Climate Scientists Debunk 13 Myths About Global Warming | Debunked
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- Climate scientists Deepti Singh and Benjamin Cook join us to debunk 13 myths about global warming. They talk about the difference between climate and weather, how affordable renewable energy is, and why it doesn't help to point fingers. Do we really only have until 2030 to make a difference? Singh and Cook dive deep into these myths and more on this episode of "Debunked."
Singh is an assistant professor in the School of the Environment at Washington State University Vancouver, and received her Ph.D. in Environmental Earth System Science from Stanford University. Read more about her work here: deeptis47.github.io/
Cook is a research physical scientist with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an adjunct research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Read more about his work here: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/bc...
MORE DEBUNKED VIDEOS:
Dietitian Nutritionists Debunk 19 Diet Myths | Debunked
• Dietitian Nutritionist...
Psychologists Debunk 25 Mental-Health Myths
• Psychologists Debunk 2...
Dentists Debunk 14 Teeth Myths
• Dentists Debunk 14 Tee...
------------------------------------------------------
#GlobalWarming #Debunked #ScienceInsider
Science Insider tells you all you need to know about science: space, medicine, biotech, physiology, and more.
Visit us at: www.businessinsider.com
Science Insider on Facebook: / businessinsi...
Science Insider on Instagram: / science_ins...
Business Insider on Twitter: / businessinsider
Tech Insider on Twitter: / techinsider
Business Insider/Tech Insider on Amazon Prime: read.bi/PrimeVideo
Climate Scientists Debunk 13 Myths About Global Warming | Debunked - Věda a technologie
I once heard someone put it very simply: "The earth is not in danger, humans are."
Humans who fall for scams like global warming are the danger.
@@anomamos9095 Humans who deny science and facts are the danger*
@@WhenDoesTheVideoActuallyStart Indubitably !
The so called science and facts used to promote climate alarm come straight from the equivalent of the Ingsoc Ministry of truth, Often they are so obvious wrong you'd have to be a useful idiot to believe and repeat them.
@@anomamos9095 The only people who deny climate change are think tanks financed by the oil industries, but ok
@@anomamos9095 so ummm where the f*ck are getting your info from. Im sorry but if you still think climate change isnt a thing, you are ignorant and quite honestly plain stupid in my opinion
France is almost exclusively run on Nuclear power now. It is literally the most energy-efficient fuel souece and is much less "dirty" than coal and fossil fuel sources.
Unfortunately after Chernobyl and Fukushima it might be hard to convince some people on nuclear, though.
@@gurenchamp Fukushima was caused by a Tsunami and Chernobyl by poor plant management. But some people will just overlook that and say "nuclear bad and dangerous!!" despite the countless refineries exploding and causing damage, fire, and loss of life
@@muun9403 No, Chernobyl didn't have basic security features because it was a military research reactor. And yes, Fukushima was poorly built for it's location. There were other reactors in Japan that were hit harder and didn't fail.
Either way, these were all decades old reactors, and we have reactors that are inherently safe today.
I've been an electrical power engineer for 25 years and I completely 100% agree with you
Much less dirty than "green energy alternatives" there i fixed it for you.
"...solution...people work together.'
Conclusion of conclusions: We ARE doomed.
No - you're doomed.
The reason you can not get people to work together on it, is that you can not get scientist to agree that anything needs to be done.
@@roberthicks1612 That's flat-out untrue and ridiculous. For decades there has been a list of priorities and how to execute.
What is lacking is political will. The politicians should be the one called out, not the scientists.
@@vilena5308 The problem is, the ones that create those priorities and tell us how to execute them, were all created by politicians and activist, not the scientist. ONLY a small percentage of scientist say there is any danger from co2 increases. Politicians and activist like cnn latch on to those few and proclaim every scientist agrees, but that is a lie.
"Hear the Word of The Lord, for thus says The Lord: The pride of man is grievous, and the heart of man grows increasingly wicked; his eyes are darkened, his mind filled with deceits. Behold, the whole earth is corrupt and filled with violence! Lo, even My own people fight against Me! Indeed, all flesh have corrupted their way before Me[1]...
Therefore I shall bring calamity in waves, great destruction upon this generation of evil men, evil men who are set under the authority of evil men, hidden evil in high places! For I am come to stir up the multitudes, and to shake the nations mightily! Behold, I shall grab hold of the Pacific plate, and twist! I shall press down hard, and it shall tip, it shall crack, it shall surely buckle!
In that day, the waters shall flow backward! No more shall I cause the ocean to know its place! No more shall I say to the waters, “You shall proceed no further!” For I shall strike the northernmost parts, until they are no more! I shall reach down to the south, into the great treasuries of ice and snow, and push them into the sea in one day! And the seas shall increase by measure before the eyes of all these multitudes, before the eyes of all those who dwell near the coastline, and before the paled faces of the wealthy, who by greed and evil gain have constructed tall towers and built extravagant houses upon the shore!
Therefore, watch! Be awestruck in astonishment, O foolish people who build on the sand![2] Watch how swiftly calamity overtakes you, how the waters inundate and swallow up the shores, how the land shrinks back at the power of the sea! Says The Lord.
Behold, I will show wonders in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, blood and fire and pillars of smoke! The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, as it is written![3] Satan’s strongholds shall be swallowed up, and all these vines of wickedness shall be uprooted and cast into the depths of the sea! City by city shall be oppressed and broken down, when I call nature to rise up and fight against you!
Then you will know, I AM THE LORD! For the word of the wisest among you shall fail, and the knowledge of the most learned shall be accounted as dung, when calamity upon calamity breaks out in every corner! Says The Lord.
Behold, My every burning tear, which you have caused, shall rain down in torrents of flooding rain, with a great multitude of hail mixed with fire and blood![4] It shall inundate the cities and towns, while still other places shall be left utterly desolate!
Behold, the dry and cracked ground shall speak in the hollows of the waste places as a testament against you, O most wicked generation! For My anger is kindled, the heat of My fury has come up into My face, and shall scorch the earth in the day I repay you for all your wickedness![5] Says The Lord.
Therefore hear My words,
And heed the sound of this Trumpet!
For I am God alone; there is none besides Me![6]...
YAHUWAH, He who causes to be!...
YAHUSHUA, He by whom all things consist![7]...
Yes, He who is and was and is to come, The Almighty![8]"
~
"And yet the people say, “Where has all this darkness come from, and for what cause has all this violence come upon us? For what reason is all this devastation come upon us?!” Is this not the Day which was spoken of? Says The Lord. Is this not the Day prophesied throughout the generations, even from the beginning, that it should come? Is this not the Day of Clouds and Thick Darkness?! For I tell you the truth, it has come, all have entered in!
Behold, the outcry of the prophets has
Come forth, the Word of The Lord is here!...
It comes to pass before your eyes,
It increases and fills the earth!...
Therefore, hear the Word of The Lord and give heed!
Hear the Word of The Lord from aforetime, and of this day!
Hear the Call and the Testimony, and tremble
In fear at the Proclamation of The Lord!...
For the decree is sent down;
Judgment is set and ready to be poured out!
Lo, calamity has broken forth already, announcing the coming of The Holy One. His messengers prepare His way before Him, the earth trembles at His nearness. Lo, His hands gather His flock together, and His soft voice calls to His lambs... Behold, the house is broken into, yet who is aware of it?
Behold, the bundles are tied and set in their places, and still the people mock! And those called Christian say, “Are we not the chosen? Yes, we are the elect of God”... Woe, I say to you! Woe to you and all your arrogant houses; you have surely deceived yourselves!
Bow down therefore and humble yourselves,
Heed the call and depart from
Your filthy houses, and repent!..."
~
"The heart of The Lord your God is very heavy. The heart of The Lord is enraged, and is very heavy. The sorrow of The Lord is deep and infinite.
My people, let it be known to you, I take no pleasure at all in what I must do, in what must be done - NO PLEASURE AT ALL! Says The Lord. As My hand draws back, blood pours down! As I strike the earth in My anger, My tears run down! As famine spreads forth across the land, My heart is rent inside Me over the hardness of men’s hearts! As My face fills with the heat of My fury, My eyes are set ablaze with fire over that which I see! My tears run down, My blood pours down. As My own servants turn from Me and run, as My own beloved, whom I have called sons and daughters, turn and fight against Me, as My own body betrays Me, My blood pours down, My tears run down.
As the nations come together and bind
My hands and My feet, My tears run down...
As they bruise Me and spit in My eyes,
While mocking Me, My tears run down...
As they pierce My side, My blood and
Tears run down together!...
As My own people drive in the nails still,
I am risen up from My place with My arms
Spread apart, waiting to receive them!
My blood runs down, the tears run down...
OH MY PEOPLE, WHY HAVE
YOU FORSAKEN ME?!"
Just want to appreciate how they both had a lot of time to speak, it was as if they were building the whole argumentation together!
Disciples of Gore, Hansen ,Mann, etc. ..and when were they ever correct?
All they needed to do is read their part of the script, making it look as naturally speaking as possible and comp the video together.
2:00
I just did idiot, I guess I must be Einstein or something, did no one bother to ask what makes heat, HMM WELL DUH HUMANS MAKE HEAT!
I already debunked Emissions = Climate change, How very EASY, what falls from the sky every now & then, RAIN aka water aka H20 aka two Hydrogen+1 Oxygen, guess what turns out 2 hydrogens sitting on oxygen makes it heavier than the single atom oxygen or even nitrogen sitting under it meaning it sinks to the earth sure it takes a few of H20s to gather first before it rains but the moisture is in the air & it sinks, that is a 3 element combo guess what else is a 3 element combo heavier than Oxygen, hmm CO2 & even C0 which is lighter as two elements but still heavier so GUESS WHAT IT ALSO SINKS & FALLS DOWN TO EARTH so it makes me wonder if the Atmosphere is 79%ish Nitrogen & 19-20%ish Oxygen & everything else is in that 1% difference, WHY IS THAT, I DON'T KNOW MAYBE BECAUSE IT SINKS SO THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH IN THE AIR TO MEASURE UNLESS YOU TAKE THE SAMPLE RIGHT NEXT TO THE GROUND WHERE ANIMALS/PLANTS ARE BREATHING IT OR A FIRE OR CHEMICAL POWER/MACHINE PLANT IS BURNING IT OFF/MAKING IT.
How do you blame Emissions when they don't stay in the air long enough to effect the composition of the Atmosphere.
Its almost like global warming/climate change is caused by SOMETHING ELSE I WONDER WHAT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE...
I MEAN IT COULD BE THAT Climate change is just a bad terminology for PLANETARY HEAT RETENTION.
So why is the earth retaining more HEAT HMM, well the Sun Makes heat but the cold vacuum of space Syphons most of that off(more so at night)
So that seems pretty balanced as if it wasn't it'd only take 100 days for the EARTH TO FREEZE OVER OR BOIL due to heat loss or gain over time, so the Atmosphere literally can't be the cause, SO what do we blame!
HEAT, its hotter, no duh sherlock, what makes heat or RATHER WHAT PRODUCE OR CAUSES.
HEAT GENERATION, oh that makes sense if we make heat that must be contributing to the heats retention... SO what makes heat.
THE SUN but its balance by the cold of space so we disproved that metric...
So what else is there, no that must be some kind of forbidden question cause it makes to much sense.
While fire makes Heat, what makes fire, HUMANS & Nature, via burning stuff aka chemical reactions.
