LIE. This guy is a complete paid for fraud. If you want the truth watch Tony Heller or CDN or Net Zero Watch and give this guy the contempt he deserves.

[@kevinpils4716]

@@grahammillington790 That's where you're wrong. Tony Heller has been debunked numerous times for cherrypicking and misinterpreting sources. The predictions are pretty much spot on. If you don't believe me please cite one or more papers where predictions were plain wrong.

[@anniegaddis5240]

I can't find the transcripts on your website.

[@MikeAndNary]

Whenever the solar irradiation has decreased and volcanic activity increases the global temperatures suddenly plummet. The warmest extreme was in 1100 BC during the Hebrew Exodus (much warmer than today). Then a massive drop in global temperatures during the Grecian empire (Mount Vesuvius erupted destroying Pompeii) then the temperatures climbed again during the Roman Empire until Krakatoa blew her top sending us into the dark ages 600 AD. After that the Earth warmed back up allowing the Vikings to explore the Northern Hemisphere (1300 AD). Then we had roughly 90 major volcanic eruptions in 1660 which triggered the "Little ice age". The earths global temperatures have a lot to do with solar activity in combination with volcanic activity.

[@stuartkeithguitars4251]

These people don't care. It's a political movement that has co-opted real science. To say C02 is causing warming is a bold faced lie.

[@powelllucas4724]

Yeah...but how do you expect con men like Al Gore and David Suzuki to scam the public while getting wealthy in the process.

[@stuartkeithguitars4251]

@@powelllucas4724 LOTS of people are getting wealthy on this.

[@mattikake9859]

@@stuartkeithguitars4251 that's the idea. The power shift away from the petrodollar. There's a nice video detailing all the links behind greta thunberg. The elite are already shifting themselves into plave for the impending power vacuum. kzbin.info/www/bejne/b3vTnGt_rZZ2eck Worth watching.

[@leoniewilson5473]

Pretty impressed. Coldest summer i have seen here in South Australia in 62 years

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

I'm pretty impressed too. 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record globally. 2020 tied for first.

[@penguinuprighter6231]

It's as if 60ish is the all knowing age group. They've seen it all, but in fact didn't notice a thing.

[@jonvalentine8109]

Been cold in the UK too. cant be the solar irradiance by this clown's argument because it is such a minor factor.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

@Colin Killian No consensus of mainstream climate scientists ever warned of global cooling. A handful of outliers? Yes. Crackpots? Yes. But the mainstream? No. Sensationalist articles in magazines that featured those outlier scientists is not science. Science is determined in the scientific literature, and the overwhelming majority of scientists in that literature have always warned of global warming. See 1970S COOLING MYTH and check for yourself. The term "climate change" has been used in scientific journals since the 1950s. Nobody changed it from "global warming." They're two different terms. "Climate change" encompasses all of warming's efects. "Global warming," by contrast, only denotes warming. We are not going to cool down when we have 417ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[@budbud2509]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Complete rubbish ........ Go look at the raw data the 1930's were much warmer than it has been now. And before that it was much warmer when the Romans were in the UK .............. newtube.app/TonyHeller/hpBtSRL

[@MrSurf247]

Now we need sea temps corresponding with the solar cycle for analysis.

[@drkstrong]

Been there - done that. No correlation. See kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4a5kqCHf72FeJo at 36:10 into the video

[@dipakpatel9329]

Hi, Would you check out what Dr Scott McIntosh has to say about solar cycles and in particular No. 25. Love to have your thoughts

[@penguinuprighter6231]

What does he have to say?

[@drkstrong]

He says we will have a cycle in the mid 200s about twice as big as the last one. The rate at which SC25 is building - I am inclined to agree with him!

[@frankcuoco1501]

So basically we have four climate changes going on they're called spring summer fall and winter👊👊👊

[@sichere]

All divided by Night and Day

[@mustlovedogs6308]

Great comments...

[@sichere]

@@mustlovedogs6308 Woof Woof

[@flyswryan]

In New England we have five seasons: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Mud.

