Відео

Why can't we build oxygen processing plants that can pump into our atmosphere enough 02 to offset the increase in carbon dioxide.?

Holocene warming was due to obliquity. Thus the Holocene interglacial was longer than usual, and the next Great Winter will be milder than usual. It is not certain, if it will be cold enough to drive us into a new ice age (in 500 to 1,000 years). But even if it was, we can reverse the new ice age with albedo - because ice ages are modulated by albedo, not by CO2. R

Recent Arctic melting is actually due to Chinese industrial dust, reducing the ice-sheet albedo. See paper: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo. See also the darkening ice observed by the Dark Snow Project. There has been a lot of dust deposition over recent decades. Recent warming has little to do with CO2. R

You need to listen to Tom Gallagher’s paleoclimate lectures (3 of them)

The mid 20th century was very cool. So it’s no surprise Arctic temperatures are similar to the early 20th century now. You need to look at the early 20th century to understand the warming now.

If you look up Summit Camp, Greenland, on wiki they falsely claim the highest max temp was 2.2C on 13 July 2012 and on 28 July 2017. But when you look at the hourly average temperature on those dates the temperatures did not go above freezing at 2m. The highest recorded temperature for 2012 was on 11 July at 0.8C (the only day that got above freezing for 2012). In 2017 it never got above freezing. Why the misinformation? You are supposedly EDUCATED.

BS

You really need to compare current conditions to the early 20th century not the mid 20th century because the mid 20th century was the coldest in the 100 year period. The early 20th century was similar in temperature to current times.

The obvious issue is melting ice but the salient issue is the 144 BTUs being absorbed (turned into latent heat) by each and every pound of ice melting. Polymath Eliot Jacobson calculates that the overall heat energy equivalent to 13 Hiroshima yield nuclear bomb blasts per second (1,036,800 per day) is being released into our environment, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. The "experts" absorbed with their academic myopia never mention or study the heat energy absorption. Why not?

Increased input because of decreased magnetic field can warm the ice directly and instigate under ice volcanic eruptions and geothermal activities.

SuperDuper Interesting

There is one question that is never addressed that would expose the "climate crisis" for the scam that it is, which is "What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?" The answer, never given in plain language, is that CO2 is currently around 420 parts per million, (google it) increased, they tell us, from 280 ppm in 1850. That's a difference of 140 ppm, or in terms more readily understood by the layman, the composition of the atmosphere has changed by 0.014% (14 thousandths of 1%) in the last 170 years. LESS THAN 1 THOUSANDTH OF 1% PER DECADE! How much closer to "zero" do they think it's possible to get? How gullible do you have to be to believe that this rate of change is causing extreme weather events, which have always happened and always will? Their claim is that this tiny amount "traps heat". ALL gasses dissipate heat and even if CO2 is an exception, the suggestion that a total of 0.042% can overwhelm the capacity of the remaining 99.958% to dissipate that heat is abject nonsense. CO2 DOES NOT control the global temperature, there is no "climate crisis". Wind farms, solar panels, heat pumps, EV's.. None of these measures are necessary, nor will they have the slightest effect on the weather. Eye-watering sums of money have already been wasted on this futile exercise. Time to wake up, stop throwing our money at these boondoggles and squandering the world's resources on projects that cannot possibly succeed as there never was a problem to begin with. There is no need to save the planet from a minuscule increase in the gas on which all life depends, but it does need to be rescued from idiot politicians and media mouthpieces that push this garbage. Learn the truth here: ua-cam.com/video/s3Tfxiuo-oM/v-deo.html

Humans existed during Mammoths living year round in Alaska and what about our Star magnetic strength and the Earth's magnetic strength?

Fed up with the climate B/S, watch this exposure by many eminent scientists of the corruption in science, academia and government. Climate-The Movie. The planet is actually thriving thanks to the very slight natural rise in CO2, the gas of life. Research 'Greening of the Earth'. ua-cam.com/video/p4vSMj4R5Rg/v-deo.html

I want to listen but this profs voice too unpleasant to listen to.