SO AM I SAYING COOKING FOOD ON THE STOVE LEADS TO GLOBAL WARMING, WELL PARTLY, I MEAN YOU CAN'T DENY
IF ITS HOT THEN ITS PRODUCTION HEAT THUS RETAINING MORE ON THE EARTH EACH DAY.
But you know what else makes heat, cars, with gas those ENGINES GET PRETTY HOT!
& FUNNY FACT ABOUT ELECTRICITY, DOESN'T MAKE HOW YOU CREATE IT CLEANLESS, WIND SOLAR WHATEVER, GAS.
ELECTRICITY HAS THIS FUNNY HABBIT OF CONVERTING TO PURE HEAT WHEN USED, HMM HMM, but thats small time.
WHATS THE BIGGEST HEAT GENERATION ON THE PLANET, ITS ANIMALS & THEIR BODY HEAT, WOW WE ARE LITTLE HOT
CAKES, FACTORIES DOING ALL KINDS OF CHEMICAL EXCHANGES TO MAKE HEAT, WELL MOST MAMMALS ANYWAYS.
SNAKES NOT SO SURE ABOUT NOR FISH, MAYBE PLANTS/TREES CAN'T BE SURE.
So coal burning, power plants running electricity turning into heat, animal body temps, all that tends to add up, but even with all that
IF THE PLANET TEMPS HAVEN'T REALLY MOVED THAT MUCH THEN I THINK WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE FINE, As a matter of fact
we could likely produce 100k as much electricity & likely only move the needle by 1% globally temp wise. So no reason to limit technology growth.
Now clean air is a different debate, it doesn't sink right a way & if you live right next to a chemical waste plant then maybe restrictions should be in place solely for air safely for near by populations as it sinks right down on top of us.
@@exraielvalcore8769 oh man Karen, can it
@@donazs739 Sorry if you hit your head as a kid but you seemed to have confused Karen with the proper term of Nerd.
Besides the fact climate change isn't racist nor am I being the type of person demands my way or the highway but rather someone who's just pointing the near stupid lvs of common sense & zero IQ brain power it takes to correlate Global Warming to Heat Generation, I should be concerned there are people that can't connect a dot to b dot as if its some giant leap of logic hoop jumping, then again its not surprising there's people who still believe the earth is flat SO I JUST HAVE TO PLAUSIBLY SUSPECT 70% OF ALL PEOPLE ARE JUST IDIOTS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
What about the 800 year time lag between a warming event and CO2 release? Which would correspond with the Medieval Warm Period. CO2 doesn't drive warming, it follows it.
Agreed, and what about all the heat and CO2 emitted by the extra 7 billion people that the planet has inherited over the past 200 years? Surely that must have had a massive impact without even taking anything else into consideration?
... what are you even talking about?
Under normal circumstances where the Milankovitch Cycles determine the Ice Age cycles and such, you’d be right. However, artificial increase of greenhouse gases follows the Laws of Thermodynamics. Sorry to say, but we are in for a rough ride full of challenging times. Either our species will intelligently adapt and evolve as a species OR we won’t.
We have a big problem with how we produce energy, I think it's time for a serious level up in nuclear technology.
And you forgot about Fukushima and Chernobyl!!
@@MedicallyFit mistakes that have to be aknowledged and overcomed.
@@fenrirgg do you understand the Fukushima is still leaking and has been leaking this whole time? And I worked for a company that made stainless steel containers for the radioactive waste to be put into and then dumped into the ocean because they had nowhere to contain all of this radiation or those radioactive material. We are ignorant when it comes to proper nuclear technology and we have no real way to clean up any type of accident that's occurred especially when you look at Chernobyl in Fukushima and the length of time the radiation decay. But neither the Russian government nor the Japanese government has been able to clean and remove all the radiation and radioactive waste. Fukushima being one of the worst fall out of radioactive waste we've had because it completely contaminated the oceans as well as every Coast or coastal region that surrounds the Pacific Ocean region, as a matter of fact the whole west coast of the United States up through Canada has continued to find high levels of radiation as well as different crops being contaminated by the radiation.
@@MedicallyFit I'm sure there can be better and more secure nuclear power plants, and we need them.
@@MedicallyFit the rare incident does not make a rule
tony heller rocks !
Yes, he the man when it comes to exposing the political climate scare fraud !
He.... does not
Tony Heller = best information about climate change.
@@J.5.M. You have no chance debating him, not even these fools talking.
@@ashsmitty2244 My younger daughter could easily make Heller look stupid. Heller doesn't know how to obtain correct temp trends for large areas (I'm leaving the obvious cherry picks of small areas alone because that's too easy to counter.) Heller thinks the US is cooling (clearly not) and western Europe is roasting with a 9°F increase since 1895. He has posted on both these gut feelings he has. He does not understand much about this topic.
Fun fact: When a cow moos it is belching.
So that would be a melch?
Do you have any sources on that?
@@KG-cw9le yes, usually BBQ
I find this hard to believe.
@@TheRABIDdude yeah, it's bullshit
I hope more and more people wake up and realize the world is being destroyed because a hand full of rich people want to stay rich. We’ve had great technologies for decades that could help us curb global warming but corporations that benefit from the current system don’t always profit from that. I remember watching, Who killed the electric car. If you haven’t seen that please watch it.
Compared to these government lackies on here defending Big Government and Socialists wanting to control the world’s economy.
you are asking from a human to behave as something not human. This is our species' behavior. This is what we do.
If you hope for anything, hope we go - at least functionaly - extinct before we destroy the ecosystem/biosphere/earth to the point where complex life can no longer survive.
It would be very helpful if you guys included the sources of the information you're using as arguments in the video.
Thank you for your efforts
You can check their work in the description.
@@DLCS-2 I did but it's not what they talked about in the video
the source is in their mind.
The source is anonymous
2:00
I just did idiot, I guess I must be Einstein or something, did no one bother to ask what makes heat, HMM WELL DUH HUMANS MAKE HEAT!
I already debunked Emissions = Climate change, How very EASY, what falls from the sky every now & then, RAIN aka water aka H20 aka two Hydrogen+1 Oxygen, guess what turns out 2 hydrogens sitting on oxygen makes it heavier than the single atom oxygen or even nitrogen sitting under it meaning it sinks to the earth sure it takes a few of H20s to gather first before it rains but the moisture is in the air & it sinks, that is a 3 element combo guess what else is a 3 element combo heavier than Oxygen, hmm CO2 & even C0 which is lighter as two elements but still heavier so GUESS WHAT IT ALSO SINKS & FALLS DOWN TO EARTH so it makes me wonder if the Atmosphere is 79%ish Nitrogen & 19-20%ish Oxygen & everything else is in that 1% difference, WHY IS THAT, I DON'T KNOW MAYBE BECAUSE IT SINKS SO THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH IN THE AIR TO MEASURE UNLESS YOU TAKE THE SAMPLE RIGHT NEXT TO THE GROUND WHERE ANIMALS/PLANTS ARE BREATHING IT OR A FIRE OR CHEMICAL POWER/MACHINE PLANT IS BURNING IT OFF/MAKING IT.
How do you blame Emissions when they don't stay in the air long enough to effect the composition of the Atmosphere.
Its almost like global warming/climate change is caused by SOMETHING ELSE I WONDER WHAT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE...
I MEAN IT COULD BE THAT Climate change is just a bad terminology for PLANETARY HEAT RETENTION.
So why is the earth retaining more HEAT HMM, well the Sun Makes heat but the cold vacuum of space Syphons most of that off(more so at night)
So that seems pretty balanced as if it wasn't it'd only take 100 days for the EARTH TO FREEZE OVER OR BOIL due to heat loss or gain over time, so the Atmosphere literally can't be the cause, SO what do we blame!
HEAT, its hotter, no duh sherlock, what makes heat or RATHER WHAT PRODUCE OR CAUSES.
HEAT GENERATION, oh that makes sense if we make heat that must be contributing to the heats retention... SO what makes heat.
THE SUN but its balance by the cold of space so we disproved that metric...
So what else is there, no that must be some kind of forbidden question cause it makes to much sense.
While fire makes Heat, what makes fire, HUMANS & Nature, via burning stuff aka chemical reactions.
SO AM I SAYING COOKING FOOD ON THE STOVE LEADS TO GLOBAL WARMING, WELL PARTLY, I MEAN YOU CAN'T DENY
IF ITS HOT THEN ITS PRODUCTION HEAT THUS RETAINING MORE ON THE EARTH EACH DAY.
But you know what else makes heat, cars, with gas those ENGINES GET PRETTY HOT!
& FUNNY FACT ABOUT ELECTRICITY, DOESN'T MAKE HOW YOU CREATE IT CLEANLESS, WIND SOLAR WHATEVER, GAS.
ELECTRICITY HAS THIS FUNNY HABBIT OF CONVERTING TO PURE HEAT WHEN USED, HMM HMM, but thats small time.
WHATS THE BIGGEST HEAT GENERATION ON THE PLANET, ITS ANIMALS & THEIR BODY HEAT, WOW WE ARE LITTLE HOT
CAKES, FACTORIES DOING ALL KINDS OF CHEMICAL EXCHANGES TO MAKE HEAT, WELL MOST MAMMALS ANYWAYS.
SNAKES NOT SO SURE ABOUT NOR FISH, MAYBE PLANTS/TREES CAN'T BE SURE.
So coal burning, power plants running electricity turning into heat, animal body temps, all that tends to add up, but even with all that
IF THE PLANET TEMPS HAVEN'T REALLY MOVED THAT MUCH THEN I THINK WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE FINE, As a matter of fact
we could likely produce 100k as much electricity & likely only move the needle by 1% globally temp wise. So no reason to limit technology growth.
Now clean air is a different debate, it doesn't sink right a way & if you live right next to a chemical waste plant then maybe restrictions should be in place solely for air safely for near by populations as it sinks right down on top of us.
The biggest issue is that neither china and india are on board with the paris accords. It doesnt make sense to have a deal when both of the aforementioned
nations are not involved..not to mention mexico
Can you guys do a video on NFTs and energy consumption?
Before I talk about global warming, I would like to talk about a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. A state farmer produces more wheat than the federal limit, so the farmer is fined. The trade clause of the U.S. Federal Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the economy. As long as it is an economic act, the supreme court usually presumes that it constitutes interstate trade, because the economic act usually necessarily causes one state to affect another state. I support the Supreme Court's decision on this case: if a farmer produces more wheat than a certain value, even if the farmer does not buy or sell wheat, I can infer the impact of the extra wheat on the market. Because it's impossible for every farmer to bury the extra wheat in the ground. But from the point of view that each state has the right to police and health and other security related powers, I don't think the Federation has the right to use any excuse to completely ban a state from producing wheat or anything else beneficial. For example, the federal government forced states to use only Monsanto seeds. No matter how persuasive the federal government's explanation of this decision, I firmly oppose it. Because common sense tells me that the federal government can do bad things through seeds or other things that the states are forced to accept. The diversity of states ensures that they can survive in their own way under extreme conditions. And whether or not the federal government will deliberately harm the States, it is necessary for the States to maintain diversity in order to deal with systematic natural and man-made disasters. Back to the issue of global warming, although the left finds a 16-year-old tough Swedish girl who doesn't know that everything has a cost as its image spokesperson, it faces two unsolvable problems: first, some countries may benefit from global warming, and these countries may be dictatorships or countries that don't keep their promises. If we want to change the policies of these countries, we can only fight nuclear war, which will accelerate global warming. 2. I mentioned earlier that states should maintain diversity. Take what happened in Texas for example, Texas is the largest energy exporting state in the United States, but why is it so miserable this time? Because Bush is engaged in new energy projects. Outdated, traditional energy solutions are indeed inefficient and polluting, but without them, a country or a state can only wait to die when extreme situations arise. The reason why Texas does not join the national grid is also based on a similar principle. The energy security of a state cannot be controlled by any other entity, including the federal government and multinational companies.