[@showme360]

That depends on where you live on our ball, unless you think the planet is flat!! lol

[@user-wy4mp9ts3u]

Very good but there is a few things that are left out.1/the reduction in solar wind during low sun spot activity increases cosmic rays that reach the earth that stimulate high altitude clouds increase.2/There was no mention at all of the most prevalent and powerful greenhouse gas of all(by far)H2O water vapor.3/The very complex orbital variations and there cycles

[@darrellcotterill9816]

Great comment, totally agree

[@Mephilis78]

Welcome to climatology. They never focus on the whole.

[@xyzsame4081]

The observed temperatur changes are not significant. It is a cycle of 11 years, with ups and downs, of course there is not lasting change caused by that.

[@duckpuddles]

What about the effect of H2O and cloud cover? Surely increased warming will cause increased evaporation of seas and more cloud which could have a thermostatic effect on surface temperature.

[@hooplehead1019]

Nice hypothesis ...but it simply hasnt. It was Richard Lindzen´s hypothesis and subsequent prediction of that effect that simply didnt happen. So in science - you discard that hypothesis. Look, come to terms we have caused it and we can solve it by decarbonizing energy generation. No need for mental gymnastics, denying and conspiracy theories. Lets wrap up our sleeves and solve it!

[@duckpuddles]

@@hooplehead1019 Several points need to be addressed here before we go leaping into a system of decarbonisation at great cost. Firstly many climate predictions have not happened, such as the Artic and Greenland being ice free by now. So the atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen. 21% oxygen and 0.004% CO2 Of that 0.004% over 90% is caused by natural processes in the oceans and forests leaving around less than 5% caused by humans. Of that 5% about 1% of 5% is caused by human activity in the UK So if we all abandoned all vehicles and electricity, killed all the animals , closed all the hospitals, banned burning of any kind it would not make a bit of difference. There is no denying that there is a problem. Too many people. The only serious way to do something sensible to control our over consumption and pollution is to reduce the human population to around 2 billion. Try making enforced birth control laws and see how far you go.

[@duckpuddles]

@@hooplehead1019 kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3KWgHSVZ7hnh7s

[@duckpuddles]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqSToqOsareJjdE

[@hooplehead1019]

@@duckpuddles Come on, your arguments theyve told you are ages old, so old that even the articles debunking them are from years ago: skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm skepticalscience.com/Ice-Sheet-mass-loss-melting.htm skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm So are the ones in the video, take the "no correlation" and "CO2 lags warming" - age old myths spread by the deniers, bebunked in many articles (just look for every single argument they give you - it will already be debunked on sites like the above skepticalscience.com/argument.php ). And thats the reason there is no way out for the deniers than to construct conspiracy theories about mafia climate researchers. Round the world. For 120 years. The population argument - a very popular one by laymen - testifies to a lack of understanding about the topic: Even a reduction to 2 billion people doesnt help: Due to long half-lives of CO2 in the atmosphere, we simply have a remaining budget of CO2 emissions for the foreseeable future to keep warming below a certain effect, e.g. 2°C. Even 2 billion people will eat up that budget in no time with rising emissions per capita. If you dont kill 5 billion right now, it will be eaten up until any measurement for population reduction even starts to show an effect. So no, the solution is de-linking population numbers from CO2 emissions. And that is doable with 2 billion, 7 billion or 11 billion by energy transition. Long-term reduction of the population is a good idea for many other reasons - its not the leverage as youve seen for the reduction of CO2 emissions.

[@levon4749]

Valuable and interesting presentation! One minor MISTAKE in the video at 9:43: Black Carbon is properly depicted with a warming effect on the chart (dark grey), while the video author accidentally reads it out as an example of a 'cooling effect'.

[@stormboy1517]

whats amazing is this is the science we are expected to take as gospel, even the debunking of solar forcing and earths magnetic fields influence on weather, yet they still get the weekend weather wrong? ive seen enough to know that until all sides of this equation start working together, tomorrows weather will always remain a mystery.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Weather and climate are two different things. Weather is your mood; prone to erratic change and hard to predict. Climate is your temperament; stable over the long term and far easier to predict. I can't predict the weather five days from now. But I can predict the climate for my entire state in January ten years from now: COLD. The sun's output never varies by more than about a half a degree up or down, so any change it creates in the overall climate is extremely limited. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, can trigger feedback responses that together can raise temperatures several degrees. That's why greenhouse gases are ranked as stronger forcing agents than the sun.

