Відео

We're happy to hear that! Thanks for watching! ❤🐝☺

We're so happy that you're here! We love that you're enjoying our videos! ❤☺

Right?! How awesome is this neautiful planet?!! ❤🌎🐝

@swrmTV remember you can file EXEMPT on your federal income tax form and use the same values for your state taxes, making your paychecks virtually tax free 🇺🇸

Thank you so much for stopping by, we're glad you found this useful! ☺LOVE the sound of your research! Please do get in touch, we're super happy to discuss further. Drop us a line at admin@greenswrm.com ❤🐝🌏

You're right - Earth's rotation determines the length of day, and the Earth is rotating slower and slower. Hence the day's are going to get a tiny bit longer. And you're right again - this has been happening for thousands of years due to the moon (lunar tidal friction), BUT at an insignificant, much slower rate that what scientists have now found, and predicting to continue. This new slowing down is due to melting polar ice and the subsequent rising sea levels, which sees most of the extra water accumulating around the equator, creating a bulge and causing our rotation to slow. We know that the melting ice and rising seas is being caused by global warming - one part of climate change.

You'll be relieved to know that you've been getting completely incorrect information! They are indeed expensive, but a TINY fraction of the cost of new oil or gas exploration; they are certainly reliable and don't require strong wind to be effective, and they're increasingly easy to maintain and repair (we can now even recycle many components!). And they don't explode; or start a fire which burn for weeks or months; they don't kill hundreds of people; or spill millions of tons of oil into the ocean. Good news all round!

@@swrmTV That's not what the statistics show. These expensive eyesores cost a fortune to manufacture and the pictures of the devestation being done to National Parks and farmland to install these monstrosities is appalling. I have personally seen the ugliness they have inflicted on our formerly beautifull countryside, all to give an unreliable power return - yet the Greenies say nothing about the harm done to our natural bush.

We are SO with you on the fact that single use containers are not the way forward! We actually mention at 2:55 and 4:38 that the way you choose to obtain your carbonated beverage is an important environmental consideration. But this video couldn't tackle both the carbonation and the containers in one go, it would simply have been too long. Feel free to take a look at our other videos ☺. We appreciate you watching, and LOVE your commitment to environmental sustainability! ❤🌎🐝

@@swrmTVI rewatched those segments, and it falls far short of clarity or even truthfulness (unless you hold a very low standard for environmental stewardship). “Hint: go for cans, not plastic bottles.” Really? It would be much more truthful to say something like “It doesn’t really matter much whether your drink is carbonated or not. If you are purchasing drinks in any single-use containers, that uses a massive amount of resources to create the containers, fill them, then transport them full of essentially water to you or your retail store. Recycling those containers helps, but only a little. Also, carbonated beverages in plastic bottles require thicker plastic to hold the pressure in, so the carbon footprint of those is even higher than other beverage formats. More on the impact of packaging and transport of beverages in our other videos.” The soda stream tip you give is a good one. But you really soft-pedal the impact of how the vast majority of people consume carbonated and non-carbonated purchased beverages. It would also be compelling to state the extremely different carbon footprint of a cup of fizzy beverage in a single-use container vs. the equivalent from a soda stream. Avid carbonated drink consumers have an opportunity to make a real difference by switching.

@@bingcheah We are really grateful for your feedback, and truly thank you for being here and taking a strong stance on environmental sustainability. We know that this is necessary, and we share this energy and enthusiasm for it. The video was solely focused on the carbonation element and it was hard not to go down a rabbit hole on the packaging, but we feel it would have derailed the original topic. That said, we take your analysis seriously, and appreciate your passion, so will look at a whole new video focused on exactly this. Thanks for being part of the solution that this beautiful planet needs! ❤🌏

I honour your gentleness and kindness. Kindness is needed in the world. I also urge you to not allow “kindness” to hold you back from speaking truth. I hope you find your beautiful synthesis of being fully kind AND fully Truthful. Just as I can improve by moving towards the same.