@安徒生《局部拆党,还政于民》『能赢的人,有啥理由讲逻辑』 Sounds like a Great big f**k pie of RED tape & unavoidable cascade failure on all fronts. Crop failure considered in. Theres no fate but what we made for ourselves. So we sealed our own fate by cutting down all the tall trees that soak up excess run off of all things. All in lock step with human supposed progress. Cause & Effect Circular Logic on the Path of Least Resistance always wins out. Or otherwise known as Chaos Theory & the Butterfly Effect. We cant create order from chaos by thinking happy thoughts & brushing negativity under the rug lol. Ignorance of reality as it unfolds is like trying to paint a happy face on futility. BS biased science pushed the gravy train down the track ever faster to the end of the line. Exponential growth in a finite system is impossible billions of us will die one way or another. You cant melt all the worlds ice & maintain a healthy stable polar spinning planet at the same time filling the oceans with toxic plastic & the atmosphere with industrial outputs. We are all set to be victims of our own supposed engineered success? Bigfoot was the most virtuous man with the smallest carbon footprint. Ive got more but you get the picture.
Two essays above
@gamer Careful ill write another one i get carried away lol.
@@GOATGamerProSticks lol i also do it sometimes. Especially when it’s something you’re passionate and know a lot about
This year, I've decided to vacate in the Maldives.... oh, wait!
They've been underwater since 2018.
😂
Except they haven't.😖
@@gedofgont1006 Sarcasm not run in the family, then? 🤣 😂
@@tonycooke8545 Only when the wind's in the right direction!
I meant my comment to stand alongside yours, not to undermine it.🍻🤝
If you want to help slow down anthropogenic climate change, here are some ways you can do so for free.
TreeApp, an app that plants trees on your behalf every day. All you have to do is watch a 30 second advert.
Tribaldata, an app that sells data. You can plant a tree every time you earn enough points.
Both apps work on smartphones and tablets.
Ecosia, a search engine just like Google, but all it's profits go to planting trees.
Thenonprofits, a website with links to click to donate. You can plant trees, protect forests, help people who are poor, sick, provide healthcare and education, etc for free.
🌲🌳🏞️🌄🙋💁🙆
No rational person doubts that the climate changes.
But, rational people on either side come up with reasons why it does.
The earth is greener today, than it has been in a long time and crop yields are higher.
I am still puzzled by the data that shows that CO2 increases after, now before significant warming. Long range geological data shows that we have had much higher concentrations. This video, to me is just one side of a very complex story, and one, which seeks to censor opposing views.
Check out Tony Heller's channel to see how these corrupt scientists manipulate historical temperature records to create a warming trend. All the warm years in the 1930s has been adjusted lower to show a warming trend when there actually is none. Everything in this video is just pure propaganda to have you follow their climate agenda.
It takes a lot of energy to grow crops. Crops is a net negative.
before the industrial era the planet was in the little ice age , the coldest period of the holocene . we have been warming since then , thankfully . early twentieth century warming, before significant co2 emissions ,was equal to late twentieth century warming and the planet cooled from the40's to the 70's when greenhouse gases started rising rapidly . and as for the link between c02 and temperature im sure you know that in all the ice core records temperature rises first followed by co2 , outgassing from a warming ocean . im sure you know this stuff but you are out to persuade not educate .
Agenda!
Litle ice age was not a global phenomenon...
"How do we start the video? I know, how about we spoil parts of the middle of the video?"
I was in Canada several years ago and routinely volunteered in a charity organization. One day, I met a new volunteer who said he was a recent immigrant from India. We first talked about him being a dentist but then somehow ended up discussing about the environment. I think it was the first time I met someone who didn't believe global warming was real. He claimed that all the "scientific evidences" were just propaganda between scientists and some rich governments. He claimed earth naturally goes through hot and cold time periods. That was when I felt strongly (once again) that a person's education level may not indicate one's ability to do logical and impartial thinking, nor does it indicate whether the person would do enough research before making judgement on an issue. Or......maybe denial is the secret to some people's happiness.
Holy irony this whole post is lmao wow.
Maybe the educated person is right and you are just.....you.
@@rolanddeschain965 don't tell her the answer, it's fun watching her struggle with basic logic.
@@valdencorr2861 I'm sure it'd take about ten minutes of discussion on this topic before you'd hear this individual say what all true believers eventually say......it just must be. What's truly sad about the parishioners in the church of climate change is they somehow believe that they'll be able to impose all this ish and their lives will either remain unchanged or even improve but those evil right wingers ( whoever they are) will suffer. The cognitive dissonance. All hail Saint manbearpig , hallowed be his name.
Or maybe this guy is right, all knowing oracle of the climate
No mention of nuclear power......
... not in the title of the video.
Because these commies are after control not any actual solution. Climate chnage is just another excuse not an actual problem for them to solve. Frauds and propagandists pretending to be scientists and publicists.
@@S3Mi87 big words coming from a small mind.
@@S3Mi87 where are you getting this? You realize it saves the government more money to ignore these issues like they have been than to pay scientists money to actually work. Many entry level scientist are underpaid and struggle to become career scientist because of how little most are paid. The ones you see on videos and TV shows get the majority of their income from those shows and not their work because the government makes more money from people who don't believe experts.
During the 1930s America experience a mini warm period, resulting in what became known as the dust bowl. It got so hot farmland turned to dust forcing farmers to abandoned their farms. Summers were far warmer back then, this is why the early 1980s is chosen for a staring point to show a strong warming trend. They pick this date because it was the coolest, in decades.
When the oceans warm they release Co2. This is the reason rises in Co2 lag behind rises in global mean temperature. I have yet to see evidence showing rises in Co2 leading increases in global temperatures.
Co2 levels have always been at their highest just before the onset of ice ages. (rapid cooling events) So obviously something else is driving temperature.
SSHHHHH !!!! they will lose their funding if the hoax is exposed, they have to keep up the myth of all this alarmism.
Another Trump Supporter Conspiracy Theorist
Yep, its called the Sun
@@aayush_789 it's a conspiracy that the Sun controls Earths temperature? You lot are so far gone you will believe anything. I am amazed at how many gullible fools there are in the world. I bet you wear a ritualistic shame muzzle & sprinted to get to the Altar of Jabbo as well.
Right you are , if you want to fabricate a case for warming start with measurements from 1970 the coolest time in the last couple hundred years and ignores high summer temps from 1912 to 1940 here emissions were far lower , and sea levels have stable for the last hundred years .
Al Gore: Ocean levels will rise.
Also Al Gore: buys beach front property.
Fact: Sea levels rising.
Fact: 500 feet above sea level and 3 miles from shore is not considered ocean front property.
Isn't he like very old and about to die?
@@rodrigomachado5291 he's also irrelevant and not really a public figure any more nor a politician. and yet here we are.
@@scottekoontz go to the Maldives. They are literally inches above sea level. They are still building airports there.
@@williamchiafos3889 Why go there to know that sea levels are rising, and they're desperate to reclaim land? You do know that land reclamation is, don't you?
Nuclear and renewable along with offsetting has a lot of work to do
They are the best solution for energy issues with Climate Change
Changing the way we consume is the answer.
A lot of work indeed change in way we use plastics water usage. If we can offset coat of ev and change the way electricity is produced. Start refill Lake with treated waste water and desalinate sea water etc .
I wonder who is deleting comments for no reason
Yer mom! 😂
CZcams is censoring comments
Singh and Cook should debate Tony Heller. I think he would be willing but neither of them would. I'd love to be proved wrong by one of them being willing.
Why debate someone who doesn't understand the science? Heck, Heller can't even get simple gridding right and gets cooling in the US (it's warming) and extreme warming in western Europe (he got 9°F since 1895) so we know he's not very educated on this topic.
Debates happen in peer reviewed papers, something Heller is unwilling (and unable) to do.
@@scottekoontz Sure, Jan.
At min.4:42 Question: who was measuring CO2 levels before the industrial revolution?
Nobody. But here is how I understand it: when ice forms, it traps air bubbles. Since ice sheets form in layers over time, the layers contain air bubbles from different time periods. The deeper you drill, the older the ice, and the older the air bubbles. So if you measure the CO2 in the bubbles from the oldest to the newest layer, you can see how it changed over time.
2:00
I just did idiot, I guess I must be Einstein or something, did no one bother to ask what makes heat, HMM WELL DUH HUMANS MAKE HEAT!
I already debunked Emissions = Climate change, How very EASY, what falls from the sky every now & then, RAIN aka water aka H20 aka two Hydrogen+1 Oxygen, guess what turns out 2 hydrogens sitting on oxygen makes it heavier than the single atom oxygen or even nitrogen sitting under it meaning it sinks to the earth sure it takes a few of H20s to gather first before it rains but the moisture is in the air & it sinks, that is a 3 element combo guess what else is a 3 element combo heavier than Oxygen, hmm CO2 & even C0 which is lighter as two elements but still heavier so GUESS WHAT IT ALSO SINKS & FALLS DOWN TO EARTH so it makes me wonder if the Atmosphere is 79%ish Nitrogen & 19-20%ish Oxygen & everything else is in that 1% difference, WHY IS THAT, I DON'T KNOW MAYBE BECAUSE IT SINKS SO THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH IN THE AIR TO MEASURE UNLESS YOU TAKE THE SAMPLE RIGHT NEXT TO THE GROUND WHERE ANIMALS/PLANTS ARE BREATHING IT OR A FIRE OR CHEMICAL POWER/MACHINE PLANT IS BURNING IT OFF/MAKING IT.
How do you blame Emissions when they don't stay in the air long enough to effect the composition of the Atmosphere.
Its almost like global warming/climate change is caused by SOMETHING ELSE I WONDER WHAT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE...
I MEAN IT COULD BE THAT Climate change is just a bad terminology for PLANETARY HEAT RETENTION.
So why is the earth retaining more HEAT HMM, well the Sun Makes heat but the cold vacuum of space Syphons most of that off(more so at night)
So that seems pretty balanced as if it wasn't it'd only take 100 days for the EARTH TO FREEZE OVER OR BOIL due to heat loss or gain over time, so the Atmosphere literally can't be the cause, SO what do we blame!
HEAT, its hotter, no duh sherlock, what makes heat or RATHER WHAT PRODUCE OR CAUSES.
HEAT GENERATION, oh that makes sense if we make heat that must be contributing to the heats retention... SO what makes heat.
THE SUN but its balance by the cold of space so we disproved that metric...
So what else is there, no that must be some kind of forbidden question cause it makes to much sense.
While fire makes Heat, what makes fire, HUMANS & Nature, via burning stuff aka chemical reactions.
SO AM I SAYING COOKING FOOD ON THE STOVE LEADS TO GLOBAL WARMING, WELL PARTLY, I MEAN YOU CAN'T DENY
IF ITS HOT THEN ITS PRODUCTION HEAT THUS RETAINING MORE ON THE EARTH EACH DAY.
But you know what else makes heat, cars, with gas those ENGINES GET PRETTY HOT!