[@roberttyrrell2250]

Meteorologist used to be the only job, you could make $110k/ yr & be wrong 99% of the time. Now it includes working for WHO & CDC🤣

[@davidtee5367]

@@roberttyrrell2250 [citation needed]

[@MrGoofy42]

You are comparing the temperature at a specific time at a specific location with the temerature averaged over 30 years and over the whole world.

[@elevatormechanic7120]

I’m sure fixing the problem is a massive tax on the middle class, Well no thanks.

[@scottekoontz]

I'm sure understanding the science first is important, then doing something about it. In the US the problem is that one party has decided to deny the science, then muddy the waters about the science as well as what to do about it. I'd prefer we simply go back to the tax brackets we had many decades ago. No need to tax the middle class.

[@dnboro]

If it has to be solved with taxes, then you choose. 1. Small tax now. 2. Massive taxes later to you and your grandchildren and their grandchildren ... as you and all future generations try and cope with the damage of out of control climate change. The longer you delay selecting option 1, the bigger option 2 gets.

[@yosemitesam6945]

The carbon tax will not fix anything.

[@rodneyminchin6447]

@@dnboro My 55 years on the planet have taught me one thing; taxes NEVER go away. They might cut a tax a little bit, but just until a Leftist govt comes along and restores the tax.

[@rodneyminchin6447]

@@yosemitesam6945 Precisely.

[@patrickdiotte4766]

In fact, the Great Lakes are back at historical high water levels as compared to low levels of 10 + years ago. The levels did not rebound without longer winters with more snow!

[@dennyoconnor8680]

Don't confuse the gullible with facts.

[@seanhorihan9280]

Exactly. Your iced tea gets cold and the air above it gets cold when the ice melts fast. What happens to your iced tea after all the ice is melted?... it warms up. Now consider the oceans and great lakes your iced tea as the polar ice caps melt at a considerably fast rate. It makes sense that things would cool. Eventually they won't, and the heat will begin. I say this as we have 25" below normal snowfall here in Michigan. Ski resorts are struggling to keep a base and I'm out canoeing in January.

[@thomasshannon9828]

Exactly we we in the middle of a solar maximum then.

[@drkstrong]

It is called more rain. Warmer air carries more water.

[@elizabethtamp1537]

@@seanhorihan9280 The Greenland ice is thickening and earlier that usually for the past couple of years. You sure you weren't drinking a Long Island Ice Tea. :)

[@joshblick]

3 years later and we're still here. I wish you would have shown the ice core temperature data from Greenland that shows the temperature of the last 15,000 years that shows we're at the bottom of a normal trend but I think that's against your agenda.

[@House_Stark]

Greenland ice core data shows temperatures in Greenland, not the whole world!

[@joshblick]

@@House_Stark ROFL NO LOL

[@House_Stark]

@@joshblick Then by all means, explain to everyone how you think that oxygen isotopes measured from Greenland ice reflects the temperature of the entire planet! Especially considering that the whole planet does not have the exact same temperature...or oxygen isotope measurement for that matter.

[@joshblick]