@@bingcheah ❤❤🙏☺ Thank you, and we reciprocate. We'll let you know when we have the next video up. You've inspired a whole deep dive mini-series into beverage containers of all sorts, and we appreciate that! And we're sure that fellow swrmers will also appreciate the information. Have a wonderful day! ☺

You're so welcome! ☺

Hi there! There's a myriad of energy sources to use rather than fossil fuels: the wind, the sun, water (waves or a flow/current), geothermal, biomass, nuclear or hydrogen. Thanks for stopping by, @eskimo32! ☺

The report you've quoted (and then made your own assumptive conclusion from, we might add) is from 2021. Let us update you, OldScientist. Each of the below quotes are from the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report 2023. To provide context, that's drawing together the key findings from the previous reports, summarising and providing a comprehensive review. "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020. (high confidence) Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence) It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr-1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr-1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr-1 between 2006 and 2018. (high confidence) Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since AR5. Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s, including increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts. (high confidence) In all regions increases in extreme heat events have resulted in human mortality and morbidity (very high confidence) Continued global warming is projected to further intensify the global water cycle, including its variability, global monsoon precipitation, and very wet and very dry weather and climate events and seasons (high confidence) Other projected changes include further reduced extents and/or volumes of almost all cryospheric elements34 (high confidence), further global mean sea level rise (virtually certain), and increased ocean acidification (virtually certain) and deoxygenation (high confidence) With further warming, every region is projected to increasingly experience concurrent and multiple changes in climatic impact-drivers. Compound heatwaves and droughts are projected to become more frequent, including concurrent events across multiple locations (high confidence). Other projected regional changes include intensification of tropical cyclones and/or extratropical storms (medium confidence), and increases in aridity and fire weather (medium to high confidence). END QUOTES We understand that these truths are confronting...we really do. But that doesn't make them untrue. We would welcome your participation, in any way you can, to be proactive and help us all move to a more sustainable future. Every positive action is a good one, and they add up! And remember, action is the antidote to anxiety. Thanks for watching!

@@swrmTV It's amazing how much the truth can change in 2 years. It's almost like it's not true.

@swrmTV Presumably all the stuff they say in chapter 11 is jibberish as well and can be ignored. Maybe we should ignore everything the UN says if they cannot make their minds. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Increased Flooding: not detected, no attribution. Increased Meteorological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hydrological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Tropical Cyclones: not detected, no attribution. Increased Winter Storms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Thunderstorms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hail: not detected, no attribution. increased lightning: not detected, no attribution. Increased Extreme Winds: not detected, no attribution. There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising! There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.

@@OldScientist Well that's the thing with science: things change. New evidence. If you needed surgery you'd ask for a bottle of whisky and stick to bite down on, as you don't believe in any advances in anaesthesia?? We wish you best of luck. We're going to stop responding now. This isn't constructive use of time. Have a lovely day!

Agreed - sounds like a great vehicle choice! 🙌 That's so great to hear re the delivery, and we appreciate the constructive feedback about the background. We'll see what image/s we can find which would make for a more interesting backdrop. Thanks for watching! 💚🐝

You're welcome! Thanks for watching!

Thanks so much! We appreciate you watching.

Thank you so much for watching, and for your feedback - we'll turn the music down on the next one. Thanks for your support! 💚

Thanks so much for watching, and taking the time to leave feedback! ❤🐝 Great idea to go deeper - we'll reach out to the company and see how we go! Also good to know about the music - there's a fine line to getting the volume and tone right, so we'll pay closer attention on our next video. Thanks again! ☺

Thanks for watching! We're intrigued. Where did you find the definition of sequestration which excludes trees and forests? Oceans would also be left out, by this definition? We've searched pretty thoroughly, looking through pages and pages of Google, Google Scholar and Ecosia results, and and we can only find carbon sequestration to refer to the capture and storage of carbon emissions in many and varied locations, like trees (sometimes called woody plants). We presume that you must also be in the camp of climate action, so we thank you for your efforts in this space!