& FUNNY FACT ABOUT ELECTRICITY, DOESN'T MAKE HOW YOU CREATE IT CLEANLESS, WIND SOLAR WHATEVER, GAS.
ELECTRICITY HAS THIS FUNNY HABBIT OF CONVERTING TO PURE HEAT WHEN USED, HMM HMM, but thats small time.
WHATS THE BIGGEST HEAT GENERATION ON THE PLANET, ITS ANIMALS & THEIR BODY HEAT, WOW WE ARE LITTLE HOT
CAKES, FACTORIES DOING ALL KINDS OF CHEMICAL EXCHANGES TO MAKE HEAT, WELL MOST MAMMALS ANYWAYS.
SNAKES NOT SO SURE ABOUT NOR FISH, MAYBE PLANTS/TREES CAN'T BE SURE.
So coal burning, power plants running electricity turning into heat, animal body temps, all that tends to add up, but even with all that
IF THE PLANET TEMPS HAVEN'T REALLY MOVED THAT MUCH THEN I THINK WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE FINE, As a matter of fact
we could likely produce 100k as much electricity & likely only move the needle by 1% globally temp wise. So no reason to limit technology growth.
Now clean air is a different debate, it doesn't sink right a way & if you live right next to a chemical waste plant then maybe restrictions should be in place solely for air safely for near by populations as it sinks right down on top of us.
@@exraielvalcore8769 U need a serious class on science. I think ur narcissism is keeping u from learning.
@@akashbharati858
And to that I can agree
If we could lower the earth's temperature, what would be the correct temperature?
Not lower, but keep from rising. There is no perfect temp, but there is a problem with changes in temp at this pace. Not sure how many times the silly "what is the perfect temp" can be answered.
@@scottekoontz So the problem isn't actually the temperature, but the rate at which it is rising?
@@romanpolanski4928 Yes, the rate of change. In this case rise. Of course as a result of the changes that have already occurred, we have an actual temperature issue as well since the affect of the current 2.1°F increase means ice will continue to melt.
If we could keep the temps at their current average, then we have fewer problems. Sure, the current temps are a problem but ONLY because of the rate of change to have arrived at this point. If the temps had been this average for 1,000s of years (or better 10,000s of years) then the current temp average would not be a problem at all.
So the short answer is yes, of course the rate of change is the problem. There is no "correct temperature". There is a range of temps man could live, but the disruption with temp change is a major concern.
@@scottekoontz What evidence do you have that the rate of change of temperature (dT/dt) is unprecedentedly high? Greater than during the Dryas and Younger Dryas eras at the end of the last glaciation?
@@johnperic6860 Appropriate? You mean natural rate at this time assuming we were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere? A very very VERY slow cooling would most likely be present since there has been less solar irradiation for the past 4+ decades. Ever see the hockey stick graph? You should look into it.
Fighting about climate change become being more and more about psychological view than technological issue, and this is the hardest part !
Yes prople are still eating meat.. even after knowing meat eating is the no 1 reason for global warming
@@svs9610 this video literally just debunked that claim. It is not the #1 reason.
@@svs9610 lol
How can people be so Idiots. Even when they know excess co2 is the reason of global warming. And more than 50 billions animals are slaughtered each year. Now any idiot knows these animlas are not born naturally they are being born for meat consumption in farms by humans. They are basically bred for meat.And new and new animals keep coming to meet supply. Now tell me do these animlas exhale oxygen or carbon dioxide.. ?? 50 billion animals are grown before they are slaughtered. Till tthat time they exaled co2 and now again that mamy animals will be born and they will also exale co2.
And we know 1 tree only gives 40 tons of oxygen in its life time. Which is far less than the amount of co2 exaled by living beings.
Moreover the agriculture needed to feed these animals..also result im deforestation as well as co2 production..
$$$.
the fossil fuel industry has put billions into spreading lies and misinformation and funding corrupt politicians so that the public thinks that "climate change" is still contentious and no new legislation is passed that addresses these problems.
backpacking in 1989 in the far east the word was visit the Maldives before it's under water back then they said it could be under water as early 2004. they said in 1992 the 200,000 inhabitants drinking water supplies would dry up.....today more then 417,000 people live in the Maldives. in early 2018 a new Zealand research team based on satellite images and aerial photos over the last four decades found that most of the Maldives atolls were increasing in size. we have climate problems for sure are they the huge Catastrophic issues we are lead to believe....absolutely NOT.
Mrs.Deepti Singh, are you an Indian?
Love from India 🇮🇳🇮🇳❤️❤️
The comment section gives me hope for the world.
Speak for yourself.
@@williamchiafos3889 he did lol
It does the opposite for me
@@DANGJOS me too
@@williamchiafos3889 I am
We are told that global warming will cause many feet of sea level rise, yet to date we have seen no rise in sea level. London is an exception because the south of U.K. especially South East is sinking. The cause is rocks springing back in the north and west after the massive ice sheets melted always. It takes thousands of years to happen.
What about the chosen reference temperature in the late C19th? We were still recovering from the Little Ice Age so temperatures were rising.
How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period AD900 to AD1300? The climate was so warm that Vikings had colonies on Greenland. The later cold period stopped them dead.
Imperial Rome also enjoyed a warm period. The Dark ages were not only miserable without their civilisation but also much colder.
Spot on. This is just another climate alarmist channel.
"yet to date we have seen no rise in sea level" the satellite data tell a different story - accelerating sea level rise.
"The climate was so warm that Vikings had colonies on Greenland." the Greenland colony was founded because a group of vikings were exiled from Iceland.
Economics stopped them dead. The great plagues that ravaged Europe left half the rich, arable farmland available so no more settlers came and the walrus ivory business dried up as traders went to Africa to get elephant tusks.
Sea levels ARE rising! Why do you think some places are sinking?
@@danielszekeres8003 sea levels aren't rising ya twatt. you must spend ZERO time near the oceans of the world.
Any good sources on the evidence for human made climate change evidence?
"it's caused by cow farts" - not going to argue one way or another since I'm not convinced it's a crisis
"it's too late to do anything about it" - don't completely blame skeptics for this one. We keep getting warned about "tipping points" where it'll be too late to do anything about runaway warming all sorts of headlines and IPCC doomsday predictions warning us of impending global disaster, the apocalypse, etc. So at some point if the apocalypse doesn't happen year after year, decade after decade, people are going to reasonably begin asking scientists hard questions they will struggle to answer....
"a few degrees difference is not a big deal" I'll throw them a bone on this one, a few degrees difference may make a large difference, the problem is their climate model predictions struggle to tell us exactly what....the climate models give out a wide range of emissions scenario projections which translate into a vague answer that can mean anything.
"scientists don't agree on what causes climate change" not sure how to answer that, since climate change is such a huge umbrella term, that the term itself is almost meaningless. as far as "scientists agree" goes... "scientists agree on a scientific issue" is one thing, "scientists agree on an issue and therefore wish to order the taxpayer to invest in green energy from the federal treasury" is something else. I put science and science mixed with politics in separate boxes.
"global warming is natural" - you have to take into account not only the rate of change, but also the duration, and the total amount of 150+ years of warming seems like a long time when you put that 150+ years on a temperature graph 200 years into the past, and it seems long when you look at a hockey-stick graph of 1000 years, but the case doesn't nearly look as compelling when you take your temperature graph and backtrack through billions of years of climate history. Then the relatively short duration of the 150 global temperature trend being a ridiculously small trend is brought into sharp focus. The scary part is not that it is true. The scary part is that someone like me is bringing it to your attention and not the scientists themselves. and certainly not this video.
"global warming will destroy the planet by 2030" at some point, if you keep predicting impending global disaster, your Armageddon is going to have to materialize. So if the earth seems habitable in 2050, 2100, 2150 and beyond, we need to be prepared to take our scientists to the cleaners for false hysteria....but make no mistake: they aren't bothered by the 2030 prediction, they are bothered because it's a precise deadline that will hold them accountable for something specific that can't be explained away with a new study.
"it's china's fault" not going to agree or disagree with this one.
"renewable energy is too expensive to be realistic" not sure how much I agree or disagree but one thing I do know, is we are finding out problems with the electric car. For example the recharging of the batteries needs to happen too frequently that citizens are starting to take a step back. Californias' high speed rail was deemed too expensive by our own governor and the costs have skyrocketed.
"extreme weather isn't caused by global warming" - "Global warming causes hotter weather" is one thing, "global warming causes weather extremes including colder extremes" is something else. The latter is where I'm seeing the contradictions. We are told that the arctic is warming up 4x faster than the rest of the planet. For the moment Take that statement at face value. They argue this to prove their polar icecaps are melting at alarming rates theory. We are also told that no matter how much the planet warms, we should always expect the extreme cold snaps like the ones we are experiencing now because of "climate change" The polar vortex theory is that cold arctic air is blowing across the US and elsewhere and that's why we experience it. Trouble is if the arctic is warming up so quickly because of global warming, the the cold arctic blasts shouldn't be happening at some point to blow down here to US and cause the cold snaps
"the temperature record is unreliable" - for the moment I'm going to dismiss all skeptic arguments scientists are tampering with records to make them artificially prove global warming. We know the records are going through regular adjustments because of station moves, station removals, etc. Question: why should we not believe that an element of bias, no matter how miniscule is slowly corrupting the the record because those "tiny" biases add up by making artificial changes to the record? I want some commentary on this.
Last but not least, people don't need to agree with me. I don't require people to agree with me the way climate scientists do. Nor am I going to act like I don't have my own biases, prejudices and motives just like anyone else. But when I watch videos like this, they make it seem as if they are merely being informative as if an agenda isn't behind it. What's disturbing about it is, it insults our intelligence....
But scientists suggested 25-30 years ago that the sea levels were going to rise and most of the east and Florida coastline would be under water. Obviously that didn’t happened at all.
It is happening right now. The water is slowly rising over the decaded.
@@andremattsson The key word is SlOWLY rising in a decade. Like I said we should have been completely underwater in the east coast and all of Florida coast lines 25-30 years ago? Have you heard of about the ozone layer that was depleting about 20-30 years ago?
Been in California for 40 years. Beaches are identical and old pictures from 100 years ago look identical as well. Sea level rising is a big fat lie.
Look at what the “science and scientist” did with Covid nonsense. Don’t wear mask, wear 2 mask, it didn’t come from the level 4 bio-lab 10 miles away, oh actually it probably did and the doctors informing us about Covid probably help fund this outbreak.
The predictions were always "between 25cm and a meter of sea level rise by *2100*". Emphasis is on *2100*. That might not sound like a lot, but even 25cm rise is game over for many places.
edit: to add to that, we've already observed about 3inches (~10cm) sea level rise since the 90s. Just because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean it's not there.
@@johnnychavez4972 johnny, your mother would be ashamed of you. this is some next level cluelessness coming from a grown ass adult like yourself. jfc, why can't you even read the wikipedia?
We stopped releasing fluorocarbons into the atmosphere in the 80s, after that the ozone stabilised and started recovering soon after. The ozone "hole" is still there, the ozone levels won't get back to what they were for another 50-60 years. jfc man, didn't you study this at school?
7:00 can you name or show me a single person that has been displaced due to sea level rise since the industrial revolution? The event shown here is from a temporary flooding, not from a permanent sea level rise.