@@House_Stark I could explain how oxygen isotopes 16, 17, and 18 are you used to monitor past atmospheric conditions but I get the feeling you don't want a real answer because you have already made up your mind to follow what you've been told to believe. I could point that while certain natural evens can effect the outcome for a short time like volcanoes, (months or even a few years) they are still a very good marker as to what the entire planet was doing over thousands of years. Think of it as measuring a specific point (not a wall) on one side of a enclosed room. The other side may be a degree or two different but it's a good estimation if not almost exactly the average. I could point out as to while we're being told every decade that the world is getting hotter because of us the hottest recorded instant was from 1913 in southern California, just one year after they started measurements with accurate technology. I could also point out that the hottest year on record in the US was from 1934. Both of which kills the narrative of our planet burning up. When the core samples show how much warmer the atmosphere was for thousands of years and we're coming out of a low point of course it's going to get a little warmer but that's natural. I could also point out that billions of dollars are funded to climate studies every year but only to those that go with the "man is killing the planet" narrative and that is fact but you don't want to hear that. I could point out the lies about the great barrier reef and that it's actually doing better and getting bigger or that there are more polar bears then when we first started counting but you don't want to hear that. I could point out that while it's said our CO2 is going crazy and we're to blame and we need to throw money at the people that tell us so it's just not true. CO2 makes up only 4% of our atmosphere, only 4%. And guess how much we make of that, 3%. 97% of that is created naturally, not by man. But you don't want to hear that. Were you around 50 years ago to hear that the world was going to burn up in 10 years? Then again in 10 more years? And again and again? So go ahead and read your lies about climate change. They are literally rewriting those exact charts to follow their narrative. All I have written here are facts. Don't be a sheep.

[@House_Stark]

@@joshblick I'm not sure why you felt the need to go off on such a long-winded response that addressed nothing of what was asked and only perpetuated long debunked myths anyways! But i digress: Your original comment suggested that somehow Greenland ice cores, which are used to record air temperatures thru oxygen isotope measurements, can be extrapolated to show global temperatures. I responded by stating that Greenland ice cores only measure temps in Greenland, not the world. You preceded to laugh at that(which suggests either your blatant lack of respect for science or your ignorance of it...or both)! And your last comment is nothing but a Gish-gallop of long debunked climate change myths that i can only imagine is an attempt to get out of answering the original question! You said, *"I could explain how oxygen isotopes 16, 17, and 18 are you used to monitor past atmospheric conditions"* What i asked of you was to explain how you think oxygen isotope measurements gathered from ice cores in Greenland can be used to extrapolate temperature worldwide! I already know how they're used to measure past climate conditions. I've read many published research papers on this subject. What i want to know is how YOU think they can be used to measure world wide temps! I'm very much interested in how you came to this conclusion. Published research backing this up would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

[@justsayn2075]

Convenient to start your chart in 1975.

[@phantomwalker8251]

most idiots were born in ;75,just trying to educate them,brainwashed robots..

[@davidplyler8173]

Huh? He had charts going back hundreds of years.

[@getchasome6230]

Hundreds of years? And here I thought by suv was causing it

[@insight1256]

Of course they start the chart in 1975, if they started it in the 1930s it wouldn’t show a rise and that doesn’t fit their narrative or agenda. It’s one of the many “tricks” in the alarmists arsenal.

[@insight1256]

@@fullmontyuk more heat records were set in the 1930s than any other decade of the 20th century. It was by far the hottest decade. In 1975 scientists thought we were going into an ice age because it was unusually cold. That’s why it’s disingenuous to show a trend from the 1970s because it was the coolest decade of the 20th century. Look at the “unaltered” data of these decades, it’s freely available on the internet.

[@arthurragnarok4073]

This channel should change it's name from 'Just Have a Think' to 'Do Not Question Mainstream Science'

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Can you cite any science in the video that is erroneous? Please cite your data and provide links. We'd love to see what horseshit you're going to mine from the internet's cesspool of misinformation.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

Halfway through, where you're talking about radiative forcing, you make a serious error. You take the free-space insolation, about 1361 Watts, then divide by 4 to get the average for the whole planet since, as you point out, the surface is a sphere, so the average over it is a fourth of the incident intensity. The graph shows a variation of 1.4 Watts. The factor of four cuts it to 0.35 Watts. So far, so good. Then, although your explanation could be a little clearer, you reduce that to 0.25 Watts to account for the reflection back to space, from the Earth's albedo. Still good. But then you say this shows the variation is only 0.018% of the total. Uh, no. You don't get to take the reduced, adjusted variation and then divide that by the full, free-space sunlight intensity. You need to divide the adjusted amount by the variation IN THAT AMOUNT. Or you can divide the variation in free-space intensity by the variation they give (that is, 1.4 W/1361 W), and you get about 0.1%. This is still small enough that your intended point still stands, which is that solar intensity variation is nowhere near enough to explain the observed temperatures. But it's really dismaying to see such a clear oversight nonetheless. This is not rocket surgery! You need to avoid repeatedly making such simple errors.