Do climate models take into consideration soot from Canadian forest fires that darken Greenland ice sheet, dirty ice absorbs more sunlight causing faster melting?

It’s not climate change-it’s biosphere collapse…

I am grateful for your research. Where was the plate Greenland is on in the holoscene? I seem to remember a time when Norwegian settlers lived in Greenland. They even named it GREENland. The weather changed, and all starved to death when cold took over. Norwegians named Iceland to keep settlers away. I am NOT convinced man can do a thing to change the climate. It's bigger than anything piddly man can do.

You know what I'm going to ask ... 😄 Any new data on Vertical Atmospheric River Rapids in Greenland? They're the kind of new weather phenomenon that will be truly terrifying

Save Our Planet Now!

The idea that it’s not warm enough to cause the ice melt is kinda missing the point. It’s a debate against precision versus accuracy. Obviously it’s warm enough to heat the ocean somewhere to bring this warm water to melt this ice. Being precise about the local air not being warm enough is inconsequential and beating a dead horse. How does this information change the outcome?

Bonjour

How much CO2 is the result of planned obsolescence?

I heard the magic words: Forested watershed. Lets convert dairy farms into climax forests! *gasp*

Thank you for a great talk! The claim that I keep hearing repeated over and over is that it's currently hotter than it's been in the past 100k years, but you very clearly show evidence of the Arctic being 3-4C warmer just 10k years ago. Would you consider today's warming/melting to be alarming when just 5-6k years ago, most of the sampled glaciers were either smaller or non-existent compared to today?

In 2014, the maximum Arctic Sea ice extent reached a coverage area of approximately 5.02 million square kilometers. In 2024, the maximum Arctic Sea ice extent occurred on March 14, with an estimated extent of approximately 15.01 million square kilometers.

❤ planet Earth is suspended in Space where the temperature is minus 273 degrees Celsius. Earths biggest problem is staying warm and will remain in an Ice Age for the next million years

Thanks for the video. In my mind I scaled the sun and earth. If the sun was a Grapefruit the earth would be a Poppy seed, 13 meters away! You can feel the power of the sun easily standing on this Poppy seed earth. I trust the sun controls our climate and our government wants our control.

This is very interesting. It was like when I learned that the bubbles in streams were formed by humic acid and that I couldn't get acorns to sprout without it.

We all know what is new on the landscape and its machines having the ability to convert/damage what was working long term (nature) to balance methane production. The cattle and rice agri-business investors will be quick to blame wild diverse wetlands and such. I can imagine clamoring to convert wetlands to rice or fill them in to produce additional cattle production. So my question is will a warming climate enhance methane production overall, and what segments the speaker highlighted will be enhanced faster and/or higher production?

NASA/GISS adjusted temps are fraudulent. So starting out assuming those are real measurements starts the whole conversation under false assumptions..

OMG could you imagine Greenland covered in insects, birds, plants forests and mammals. Oh the horror.

PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS: Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements: I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2). Chemical Element #119 (8s1): #119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell. Chemical Element #120 (8s2): #120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars. When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way. In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically). If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)