Maybe the floods are temporary, but they happen more often and go further in. The entire Maldives has lost land mass due to water levels wiring even that small amount. It might not be sinking the entire island but people have had to move inland further than before because of increased natural disasters from climate change
@@nyctobaby where is the data showing there are more floods now compared to 150 years ago? According to NASA data the average sea level rise during the past 100 years has been 6 to 8 inches (16cm to 21cm). How can you explain someone would be forced to relocate due such a small increase? Of course, in flat land at sea level a small increase of sea level will cover a large area but no one should be living in such area in the first place, even 150 years ago. Regarding the Maldives, the islands are doing just fine. No one has been displaced in these islands. Actually its population keeps on growing and they are building more and more houses and hotels along the shoreline.
@@nyctobaby The seas are rising by around 2-3 mm per year. To get a full meter, by doing some basic maths, we find you'd need around 330-500 years. More than 3 centuries. So don't worry, the Maldives will be fine throughout your entire lifespan.
@@ChaosSolak Do you understand what "accelerating" means?
@@drkstrong I also understand what "constantly failing predictions" mean. They've been predicting the Maldives and New York being flooded in the next 20 years for more than half a century. If their models keep failing, I don't see why we should put stock in them.
Also, sea level rise is not accelerating at all. It's been at a constant rate for more than a hundred years. And if you look at graphs than span much longer than that in the past, you'll see we're almost at a standstill compared to millions of years in the past when sea level was more than 100m below what it is today. Yet we're expected to believe the very few mm per year nowadays are manmade?
The amount of earth above sea level continuously changes over millions of years. The energy emitted from natural activities varies daily. No one has daily temperatur and CO2 levels going back millions of years, 150 years isn't even a snapshot.
Overpopulation and the degradation of natural carbon sinks suck as desertification, urban/suburban sprawl. A lawn and landscaping doesn't replace a natural forested habitat. Deforestation of land to put in a solar farm isn't the ideal progress. Excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide is an opportunity to grow better quality habitat, return deserts to grassland then forests. When Greenhouse operations combust natural gas to specifically increase growth of food crops, the opportunity is obvious, Double down on terraforming
There is no such thing as excessive carbon dioxide for plants - they will use all that is available to them.
sad to see this level of "science" out of Goddard, however, its correct solar irradiance is roughly constant - this misses the point of solar cycles (see most recent work by Nir Shaviv). Does Goddard refute the relationship between sun's magnetic field, cosmic rays and cloud formation? (if so, can you provide a reference). Also, CO2 persisting in the atmosphere for 1,000s of years - i know the IPCC GCMs use the Bern Model (with a 200 year time constant) for CO2 dynamics. All literature references and observational data show CO2 has a time constant of between 4-10 years. Is there a reference validating the Bern Model based on observational data? Also, is there a reference for the rationale of recent "adjustment" to the GISS GMST data again reducing past temperature measurements. why are satellite measurements being combined with surface measurements - satellite data for the past 30 years shows NO change in global temperature and does not suffer from limitations with surface measurements.
"Does Goddard refute the relationship between sun's magnetic field, cosmic rays and cloud formation?" Yes, so does every other solar scientist.
"satellite data for the past 30 years shows NO change in global temperature and does not suffer from limitations with surface measurements" See the satellite data from UAH and RSS - both show an increase in global temperatures of 0.14 and 0.18C per decade.
@@drkstrong you are obviously not up to date on astrophysics - recent work by Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv shows cosmic radiation flux correlates with global temperatures on decadal, centennial, millennial and geological time scales. Cosmic flux changes are the only factor correlating with global temperatures - the CO2 hypothesis has been falsified by all observable data (climate models are computer simulations - not physical observations)
we entered the 25 solar cycle in 2021 - almost a grand minimum. This explains the sudden drop in global temperatures (freezing in TX, snow in the Sahara and Greece, delayed spring in north America)
@@drkstrong i am referring to baseline satellite data prior to adjustments by Goddard. Does Goddard have a rationale for these adjustments (i am not aware of any published explanation for adjusting base data other than "lets mix everything together" - this is not scientific and simply mucks together urban heating effects from the surface temperature record with satellite data.)
@@doctorstrangelove798 Solar cycle 25 started in Jan 2020, not 2021. You are the one that seems not to be up to date on astrophysics.
The last paper written by Shaviv on this subject was in 2018 and was merely a conference proceeding paper (i.e., he gave a talk and submitted the text without refereeing), in fact he has not written a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal for over a decade. Who is out of date now?
His "correlation" was debunked when it was found he had shifted some geological data by over 40 million years (accident or deliberate?). Besides his claim is for data millions of years ago over very long periods. That does not address sudden warming we have seen in the last 50-100 years.
The best correlation with global temperatures is with GHGs and aerosols.
Freezing in Texas is not global climate but local weather.
Snow in the Sahara ... not that old chestnut! You do know there are several ski resorts in the hills of the northern Sahara.
There are 25 ski resorts listed by travel guides to Greece.
Spring is defined by the vernal equinox that does not shift much.
All of those are local weather. Where I live we have had an unusually warm spring. But that again is local weather, not a factor in global climate measured over the entire surface of the Earth over several decades.
@@doctorstrangelove798 Goddard does not analyze the satellite data. That is done by a university group (UA Huntsville) and a commercial company (remote sensing systems). They both get a significant warming trend.
What caused previous global warm and cold periods ? What is the optimal temperatures on earth ? What is the value of ECS ? Is 1,5 C warmer only bad or mostly beneficial for life ? Is CO2 bad for plants and are plants bad for life ? Why wasn’t a tipping point reached when CO2 was 1500 ppm ? Does agreament among scientists say anything about the truth or the magnitude of ECS ? Why are models trusted when they are quite useless as they are today in forcasting temperatures of a multivariate, nonlineat chaotic system ? Whould any politician or scientist say no to the prospect of working for a “saving the world” narrative or eternal financing ? Why is it that after so many years of reasearch the uncertainty of the ECS is still so large ? Does CO2 follow the temperature or does the temperature follow the CO2 in the ice core data ? Are scientific facts a majority decision ? Why are non alarmistic scientists silenced ? How saturated is the CO2 effect ? Doesn’t CH4 oxidize in the atmosphere ?. How probable is it that results from climate models can be extrapolated into the future with any magnitute of accuracy ? Why is it that so many predictions made historically were wrong? Why are historical data from official sources being sensored in recent public information? Why are previous official temperature records changed ? The Industrialisation 2.0 cannot be stopped because too many are benefiting from the energy transition. Me too. The direction is correct but the urgency is exaggerated and the political twist is benefiting totalitarian systems. Be careful ! This new religion, if pushed to hard, can result in the 3rd world war. There are both positive and negative consequences with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Only bad science would focus on one side of the topic, irrespective of what brings funds or not.
most of these questions are either answered a million times, misleading or irrelevant. try harder.
@@ole86 And you have answered none of them - Let's take just two...
Are scientific facts a majority decision ? (in other word "consensus") and What is the optimal temperatures on earth ?
Both of these are at the heart the the "climate debate".
@@fredweigel515 1. It obviously is. There is always a minority viewpoint on certain topics since most science is about probabilities and approximation rather than absolute truth. Even math is incomplete. There is a clear scientific consensus regarding anthroposophic climate change as stated by the following Organizations/institutes: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
U.S. Global Change Research Program, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The Geological Society of America, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, American Medical Association, American Chemical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical UnionAcademia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
2. There is no perfect temperature for the earth but for us humans it is obviously the temperature we had for the last 200 years since our current agriculture, infrastructure, living spaces, etc. are based on it.
6:58 ''There are already people who have been displaced by sea level rise''
Where? First you need to prove it was not flooding or erosion or land sinking or all of the above. Then you will have to quantify what you claim by showing exact figures of the rise over the last 30 years after accounting for all other factors and show just how that has displaced them.
The effects of flooding and erosion are exacerbated by sea level rise and by extent global warming. Sea level rise leads to larger area of land being flooded and increases the amount of erosion in coastal areas.
@@aftokratory sea rise has been increasing at a regular rate ever since the last ice age for obvious reasons. You lie and scare without foundation...YOU sir, are a SNAKE OIL salesman for sure!!!
@@rob-yt9di Well if you believe all the scientists of the entire world are just lying for no reason or motive, there's no hope for you I'm afraid.
@@aftokratory Well I don't, because all the authentic scientists in the world with knowledge on the matter don't agree with your assertion, that global warming is a caused by humans.... !!! Further more if you believe ALL the scientists in the world agree with your statement then you sir are a damn fool !!!!
@@aftokratory You are joking. Right? 😳
What about the pools of sewer pond not being treated?
Is he saying the changes in temperature over the last 150 years compared to time periods over all known history, or just changes over the last 150 years standing alone. That aline would seem to be a huge deal
I wonder if Tony Heller will debunk this.
As if Heller has debunked anything since he started pretending to understand the science.
These two sound like well-paid mouthpieces. I still am amazed at the belief they need to bring the atmospheric CO2 to zero, life ends. How did that 100% renewable work out in Texas. If the warming continues in my area at the current rate , we will freeze to death in a few years.
And I know the temperatures have been altered. There are specific dates i recall and recall the temperatures on those dates.. and those temperatures are missing. So there are alterations going on, or as they call it 'smoothing'
@@52marli I too am amazed that people are so stupid they believe the goal is to get atmospheric CO2 to zero (no really, some boneheads are writing this) and worse, that they believe it could even be possible to get it below 400 ppm within the next 100 years.
How'd gas and oil work out in Texas? Some of these science aliterates think the problem was renewables. Talk about duped!
If you bring atmospheric CO2 to below 200 ppm all life ends.
For Gods sake , Tony Heller isn't even a real Climate Scientist.
The climate scientists are notably silent on the environmental impact on all of the batteries required to make green energy work. Or about how less people die from climate events largely because of the industrial revolution that produced that CO2 than in any time in human history.
They're not though. there's tons of studies going over the impact battery production has on the planet. There's no one hiding this information from you, you just decided that since it wasn't shoved in your face, it's hidden.
Couple that with the fact that right now, today, the biggest problem we face is climate change, and focus on everything else kind of falls to the wayside. So, if you're interested in learning about the real impact battery production has on the environment, you're welcome to do so, it'll just be more time consuming than clicking the first result on google or youtube, probably.
@@Eniroth Have you calculated the size of the battery needed to power even a small country when the Sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?
@@romanpolanski4928 More dishonesty in this discussion, first off you're now shifting the goalposts, no longer sticking to the lie you said before, secondly you are using a strawman argument in that you wrongfully assume there is going to be a single battery per country when there needs to be different solutions to different electrical needs.
how about you stop this nonsense and educate yourself properly? and stop lying on the internet about shit you don't understand even a little bit.
@@Eniroth So no answer to my question then. What mass of batteries would be needed to store enough electricity to power a country for more than a few seconds?
@@romanpolanski4928 I already told you that your question is incredibly dishonest. You would need to tailor batteries for purposes, not have one single battery to supply the whole country. Electricity does not work that way.
So please do stop spreading ignorant nonsense.
It's difficult to face the reality that you have been deceived but when you do you grow up.
It was hotter before cars. Please explain that.
• 2:25 - Cow emissions are anthropogenic. Cows were here for millions of years without problem, it wasn't until humans came along and forced cows to breed to unnaturally high populations (to die and be eaten 😕) that their emissions became an issue.
• 2:50 - _Some_ plants and animals will adapt, most will go extinct. Evolution is usually very slow.