[@fredrikastrom4683]

And that clouds are less likely to form with high solar activity. Less clouds means a whole lot more solar energi reaching the surface. (Cosmic rays help form clouds, but solar activity shield the earth from cosmic rays and give us nice looking northern lights.)

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

@@fredrikastrom4683 This does not refer to my comment, and should have been placed as your own, separate comment.

[@symbionet]

Yes I spotted that too but didn’t want to rewind the propaganda to check.

[@michaelrowsell1160]

@@symbionet The corporations and the mega rich just love idiots like you.

[@rbnjr]

Where can we get a updated version of this to see whats ahead for 2021

[@penguinuprighter6231]

Nothing changes about this info in so short a time. Maybe check his library for current videos on a wide variety of climate related topics.

[@thomaspersson688]

And u also forget low output from this sun allows more cosmic ray from space, and the effect is more cloud cover, the effect of that, less sunlight on earth, so u underestimate the changing sun cycles .

[@Marc-nc9yv]

Store food to the rafters. We will have a decade of very poor food production

[@darrellcotterill9816]

Nice video, BUT! The author has focused only on solar irradiance which seems to be the least important of the sun's contributing factors to climate change. Anyone seriously interested in the sun's potential contribution to climate change should read "The Neglected Sun". The book exhaustively explains many contributing factors the sun provides for global warming. If you have little interest the whole picture then stick with these types of videos that are careful to omit real facts!

[@scaredyfish]

Darrell Cotterill How does solar energy reach Earth if not by solar irradiance?

[@gilbertjoalex3515]

Loved the Watt explanation!! Absolutely helped me picture it better, never culd quite place it before. Brilliant videos. Thanks bunches.

[@titusnelson9499]

Got to be careful of shrewd explanations with accurate lead ins that bend in a purposeful direction. This presentation is perfect propaganda. Well worth saving to see how to do it. Course if he didn’t blame it all on CO2 he wouldn’t be allowed to stay on line.

[@123Goldhunter11]

What if you are wrong and the sun is electric. What if the universe is electric?

[@grippercrapper]

Gold Hunter - Electromagnetism cannot explain all the phenomenon that we observe on the entire earth. So, you definitely cannot explain all the phenomenon that we observe in the universe. If electromagnetism had been the answer to all of physics, then it would have been discovered in the 1800's and we would have anti-gravity technology by now.

[@leifmealone4749]

@@grippercrapper Assertion, assertion, assertion. Good job out of you.

[@grippercrapper]

Rodary Windsor Cleveland - Do magnets stick to your body? Furthermore, how do you explain gravity on planets with a frozen core? They don’t make magnetospheres like Earth, but they still have gravity. As, I said before, if the electromagnetic force could explain everything, there were plenty of scientists who would have been extremely happy to demonstrate it. BTW, do you know how atomic bombs work?

[@grippercrapper]

Rodary Windsor Cleveland - First magnets don’t stick to the human body unless you’re using super glue. Second, you’re playing games with words. You can call gravity and the nuclear forces electricity all you want. That doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of a better understanding of how the universe works. So, unless you got something more than some charlatan faking shit on KZbin, you all talk and maybe a parlor trick or two. That’s worthless to me. If you really think you are some sort of genius, then stop wasting your time trying to talk about it and demonstrate how your “electric universe” theory can produce a practical technology that takes us beyond what we already can do. BTW, your intense habit of putting an exclamation point after virtually every sentence that you write, tells me you’re not all there. It also tells me you like attention and overhyping things. Less talk, more real results please. Don’t expect me to respond to you after this comment. I’m not interested in giving you attention. We’re done here.

[@aussietaipan8700]

I've been thinking about this for many years. It is clear climate change is due to the way we humans live every day. I'm not one who states we should all leave our current way of live but one who states we can live much smarter. We should not ditch our cars but look at better fuels like EV's and H2. Power from Nuclear (baseload) and renewables instead of coal. Just these 2 alone will remove 70% of carbon we put in the atmosphere. Also we need to limit human population and increase and renew forest plantations. There are too many humans who burn and release carbon for energy and cut down forests.