​@@swrmTV In a dictionary and a 40 year old degree in botany. And the definition I'm using emphatically does not exclude trees forests and oceans. They all capture carbon and store it. Carbon capture is mostly by photosynthesis. Grass, trees, sphagnum moss, phytoplankton. Captured carbon is available for use higher up the food chain (as is a proportion by the photosynthetic organisms for respiration re-releasing CO2). Trees (for example) store CO2 as 'wood' - cellulose, but other complex structural polymers of glucose. This stored carbohydrate is available for use by beetles, fungi and such. If an oak tree is lucky, it may store carbon for 400-600 years and then spend another century or so rotting. Long time compared to the life of a person, but this storage is temporary compared to biosphere or geological processes. 'Multiply' your tree to a forest and the capacity to store carbon increases, but is finite. Forests are damn good at cycling carbon and they reach a capacity. Now let's say your forest lasts for several thousand years before it gets hit by a lightning-sparked wildfire. Reset, start again. We are getting into long-term storage, but none of this carbon is sequestered. Here's the crux of the 'anthropogenic greenhouse effect' matter: since the Industrial Revolution millions of tonnes of coal, gas, oil and lignite have been burned. These are all sequestered carbon, locked away from the biosphere in geological reserves. Burning it has brought about a net increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Fact. Demonstrable. To become sequestered (not stored) biologically captured carbon must be locked out of reach of the biosphere. Crudely: replaced in geological reserves. To occur naturally, this would take time. Lots of time. There are shortcut pathways: Maerl sequesters carbon. Produces a calcium carbonate endoskeleton. So do tropical and sub tropical hard corals. Sphagnum moss does a similar shortcut trick: In the right conditions it builds up peat bogs and the peat stays stored for thousands of years - long term storage. If it starts to fossilise, it is termed lignite. Now we are into carbon sequestration. Trees and forests? Nope. Unless you can do wholesale deep burial of the wood, then 'maybe'. To argue that trees and forests sequester carbon is to open an avenue of argument to those who would deny that anthropogenic carbon release and the subsequent greenhouse effect that imperils us all is 'fake news'. It is fundamentally incorrect: carbon reservoirs in forests are in storage only. What is the meaning of the word sequestering? 'to keep apart from others; segregate or isolate'. 'Isolate' is the part of this dictionary definition that applies here. Unfortunately 'sequester' has a multitude of meanings in law, biology, finance and other spheres and definition 'stretch' is still going on. Some 'stretch' is wilful, done by 'climate deniers'. Yes, I am 'climate concerned'. I am a self employed ecologist (marine and terrestrial). Having been directly concerned with environmental issues in tertiary education or in work for over 40 years, I feel strongly that definitions matter. By allowing basic definitions such as that for 'carbon sequestration' to drift, one allows scope for the unscrupulous, entitled and terminally short-sighted to 'push' the debate in directions that suit their agendas, away from the likely long-term best interests of the race and the planet. Shutting up now...

@@swrmTV PS here is a vid about maerl. This is subfossil maerl off the coast of Dorset, UK. Dates back several thousand years to a lower sea level. Very dead, but still biologically active in that is acts as veneer substratum determining (by definition) the composition of a veneer community. In some locations it is important in the nesting behaviour of black bream and the subsequent recolonisation of nest sites by algae on an annual basis is important for several species of macroalga. But the carbon in this dead maerl (millions of tonnes off Dorset alone) is sequestered: it is locked out of biosphere processes by being calcium carbonate. It is 'subfossil' because it has not yet been locked into a geological deposit.....

We really appreciate this depth of information, and your experience. While we've been using definitions accepted and used by the scientific community as well as the UN, we are grateful for your perspective and passion. Overarchingly, the goals of moving to a more sustainable future, respecting and conserving the natural environment, protecting biodiversity, and enabling human life to continue on this beautiful planet, likely won't be progressed by minor semantics. We need to inform and motivate the largest number of people we possibly can, to work towards the greatest good. We appreciate the work you do!