• 5:51 - That's the problem, policy-makers are rich and have air-conditioners and heaters everywhere, so they don't care. ¬_¬
• 6:34 - That's why people who ignorantly assumed the world would end in 2012 were just as ignorant to breathe a sign of relief on December 23rd; who says the end of the world would be an asteroid or something, maybe some sort of slow-boil thing started that day that could end the world over the course of a few years, like a disease or environmental disaster. 🤷
• 8:46 - Renewable energy is still relatively new; like all technology, prices quickly plummet precipitously.
• 9:46 - Scientists don't use the phrase "global warming" because it confuses simpletons who can't understand the connection between a global temperature increase and a localized blizzard or monsoon.
odd - before roughly 1850 there were 80 million Bison roaming the plains - comparable to the current cow population in the US. I don't much about cows or bison but presumably they both belch.
@@doctorstrangelove798 It’s not just about the belching, but also the diets that the cows have in farms. Also, you’ll need to compare the current population of bison to the past population of bison if you’re trying to make this comparison
@@joushua4428 i think my comparison is clear - natural sources of belching are comparable to agricultural sources of belching assuming there is something more to this hysteria than bovine excrement.
Cows only make up about 2 percent of green house gas emissions. The rest comes from the horrific mono cropping and all the heavy equipment they use. Regenerative farming is the future if only people would get on board and not constantly try to put the blame on my beautiful steaks😁
Cow emissions are completely irrelevant. Where do they get the carbon from that they put into the atmosphere?
From the plants they eat.
Where do the plants get the carbon from?
From the atmosphere. Net effect zero.
the problem with climate change is the fact that a piece of paper named money and the financial gain of few rich people are seen more important than life itself. thats why we are still stuck to use 19th century fossil fuel based technology. Thanks capitalism...
Yep just take a look at Australia, abundance of sun and wind yet stuck on fossil fuels due to political donations and billionaire miners.
@@Renee-vz3cx for what money were invented? Money are evil, money are nothing but a mistake
Lol blaming Capitalism while using the fruits it provided is hipocrisy, oligarchy is not Capitalism, read a book or two and stop making a fool out of yourself dummy 😂😂😂
@@alex9920ro money is a vehicle, it's evil people who use it for evil means.
I hate this kind of global hustle tactics . Do you know why he say the fastest in a couple thousand years cause one of the fastest global warming events happened 15,000 yrs ago and it contributed to the biggest advancements in civilization cause modern civilization was invented after that . Pollution is real , weather change is real , human global change is real , but not on the scale they want you to believe. We pollute water in a horrible way and new tech will get this solved but what needs changing is the grift , the hustle , the con to control policy to have power . Start help by making real life sane solutions instead of saying to every school kid the world is ending and if we don't do something it's gonna be gone in a few years . That's bullshit. We can come up with something but don't doom and gloom the money into your political pocketbook. If we do it the way they say your children will starve and the lights will go off and agricultural farming does more damage than cow burps but you don't hear em bashing that .
Can someone explain to me how cows producing methane isn’t natural ?
Because of human influence through agriculture there are millions more cows than there should be naturally. With that comes a significantly greater impact of methane.
Thanks. He really should of said the amount is what’s unnatural.
Is there anything I can do to fight global warming?
Plenty. Eat less red meat, drive less, fly less, eat more healthy, practice leave no trace, conserve electricity and water, go solar or any other renewable energy. Stuff like that.
Doing just one of those will be a big help to help slow rapid global warming.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI why do solar and wind when you can go nuclear?
Stop existing ?
@@theshrekening2157 i hope you’re joking.
@@theshrekening2157 Nuclear power has lots of problems. Building a Reactor takes decade and return on investment will take another decade. Toxic waste generated are difficult to store and is radioactive. Nuclear energy is only possible in countries with lots of nuclear substance like France. Lastly Nuclear disasters are more impactful than anything else.
Frank Mitloehner debunks the ruminant affect on methane. An international report was changed due to his corrections.
Links??
ash smitty Just search for him on YT. He’s a professor at UC Davis. There are a lot of videos with him speaking.
@@ashsmitty2244 no need for any links. he's getting money from the agri industry, and in return he bullshits on twitter. that's all there is.
@@NaumRusomarov The agriculture industry is how we eat. What’s the problem with supporting that?
@@ashsmitty2244 the meat/agri industry paying off people to spread bullshit and twist facts and research to fit their agenda is the problem. they're doing exactly the same thing the fossil fuel industry does to avoid regulations and responsibility.
I too like steak (sometimes) and eat meat and dairy quite often. At the same time, I do admit that the way we produce meat accounts for huge amounts of ghg that soon is going to rival the amount released by transportation... And most of those ghg can be contributed to beef production.
Mitloehner is nothing but a useful idiot to them. They pay him off, and he yells at the top of his lungs: "Don't look at the agri industry, look at the fossil fuels industry." He can piss off straight to hell as far as I'm concerned.
About the Sun, you just forgot the magnetic aspects. See Pr. V. Zharkova & Nir Shaviv papers rewiewed.
5:16 or 37 Celsius or 63 original celsius (the original celsius scale was upside down)
She really put less blame on China because places use their goods? Like every other country doesn't have exports?.. What a joke.
To me it looked like she blamed china less because china was emitting less than other countries. But then again, we're not trying to focus on blame, but instead we try to focus on solutions.
Nope. West has outsourced their industrial production to China and most goods are produced there. The point she made is valid, as the carbon emissions from consumed goods should be accounted for, not only domestic emissions like electricity generation or transport. Also per capita China pollutes 7 tonnes a year, similar to Europe. US has 14 tonnes of CO2 emissions per person. Also current yearly emissions are not the point. As she pointed out, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years and there is another metric called "Cummulative emissions per country" since industrial revolution. US is responsible for 25% of all extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Europe another 25%. China 13%.
The only joke here are the SUV driving, burger shoving, shopping spree going, short memory finger pointing Muricans like you.
“It’s okay for China to emit carbon because everyone benefits from their production...(moments before)...it started with the industrial revolution in Europe.
So a pass for China because everyone uses their crap but not going to give Europe a pass for bringing almost the whole of human species out of absolute poverty through the industrial revolution?
Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
@@benjaminmee3751 i don't think either one should get a pass. there should be consequences for carbon emissions. Appropriate consequences, that is controlled by an outside and independent agency recieving funds from every nation.
This agency should oversee the necessary actions for nations to become carbon neutral, and have jurisdiction to force policies regarding energy through legislation.
The amount of fines issued for not following the advice of this agency should equal what the country should have spent on becoming carbon neutral, so there is no profit to be had from ignoring these rules.
Every military on the planet should be responsible for enforcing the guidelines set by this agency.
this would establish a world government in terms of energy use, which is sorely needed.
@@Eniroth Yea world gov woyld be the most innefficient thing created on earth I'm gonna have to pass on that.
6:14 What's a ''climate denier''? Is that like when you deny there's a climate?
I don't know if this is a joke, but a 'climate denier' is someone your other comments make you seem to be, where a person denies there is any negative change to the earth's climate.
@@nyctobaby Yeah he's a climate denier.
A climate denier is what quacks use to try and avoid a debate in the actual science for they are science deniers, for physics and their claims of global warming do not match.
It's ungrammatical (or semantically imprecise, to be semantically over-precise). It should be 'climate-change denier'. There again, since many such people *do* constantly confuse weather with climate ('how can there be climate change? - it actually got quite cold last winter!'), they sort of do deny that the climate exists...
@@Microtherion It's not even that for climate changes all the time, we deny CO2 controls the climate and are advocates that the Sun does. Weird I know? A great ball of ionized plasma that creates fusion vs a gas molecule that cannot produce heat. What were we thinking?
Really good discussion
a. The sun's output as measured with total irradiance varies between 3 to 5 % as it goes through a 11 year cycle. But the sun's output is not just total solar irradiance but also it's magnetic field which would influence the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth. When the cosmic rays increase the cloud cover on earth also increase and this has tremendous influence on earth's weather. The magnetic field also varies with the TSI.
The gravitational and electromagnetic variation will also influence the ocean cycles on earth and these had tremendous influence on the earth's weather and climate.
It is foolishness to ignore the huge ball in the sky and to just consider the TSI as insignificant would be height of simplicity. If the sun's TSI were to drop over 2 solar cyclce (around 22 years) just imagine how much cooling would have resulted in the ocean.
b. methane is never a problem. The amount of methane in the atmosphere is only 1 ppm and it's lifecycle is half that of co2. On top of that the absorption spectrum overlaps that of water. Water vapour in the air varies from 10,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm depending on location and on time. It easily overwhelmed the effect from methane and co2.
c. the temperature graph used is misleading. That is intellectual dishonesty. If we were to follow the extreme weather models adopted by ipcc - how much reduction in temperature can we hope to achieve in 100 years if we all stop using fossil fuel - and send us back to the stone age ?
Do these professors have an answer ? Do any of you know ? It is a mere few tenth's of a degree and many do not realise - this is well within the error band of our estimation. If we CAN'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE WHAT WILL HAPPEN how can we be so sure - so cocksure that the co2 is causing extreme weather ? What proofs do these alarmists have ? Yes show us the proof that co2 is causing all these extreme weather events - if they can find one :-)
And nothing said about how much co2 our planet absorbs. How about co2 capture technology?
CO2 capture machines will complete ouer travel to idiocracy
@@eriknielsen1849 how so
@@Mrfoo2002 when the premis that Co2 is a poluteant is wrong it doesn't make mutch sence spending a lot of recurces and polute a lot fighting it.
Try seartch Co2 and plant growth
Ewen here in West Sahara we start seeing the benefits of higher co2 levels
@@eriknielsen1849 what’s your first language
@@Mrfoo2002 Danish so gives funny spelling and word combinations somtimes 😄 sorry
When co2 levels were lower we had far more buffalo roaming north America then we have cows now. Do buffalo's fart less?
I don’t know the exact past numbers of buffalo in north America, but there is animal agriculture worldwide, not just North America. This also accounts for other animals for agriculture such as pigs, chickens,etc. Methane is also not the largest contributor. Like they said in the video, animal agriculture is roughly 25%, which is a bit higher than what i’ve read, but transportation also accounts in that number. Methane alone is a large contributor, but carbon dioxide is what drives nearly 80% of the warming effect.
The Buffalo population was estimated to exceed 500 million head. Bison are much bigger than Cattle. There was also Caribou herds nearly as large and also Moose, Deer & Antelope.
@@shinysidedown9090 300million cattle are killed each year and they are often killed before they reach 4 years of age so about 1 billion are alive at any given time.
The small change in temperature of 1 to 3 degC change in average temperature is said to have extreme consequences. And the false analogy used often is the human's temperature change of less than a degree C that had dire consequences to the human body. We need to consider the natural variability of the human body throughout the day as well as the natural variability of earth's temperature. Our body's natural variation is usually less than a degree and if it is more than that there will be dire consequences. But the earth's temperature variability is huge daily and from season to season. Therefore a 1 to 3 degC increase and it falls within the daily and seasonal variability there won't be any serious consequences.
Greenland is called green because the grow zone of the earth once had reached the arctic circle and the vikings even had farming communities there. The temperature of the earth then were much greater than today.
These are not professors or scientists but propagandists spouting "party line" to scare people. When people are afraid they are willing to give up much of their rights.
some questions does not fit, may be an expert would answer then:
- If a terrain on -40°F warms to -38°F, will the ice that covers it melt?
- It is has been demonstrated that 97% of Mars atmosphere is composed by CO2, why this planet is so cold?