[@danbosch-]

Says the guy on a computer, in a wood house, that drives a car, that is using electricity to merely post personal opinions on a KZbin video. Way to save earth.

[@valleydairy]

Ridiculous. The ONLY thing covered in this nicely done presentation is whether or not the decrease in solar activity during a solar minimum results in a significant drop in insolation on earth. The sun earth relationship is much more complex than just that. And the correlation between solar minimums and climate is too.

[@philblue1015]

Show the charts prior to 1500 and explain why none of the info matches up with what you explained

[@Dundoril]

How does it not match?

[@kidwave1]

he's Another global warming nut! Probably a Cub of Rome member.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

What charts prior to 1500?

[@Howardhandupme]

You lost all credibility when I saw the one book you can read on the shelf. How dare you?

[@penguinuprighter6231]

What book?

[@milalewis983]

Clearly not a real scientist.

[@TheSchilleD]

Right, just another mouthpiece. Is this her dad or something?!?!

[@joeguy7700]

Great book you should read it.

[@avancalledrupert5130]

You should read it . Great observations. It actually makes it easier to survive under capitalism if you understand how it really works.

[@rosssmith8481]

The Sun spot chart: the only chart that hasn't been changed....yet

[@mandelbro777]

I can right now feel the memory-hole pulling it into the event horizon of *actually* inconvenient truths.

[@indridcold8433]

The Sunspot chart will be changed to fit the agenda of some tax-hungry politician wanting to micromanage something. Do not worry. It will happen soon.

[@rosssmith8481]

@@indridcold8433 too late! The government of Canada decided earlier this year to delete 100 years of climate data. It's known as future fallacy. Everyone in the past was stupid and everything in the future (unknown) is smarter. Even though national IQ levels are dropping.

[@jaredhouston4223]

@@bengorman5214 better to have no data then a little data for the models imma I right guys?

[@johnkrez5611]

??? Then who or what is causing the same climate change on all the other planets in our solar system.. do the research it’s true. Please let me know?

[@ritterlott9914]

I have! And you are correct.

[@johnkrez5611]

Thanks.. I know we have ridiculous damage and with free 0 point energy Tesla coil , Taurus field energy we should have been using they but then the .0001% would not have so much control money. Peace and Love to you and all.

[@deathgatedeathstar9259]

"all the other planets" all? or just some? maybe look into this a little more

[@Konstantinos143]

Solar minimums according to my previous studies result in higher amounts of cosmic radiation penetrating the heliosphere, which in turns results in the atmosphere being bombarded with more cosmic radiation. This in turn is shown to trigger wider and higher cloud formation above the oceans, which in turn might cool down the troposphere locally. Both rainfall and snowfall increase, and also larger bodies of air cool down faster as opposed to the periods of solar maximums. Researchers are still looking into this, but why no media has ever mentioned this makes me very suspicious towards their own part in the hysteria. Good job on this presentation by the way.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Scientists have tried to make the connection between cosmic rays and significant climate effects for fifty years and have so far failed. Part of the difficulty is that clouds both reflect and trap heat. kzbin.info/www/bejne/baTTlmR8d9F_j7M

[@terenceiutzi4003]

Yes exactly the week the sun the more clouds blocking it's heat from reaching the earth! But the weekend KP also increases volcanic eruptions putting more ash into our atmosphere blocking out even more heat!

[@terenceiutzi4003]

Yep just like Milankovitch warned us 100years ago! But the alarmists have prevented us from preparing for it and they will murder 3.5 billion people!

[@JanMorsø]

....possibly, but the documents I have here, suggest otherwise. The difference is, I do not steep to labelling your 'ideas' as hysteria, suggesting arrogance, narcissism, and the expected, religious overtones. I do research. That's one, easily observed ,constant in those denying the mass of findings from varied, scientific research, and it's still at about 90% surety. That's science!