QUESTIONS: a. Where did all the oxygen atoms on and around this Earth come from? Modern science claims oxygen atoms can only be generated in stars. Besides any oxygen atoms already 'here' when the Earth formed from possibly a galactic nebula cloud, did all the rest of the oxygen atoms basically come from our Sun and possibly other stars? b. Where did all the water (H2O) in, on and around this Earth come from? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in this universe, so in a way, Hydrogen is a given. Our Sun also gives off protons, basically a Hydrogen ion. c. The current narrative is that all the water on this Earth came from icy comets. That would be one heck of a lot of icy comets. d. Is it more probable of the following: 1. Our Sun gives off protons, electrons, neutrinos, and electromagnetic radiation energy in various energy frequencies. 2. The Earth's Van Allen belts trap electrons in the outer area and trap protons in the inner area, those electrons and protons moving back and forth between the Earth's magnetic poles. 3. The Earth also has an ozone layer, ozone being O3, 3 oxygen atoms. 4. As an electron meets up with a proton, it would possibly make basic Hydrogen (H). 5. As a basic Hydrogen atom meets up with an oxygen atom from the ozone layer, it would possibly make a Hydroxide (HO). 6. As a basic Hydrogen atom meets another Hydrogen atom, it would possibly make a Hydrogen molecule (H2). 7. As a Hydrogen molecule meets up with an oxygen atom from the ozone layer, water (H2O) would possibly come into existence. 8. If it's cold enough, that water possibly being formed at the magnetic pole areas of this Earth, ice or snow could fall to the surface of this Earth. 9. If the ice or snow melts, it could also raise the level of the oceans. e. The Earth's magnetic field is also weakening and the Earth's magnetic poles are moving, possibly going to flip again as has occurred numerous times already in Earth's history. Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. The Earth's North magnetic pole is currently heading towards Siberia and is projected to possibly end up around Indonesia. The Earth's weakening magnetic field will also allow more harmful cosmic radiation to reach the surface of the Earth and species on that surface. f. The cusp of the Earth's magnetic poles extends from outer space to inside this Earth. As the poles move, so too would those cusps of interacting energy. And what will those moving magnetic fields do to the Earth's ring currents? And 'if' water can be generated at the cusp of those magnetic fields (as electrons, protons and oxygen atoms potentially come together), will more water be added at those locations as well as the depletion of the ozone layer at those locations as the cusp of the Earth's magnetic fields move? Will more harmful cosmic radiation reach the surface of the Earth inside those cusp areas? What will occur as the flow of energy changes as it flows through the surface of the Earth? g. Some species utilize the Earth's magnetic field lines for navigation. What will occur with those species as the Earth's magnetic poles move? What will occur to species that depend upon those previous species whether they stay behind or follow wherever the species may go? h. As climate changes, what about crops too? Fail in one area boom in others, but it takes time to plant, grow, harvest and move products to where they need to be? i. Are we actually in the 6th mass extinction event that has already started? With potentially more water on this Earth, seafood anyone? Ways to make drinkable water from salty ocean water? Split water (H2O) with green dc electricity to make Hydrogen and Oxygen to be utilized as fuel? Live on boats and submarines? Move to higher ground away from the coasts?

The above question is for California in mind

Can your forecast and your modeling approach be used to study the impact of lake levels sometimes causing severe drought?

A 2018 study by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimated that the global energy consumption of climate modeling is around 1.7 petawatt-hours (PWh) per year. This is equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of about 1.5 million US households. Yet, we're still doing business as usual with the usual results predicted by the models for over fifty years. That's damn depressing!

Arctic Amplification is the importer term used for Arctic warming. The most promising theory for Arctic warming is more frequent and deeper migrations of warm Atlantic Ocean waters into the Arctic Ocean causing Arctic warming. Just being in the Arctic does cause global warming amplification. If it did Arctic warming would not have taken place over the period after 1991 because global warming was reported at 1.1°C at that time and had never gone higher. More importantly this video has the disclaimer of the Climate change United Nations. There are people without a full high school science education or a life history going back 40 years that have been taken in by the marketing of the United Nation's IPCC that human caused greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming which is impossible to well known science. It is high school taught science earth's greenhouse effect is the model of system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor that adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the earth's surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been completely absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. It's suppose to seem cool and a bit of a brain conundrum to high school students causing it to be fascinating that with water vapor varying hugely across the earth's surface water vapor still always holds earth's greenhouse effect in saturation. The variation is accommodated by the qualification of "within 20 meters of the surface" a great deal of the time all the greenhouse radiant energy is entirely absorbed by greenhouse gases before that distance.

Thanks for this presentation; it's beyond me in too many places, but I do get it. Is he telling us that Arctic wetland thaw is not a significant contributor to atmospheric methane, at least not compared to agriculture, remnants, rice production, and waste (landfills and wastewater)? I get 20 percent atmospheric methane from wetlands: Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_wetlands

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth becomes much like the moon, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory it gets from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a near ideal .95 emissivity black body which 4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules. 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science. www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-greenhouse-co2-activity-6749812735246254080-bc6K version 1.0 021821 madison