"It is has been demonstrated that 97% of Mars atmosphere is composed by CO2, why this planet is so cold?"
It's twice as distant from the sun so it receives four times less solar energy.
It has less CO2 in the atmosphere.
earth's atmosphere is composed of 0.04% CO2 and mars atmosphere is 97% CO2.
If we were comparing similar atmospheres it would make sense to assume that mars has a lot more CO2 than earth but mars has an atmospheric pressure of 0.636 (0.4-0.87) kPa while earth has 101.325 kPa or to put it in another way the earth's atmosphere is 1 Atm. compared to mars 0.00628 Atm
It's like this: would you prefer getting:
A - 97% of my bank account (assuming all my net worth money is in one bank account)
or
B - 0.04% of Jeff Bezos bank account (assuming all his net worth money is in one bank account)?
If you choose A you get like 1000 dollars because i poor AF, don't own a car or a house.
If you choose B you get over 50 million dollars.
Percentage is not the same as quantity.
@@nunofoo8620 precisely! it is the sun. Even tenths of grade once a while would convert mars into a hell in millons of years
@@pabescgmail "precisely! it is the sun. "
No. It's the Sun + greenhouse gasses among other things.
The closest planet to the Sun is Mercury. The hottest planet in the solar system in Venus.
Please address the historical record presented by Dr. Heller laying out that it was much hotter in the early 20th century than now notwithstanding that co2 levels were much lower. Thank you.
A single google search has websites on websites calling his work false. You just looked for one specific scientist who could back your claims and ignored a hundred more saying he is wrong. If you don't get those websites i ask you to search in incognito as google feeds you the same results you believe on the first page, not actual facts. I did search on incognito to avoid any contamination of my search results. So simply search DR. Heller climate change on incognito and scroll through the entire page and see what they all say... The NOAA and the UK MET office support the result from NASA he denies.According to Mark Richardson, Raw data actually shows MORE global warming since they need to adjust for outside factors. Victor Venema also agrees with Mark and the NOA. His 'study' which is just a blog post really was not peer reviewed, showed no evidence of research, or even passed by board and has been reviewed by many websites calling it a hoax. Snope for example. When scientists do make 'adjustments' its to account for the old tools of the past being more inaccurate or for temperatures taken at different times at the day. This means the raw data he speaks of actually shows hotter of temperatures at a higher incline than the data actually posted. As in, scientists LOWER the data before publishing it.
@@nyctobaby Yeah Google is pretty bias in the climate scam.
Tony Heller, although very informative and useful, is not a doctor, he did take geology like Potholer.
Your appeal is to authority not a critique of the historical data presented by Tony Heller. I am currently more persuaded that the newspaper articles from the early 1900s reveal an accurate picture of the weather and temperature highs and lows more so than any other data. Having to ‘adjust’ temperature data to overcome the errors of the past is highly suspicious to me. Folks in the past were as smart and conscientious and folks in the present. Additionally the historical forest fire information presented by Heller is from the forest service itself. There seems to be no reasonable way to ‘adjust’ that data. It must be taken at face value. To continue this conversation we must avoid as hominem critiques of the messenger and focus on the message. Climate history is real history. Co2 levels have been astonishingly high in the past and the world did not do anything but support abundant life. Why should I believe that Co2 rise is the driver of anything other than a greener globe as has been repeatedly shown in the past. The planet may become warmer perhaps but catastrophic warming would have to exceed Co2 levels at 4000 ppm for us to find out as that high water mark has been achieved in earths history with, again the consequences being bigger trees, bigger bugs, bigger mammals etc., not an end to life.
@@nyctobaby Yeah. Altering & erasing past data.
"Climate change is caused by human activity" ...a surprising statement for a professor.
Why ?
It really is surprising that anyone would have to say this after decades of everyone knowing.
@@enrices So climate did NOT change before the Industrial Era? Are you mad?
@@scottekoontz Exactly. Thank you.
@@romanpolanski4928 *Human* caused climate change. No one's denying that it changed before. We emit CO2 - CO2 is responsible for warming - We are causing rapid warming. Come on dude.
Please explain the 1930’s heat.
Bad farming techniques in the US, it was a local problem the rest of the world was about average temperatures.
@@drkstrong The data from this period shows unusually long and protracted heatwaves. Summers were far hotter during the dust bowl era that's what the data says.
@@paulsmith1981 The data from this period shows unusually long and protracted heatwaves IN THE CONTINENTAL US ONLY. The data you refer to does not even include Canada or alaska. The rest of the world was not involved. The global average temperatures in the 1930's were about average for the 20th century
@@paulsmith1981
The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.
150 years does not an expert make. Looking at weather patterns over a million years would not allow you to predict tomorrow. I will ask the panel one simple question. If the planets are rotating around the sun and the sun is rotating around the galaxy and he galaxy is rotating around the universe and the universe is expanding how can you model all the forces acting on earth? You can't we are being sold feelings, I feel like the earth will warm. It is infinitely too complicated for anyone to predict what is going to happen and that is the fact!
The climate of Egypt changed only a few thousand years ago. They started to become more of a desert. Explain how that can happen without cars and factories if climate change is not natural.
you and i both know questions like these are like kryptonite to superman
This guy looks so much like Jakes dad from brooklyn 99
Millions of years ago there was five times the amount of carbon in the air as compared to now. Trees and plants as well as animals thrived. Therefore you're scaring people for no reason. The planet is not dying, and carbon does not kill plants, they breathe it.
Appreciate your research very much, well put together video. I have a question: is it true that average temperatures were actually cooling from the 1940s to the mid 1970s? This is something I've run across during searches - was wondering if that can be verified. I do remember back in the 70s (I was a young lad) when there was talk in the news about climate possibly headed into an ice age.
That is correct. 1945 to about 1975 there was cooling...try going to the NASA or NOAA websites. You better go there fast though.... NASA and NOAA like to change the historical temperature record to fit the "catastrophic" "climate crisis" situation we are supposedly experiencing today.
The global cooling talking point is something some conspiracy outlets like to bring up from time to time. If you search the term you will find that it was something that was sensationalized in the 70s despite the scientific consensus at the time being the opposite. I remember Alex Jones and people of his ilk making a big deal about it in the mid 2000s.
@@jamesesselman283 FWIW found on wikipedia under "global cooling": "By the 1970s, scientists were becoming increasingly aware that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945, as well as the possibility of large scale warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, less than 10% were inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming. The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend."
You are correct, it was widely reported that the ice age was coming.
Their graph at 5:27 shows 1877, 1911, 1921 and 1936 were far cooler than today. According to historical news reports the climate killed millions.
1877 was dubbed the year without winter, the summer of 1911 saw 100 people a day dying in New York and 40k people dying in Paris from heat.
In 1921, millions of people died across Europe and Asia from heat and famine caused by drought and 1936 was the dust bowl era when real climate refugees fled the Midwest to California to escape the heat.
Keep in mind at this time the earths population was a fraction of what it is today and Co2 levels were low, yet they are trying to say the temperatures are much hotter today.
Co2 levels rose about 100 ppm from 1890 to 1990. They rose more during the later part, 1970-1990. But temperature in same time rose .8 degree so they concluded cause and effect. But temperatures rose more dramatically in 1930-1945, during the drought and “Okies” fleeing dust storms and moving to Southern California.
total speculative bunk about hurricanes . the most powerful hurricane to ever make landfall was the Keys hurricane of 1935 . the great Labor Day New England hurricane of 1938 was at least a cat 3 and wreaked terrible destruction such as has never been even close to rivaled since . and the only hurricane to ever strike California was in 1929 . the 30's had much more and worse extreme weather than now
Those are 3 hurricanes you mentioned in your comment. Climate change means a statistical change. Take the 2nd or 3rd or 4th... or even the 10th largest hurricane in history. In terms of FREQUENCY, how many hurricanes comparable to the 10th largest do you get in hurricane season today compared to the 30s? The largest on record might have been in the 30s, but there s MORE stronger hurricanes - strong, not strongest - today.
@@RoScFan ACE for last year was not unusual. media coverage , naming marginal storms some of which only lasted hours and satellite detection inflate hurricane frequency .
@@RoScFan 2021, first time in May that there has been no hurricanes.
Actually I believe the largest hurricane with evidence was around 1500 ad. At the depth of the little ice age as very large cat 5 hit the gulf coast and leveled the forest in the missippie valley thuss when settlers came in the 1700s forest progression had reached pure stands of 250 year old pines. By 1900 it had transitioned to mixed forests with one 4th of the trees mature chestnuts ready to be attacked by Dutch elm deasie
such smart. so knowledge.
you should write a scientific paper about it and publish it in nature.
Tony, would you debate these two? Classic debate rules apply. I'd help fund the endeavor.
Nobody dares to debate Tony!! These guys are all paid by the government!
My Channel....PLEEEAAASSEEE!!
Are solar pannels working as hyper solar collectors absorbing the suns heat energy and then that energy consumption creates more heat?
It rained in n cal 2 days ago.
why did they print the "myths" and a graph ...
Because they did not study communication? They also confused us with °C and °F.
Makes me think of the song never to late by three days grace, at least the chorus and how it can be applied to climate change and global warming
China isnt in the top 10 in the per capita stats however they produce 29% of global co2 emissions and Australia produces 1% of global co2 emissions.
our climate is a for ever changing entity we need to adapt with it we cant change it and or guide it in any direction, it is one of those things that will be what it will be, do we slightly speed up its process , yes we do, as does every other animal and natural occurrence, there are many more gasses in our atmosphere that are all part of the process, picking just one is a fallacy, science and industry need to learn to work in the world to work with it not against it, as do humans, to adapt to the ever changing environment,
All this says is that the planet is not going anywhere but just us humans are getting kicked out
not just us humans, the entire ecosystem, so including plants and animals.
@@user-re8jn7iz3f 😳😳🤔🤔🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡
@@robtucker6303 a high quality conversation going on here
@@user-re8jn7iz3f no... not really . It is both laughable and sad how gullible and unbelievably uninformed some people are. Of course we have climate change... we have had it for millions of years.
There are so many things that we can work on to improve things for all humans and animals... but man made climate change is not one of those things.
@@robtucker6303 lol ok i guess you have to look up some numbers instead of copying some bullshit headlines
The elon musk joke got me on the floor 😂😂
0:16 well said, we are all stuck here haha
it's not that the climate changes. It's that the change is: very bad, very quick and, while the _immediate, direct_ effects may very well be reversible, the secondary effects _are not_ . If a species goes extinct, it ain't coming back. If land becomes toxic, unfarmable, infertile, it ain't coming back.
We are so spectacularly boned it's almost comical.
But in this presentation are they showing NASA's "adjusted" temperature data or what was actually read off of the thermometers?
"Caused by human activity" That covers a lot of ground. Does it include heat island effect due to urbanization? If so move the thermometers to locations that were more like their original setting 50-80 years ago. I would guess they have studied the orthodox version of climate change for so many years because that is the only version that will fund them.
"Read off of thermometers" would mean a steeper warming curve. Have at it, as long as you want an improper graph.
"
It is the "adjusted" data. The raw data is being erased. If you can check the NASA graphs from before 1998.
They are being "adjusted" as well. So it actually may be impossible to find off a NASA site.
@@owenabrey1433 Sad that all of that raw data is available, and some science aliterates still claim it is hard to find or (get this) being erased! How dumb does one have to be to lie about this, when we can all look it up? It's as though Owen even had enough disk space to handle all of the raw data, let alone deal with it.