[@Konstantinos143]

@@JanMorsø We will see... In 18 years or so, we will all be here. In an ice age, and all of you who have been unprepared will have died from hunger

[@eatbeans168]

Big contributor is negligent fishing practices, destrorying massive carbon sink ecosystems in favor of dragging nets for fish. Want to make an impact locally, stop buy fish

[@grasshopper3817]

What are your thoughts that CO2 levels were higher pre-industrial age than present day yet we had no significant warming?

[@dnboro]

www.livescience.com/29271-what-is-the-keeling-curve-carbon-dioxide.html

[@andyt3938]

My thoughts: it makes no difference. Methane is the killer. One volcano = an entire industrial revolution of methane

[@dnboro]

@@andyt3938 Citation please.

[@dnboro]

@@andyt3938 www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

[@dnboro]

(took me all of 20 seconds)

[@curtisschultz6976]

It’s a glitch in the matrix

[@kermitkroll5332]

that just could be .

[@nobodymatters3294]

A glitch in the election

[@RealPackCat]

You mean Dominion has their hands in everything? No wonder there is climate change. mMybe we are actually cooling, but they flipped the votes.

[@daviniusb6798]

And as always, thanks for your hard work!

[@peetee1799]

Dear Sir, your table presented at ~9:42 sucks. CO2 is app. 4% of the 'greenhouse gasses' only. Where is the MAJOR item - the water vapor?

[@House_Stark]

That chart was showing atmospheric drivers. Water vapor is a feed back. Meaning, it's increase or decrease is dependent on temperature change via evaporation. And no respectable scientist discounts Water vapor. They agree that it's the most dominant GHG as well as the most dominant feedback in the atmosphere. It's what makes climate sensitivity so strong when Co2 levels rise!

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Water vapor isn't in the chart because it's not a climate forcing agent. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it precipitates out. C02 does not. In fact, C02 molecules can hang around up there for centuries, and it's that accumulation that's causing our problems. Water vapor also has “windows” that allow some heat to escape without being absorbed, and it's concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface. C02-driven warming accelerates evaporation, which fills the atmosphere with increased water vapor which then acts synergistically with C02 to drive warming further. Thus C02 is not only the most effective forcing agent but the most crucial element in keeping our temperatures high enough to prevent earth from descending into an icebound state.

[@panspermiahunter7597]

The light from the Sun is different, it is insipid and being a professional photographer the different light leaps out at me, it is weak like a winter Sun, I must point out I have been photographing landscapes to wedding etc for over 30 years so what I am saying is, eleven year ago, twenty two years ago and thirty three years ago the Sun light was NOT like it is, the cloud formations where never in my life time like they are now, there is something much bigger than the eleven year cycle going on! I do not follow the official theories of global warming being CO2 induced, that has been shown to be fake to fit the official theory, I don't buy it but everyone can have their own opinion though time will show you to be wrong.

[@drteknical6571]

Well, certainly not by anybody on the BigMouth CO2 side... Oh yeah, and according to the CO2 side, anybody who disagrees is a loony-tune nazi earth-hating loser. The typical Leftist Neo-Facist NewThink Doctrine.

[@bauzaque]

YES, since around 1953 I have always remembered the beautiful iridescent cerulean blue sky, and around 1990 I observed that blue to have vanished to be replaced by the insipid colors you mention. I do not know exactly when it happened, as for a long time I was watching my navel, but I constate it is so, and I still know cerulean blue when I see it- it is not mine eyes!

[@tim1883]

moron

[@SG-js2qn]

I keep thinking he wants to sell me a vacuum cleaner.

[@davidgeary490]

@@Oi.... Nope - pretty sketchy vacuum cleaners - they'll break down - won't live up to the hype / sales pitch / propaganda!

[@ziobruno9324]

Yeah he's selling something ! A big over sized load of manure.

[@nathanhubbard130]

He must have got his degree in global warming ( no wait it's climate change now, no wait it's climate extremes now) from YTU (KZbin University.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Actually, everything in the video is based on accurate science. What part do you think he got wrong?

[@rudyvolpe]

Oversimplification of a very complex problem. Human history is short compared to climate history all the while with a pretty constant solar output.