Maybe this Owen character never heard of the BEST project.
Renewable energy is only from the sun. The solar panels that are being made in China are made of Silicon and quarts rocks, and technically you need coal to heat up the silicone and quarts rock at a temperature of 1800 degrees to in order to make solar panels. Solar panel are not renewable energy when they only have a life span of 10-15 years. So no mater what you do to improve climate change you still have to used natural resources whether you like it or not.
If you want to get the TRUE earth temperature in the world turn off all the lights and electricity in the world and you will notice that the earth temperature would be cooler then you think. So put your research into this and not by using charts and graphs that can easily be manipulated by scientists to work in their favor.
So could we theoretically like lower the concentration of CO2 by pumping oxygen and nitrogen and all the other gases in like proper quantities into the atmosphere or would that be bad to then adding all that gas or would that be impossible
My understanding is that that wouldn't help because the CO2 and other greenhouse gases would continue to trap heat
hydro electricity, anyone? _>
plus, the wind turbine don't last forever and are pain tasking to build, make, transport, and not everyone want's the maintaining job of those gigantic things. still better than gas , oil or whatever else people in the world are using. (not very familiar with those)
Well hydro also has its limitations (depending of the plant) but we need the implementation of all renovable energies plus nuclear, not just one.
Still need oil...
@@Old-biker yeah, french fries won't taste as good otherwise
Climate change will remain constant, there's barely any innovation in the renewable energy sector, there's too much money to made with fossil fuels, and not nearly enough to be made from solar, wind, biomass or hydro. Climate change is not political, it's a economical and technological challenge, government and companies should be investing in renewable energy consumption, which creates more innovation, thus beating the competition.
Environmentalists could probably use a couple economics and engineering courses.
good to see another person with intelligence
How did our earth survive the period where citrus were grown in England 2000 years ago? The analogy that our earth can't withstand a few degrees of warming is stupid stupid stupid.
What evidence do you have for this claim?
What evidence? It's not the earth itself we worry about either. Its the life on it. The rock and water will live but not the humans and other animals. Whatever multiple degree temperature changes there were that there is evidence to prove had a catalyst like an asteroid impact and had massive plant and animal life extinctions.
@@nyctobaby Life is flourishing on earth at a rate not seen for 5 million years, which is the last time that atmospheric CO2 was at our current levels. Our planet began with CO2 being 70% of the atmosphere. Plants and crustaceans in the oceans, then later along with plants on land used up the atmospheric CO2 that was there from the start of the earth until it got to 0.0028%. All that was then left was the CO2 being created by aerobic organisms (3.5kg of plant matter is produced everyday to create the O2 needed for one person's breathing). This first happened 300 million years ago. Volcanic activity when the tectonic plates were shifting pushed up the CO2 levels 250 million years ago, but around 5 million years ago plants again used it up to the point once again where they only had the CO2 being produced by aerobic organisms to survive. The increased CO2 levels now on earth means that on average, every plant with the same light, soil nutrients and moisture grow 20% faster now than they have in 5 million years. Coniferous forests are growing much faster than that.
@@davidhilderman Is it really? A few plants may be thriving temporarily but the whole ecosystem struggles. Weeds may grow white the flowers shrivel. Animal die out because they dont survive off co2 and they cant handle the heat, then the plants grown and suffocate others. Those same plants thriving struggle because there is too much co2 and not enough other nutrients to back up and continue their growth as a species long term. this growth leads to more bush fires and the extinction of other more delicate plants who need specific temperatures to grow. Then the animals who fed on those specific plants that now dying also die until the ecosystem has only a few resilient plants and animals fighting for the same limited food with unregulated and fluctuating growth/statistics. Invasive species as a context out side of climate change. The introduced and invasive species grow and thrive until they kill off native species and eventually die out themselves due too a lack of food supply.
@@davidhilderman Dave needs to look a little deeper into what Earth looked like the last time CO2 levels were this high. He gets the timeframe approximately correct, but did not dig a little deeper.
Well then, the data is wrong.
How?
They didn't debunk anything. One is a professor and one is a NASA scientist, truly sad. I didn't see them explain why, according to ice cores, the planet has been in ice ages with more CO2 than we have today.
Ice cores only go back about 1 million years and they have never revealed Co2 levels higher than 300ppm. Our current Co2 levels are 419ppm!
How she controlled her laughter when she said "the planet is not gonna blow up"
At least she finally admits it. Probably was hard for her to get the words out of her mouth
@@jesuslovesyou-mattsmith1502 no one said the planet is going to blow up. People are saying the earth is going to be impossible or very difficult for humans and many other species to live in the coming decades and centuries. The earth will survive with out us and other species will adapt to that earth. We will not.
@@nyctobaby that is a very bold claim and not true. You are not a future teller and We would adapt regardless. Yes, we should take care of our planet and reduce pollution, but the old horse and pony show of human apocalypse is getting old. How do you know increased CO2 won't end up saving the human race? We need CO2 for larger and denser agriculture. And surely an ice age would be more devastating.
@@jesuslovesyou-mattsmith1502 we see time and time again some species adapt but are for ever changed and others die. Humans are exceptionally good at doing harm to themselves. maybe we won't die out, but that will likely be due to the scientists people refuse to listen to and the overpopulation the human species is at anyway.
Consensus is not equivalent to truth.
It's by far the best estimate though. You won't find certainty anywhere.
@@silentstorm5757 according to ‘consensus past’, the sun orbited the Earth..
Do we really need a comprehensive list of other consensuses proved to be false to make the point here? Whose consensus are we talking about here, the West’s? China’s? So many consensuses to choose from, so they’re all wrong from conception lol 😂
@@notascoobyreally7520 For one, those medieval beliefs are not comparable to modern day science. There is a big difference between religious dogma and conducting experiments or making new observations and drawing conclusions from those. Only the latter method is scientific, and the beliefs derived from those methods are the ones I am talking about. If many people independently use the scientific method to gather information and all find the same things, then that seems like a pretty good reason to believe they are onto something. Again, it's not certainty, but it's the best we've got.
Besides, the idea that science has been wrong in the past, so is wrong now is not a strong argument imo. There are plenty of abandoned ideas, true, but surely not all that is now believed will be abandoned. Or do you believe that we will one day hear that gravity and atoms are not real? And if science is right about atoms and gravity, then why would scientific consensus not be right about the climate?
@@silentstorm5757 because there’s no money in gravity. And don’t put fatuous anti gravity remarks in my mouth, I never mentioned gravity.
You feel the need to be right too much. That, usually signifies a deep doubt causing the experiencer to reassure themselves by recruiting new supporters.
Who are you to say which presently held scientific ideas are dogma or doctrine - there are too many variables involved in climate to say anything conclusive let alone equate our ideas on the subject, to what appear to fundamental principles of reality. Global warming is not on the same level as basic force of the universe.
Physicists will tell you that basic particles of reality are easy to work out. The variables involved in climate are innumerable. It’s apples and oranges.
Oh and please don’t patronise me and embarrass yourself with an explanation of what you consider science to mean. I’m not a cretin and you’ve waffled for paragraphs but still not made any substantive points. Why are you so defensive if you’re so certain you’re right and why are you so sure of scientific religion? Why have you not even question any of your beliefs?
@@notascoobyreally7520 I don't mind talking with someone who disagrees with me, but I'm not arguing with someone who thinks insults have a place in a discussion. The one thing I want to leave you with is that it is obnoxious to respond to counterarguments by calling the person making them defensive and making a dozen assumptions about them. If you ever want to have a better discussion, y'know a back and forth, changing that attitude would be a good start.
Dude body temp and climate temp are not the same thing.
dont forget forestry
Where is the evidence that the 1 degree increase in temperature has affected rainfall, drought and floods over the past century? The IPCC report has low confidence that this has occurred.
Yikes
A graph drawn from raw untampered average daily high temperature data across the USA, starting from May 1931 through May 2021, shows a cooling period of around one degree, while atmospheric CO2 content has increased by @ 100 ppm. During this same period of time, average daily ocean temperatures have increased by a degree. It is natural for oceans to cycle the release of CO2 as they warm and absorb CO2 as they cool.
"untampered"? It si average temperature not daily highs. It is global warming not US. Ignoring those you may have a point
The world has had periods with no polar ice. This is a natural phenomenon. The California fires were worse 100 years ago & even worse 200 years ago. The CO2 level is low. They’re blowing it out of proportion. Study: Do your homework & wake up.
CO2 not this high for over 3,000,000 years. Do your homework.
Polar ice was last not-present millions of years ago. Of course ice changes are natural, just not changing this rapidly as there is less solar irradiation. Do your homework.
Outstanding!
To add on with reliable data, a lot of data about climate change comes from ice cores in the Arctic and Antarctic. Ice cores have layers that represent years and scientists can find the concentration of gases in the ice cores, which is how we can estimate the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere for thousand for the past million years. In fact, a new drill has recently been innovated that can dig kilometres deep to unearth an ice core that is technically a million year old ice core.
Big word estimate and we have no way to properly verify we get accurate results and the time line granularity is nothing remotely close to being able to measure even years. aka alot of guesswork that cannot be properly verified through replication and m8uch of it swamped in immense biased parties as well as confirmation bias.
@@troyodynski3652 um i have to ask both of you for sources because right now its just
Op: source? Trust me bro
You: source? Trust me bro
@@rimworld64 u're such an interrogator
@@stanhicks7423 ?
ice cores are meaningless as they only leave a record of freezing temperatures
every time it is above freezing the melt water dribbles down thru decades,centuries,millenniums and in that way corrupts the isotope counts beyond use
Agriculture, forestry, and other land use accounts for 25% eh?
Crops aren’t agriculture then, only cows? Forestry and other land use equate to cows also?
Animal raising makes far far far more green house gases than crops ever did
@@afnannizam7731 - you’ve clearly done no research into the subject.
@@notascoobyreally7520 i can see who hasnt
@@afnannizam7731 how much CO2 is emitted by pastoral farming worldwide then?
How much CO2 is emitted cultivating fields, ploughing, seeding, watering, fertilising, harvesting, transporting, processing, and manufacturing from arable farming?
The logic and reason sides with eating animals, it’s better for the environment, hands down. Plus, we evolved to eat an animal based diet. It’s kind of in our nature....
@@notascoobyreally7520 is that because you like steak or because you can't read? because if you don't like steak, then you can't read because all of what you asked is in oecd's report on agriculture and climate change. it's even explained in simple english for people who have difficulties with the language.
😂thumbnail from South Africa? Damn sinkholes man bit sum say the it's just a pothole that got worse
There are technical challenges that make me think that solar/wind aren't viable solutions in the immediate future. You are relying on the weather to play ball while grid conditions can swing wildly. You don't have any really good way of storing energy during times of excess generation to use when the sun isn't shining or wind isn't blowing. Batteries and solar panels use materials that are terrible for the environment, and only have a 10-20 year lifespan before they will need to be replaced.
We need nuclear reactors to buy us enough time for fusion to become viable in the coming decades. And use wind/solar/geothermal/tidal ect where the geography makes sense for that particular renewable.
Also, my understanding of climate models is that they are based on certain assumptions on how the sun interacts with the earth and atmosphere, and really only looks at solar irradiance. Is there any studies that look at how other solar effects could impact the atmosphere, like magnetic, electric, solar flare, CME, coronal hole ect. And how does earth's magnetic pole reversal come in to play here?