I can't believe this only has 5,000 views. Watching this somehow helped me realize that if you can politicize reality, 50% of people will likely disagree with it just because it doesn't align with the interests of their tribe. Stockholm Syndrome.
@@learnsustainability the real conspiracy is the lies and deception of thenfossil feul industry not renewable tech the politicians are bought by big oil and brainwash people to deny climate change wake up sheeple
Here is undercover footage of one of Exxonmobil's top Washington lobbyists - speaking candidly about his efforts to undermine new legislation to protect the environment: ua-cam.com/video/5v1Yg6XejyE/v-deo.html If you find this video interesting, please subscribe alturl.com/jc8u6 and leave me a comment below 😁
Excellent video and summary of the dis-information campaign run by the oil industry. My concern is the politicians and to a large extent the public want to keep growth going as fast as possible, despite the fact we're on an unsustainable course at present. As things stand we are essentially not paying the 'full price' for goods and services because we are not paying for the environmental cost that either the extraction, usage and/or the disposal phase causes. That cost is instead been stored up into the future and compounded. Imagine a plane in level flight, politicians promise growth with long term unsustainable policies but that deliver 'quick wins' that can be seen within the next election cycle. Its the equivalent to pulling up the nose with the controls but doing nothing else, you gain a bit of altitude but sacrifice your airspeed. The problem is the longer they keep operating on a short term growth cycle basis without addressing the 'whole cost', the increasingly difficult it will be for the economy as well as the wider environment and ecology as those forces compound over the longterm. Eventually just like the aircraft in this analogy, economies too will enter a major stall, the phase where we'll be living with the consequences we've been storing up: environmental and ecological degradation on a global scale, the increasing costs of trying to adapt, having to attempt very expensive and risky geo-engineering type solutions, large swathes of the planet becoming difficult to live in contributing to massive humanitarian and migratory challenges, likely all within an increasingly unequal world, something always liable to lead to a significant rise in civil unrest, none of which are conducive to economic growth in the long-term. We need to be looking at adopting more sustainable approaches now to set us up with a better long-term outlook ahead.
Today, 2022, the ice at the North Pole the last year continued its recent expansion at its fastest rate in 18 years. Ships were frozen in Hudson bad for weeks. Now down South at that pole ice is contracting. Why? Winds and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. This has been happening on. Earth for a long long time.
"In September 2022, the area that was at least 15 percent ice covered was 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), tying with 2010 for eleventh lowest in the satellite record." NOAA. Yes maybe it expanded in extent compared to previous years. Yet: "According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the amount of ice that survives the summer melt season has shrunk by 13 percent per decade relative to the 1981-2010 average. In the 2020 Arctic Report Card, experts reported that the average minimum extent for each third of the satellite record has successively declined: 6.85 million square kilometers (2.64 million square miles) for 1979-1992, 6.13 million square kilometers (2.37 million square miles) for 1993-2006, and 4.44 million square kilometers (1.71 million square miles) for 2007-2020." It's not the extent that's the real issue - the volume is over 75% gone. The multiyear ice is over 90% gone. Extent can disappear fast as the thickness goes down.
It is scientific malpractice to discuss global warming without discussing or while dismissing ice ages. We have had 5 known ice ages with the last one ending about 12,000 years ago. The very melting of the last ice sheet carved the Missouri river and was the boundary of the migration of the last ice sheet. We know ice ages are cyclic but what is lesser know is why. They are either internal or external forces at play. Internally would set our focus on plate tectonics and volcanoes. Externally would put our focus on the sun. Geologically speaking we are still exiting the last ice age. Warming is predictable, inevitable and immutable by mankind. There are forces at play much greater and older than mankind. Climate change denial, far from it.
Ice ages happened during periods of lower greenhouse gases (let's say, CO2) and warm ages happened during periods of high amounts of CO2, like the Cambrian period, which had about 4,000 ppm. Yes, there have been natural cycles, and their multiple causes aren't totally understood, but the correlation CO2-heat is undeniable, and proven by chemistry and physics. Now, we are experiencing the effects of a sudden increase of CO2 originated in the burning of fossil fuels, again, proved by chemistry and physics - and history. Climatologists agree. As the video shows, fossil fuel companies also agree, but their reaction is to seed uncertainty to keep their profits - what you say issues directly from one of their slogans: "climate changes are natural, nothing different here, nothing to do about it." Your argument is like someone saying that wildfires are natural and unpredictable, therefore it is scientific malpractice to put off the burning frying pan over your stove that is filling the house with smoke and setting the curtains on fire. Will you keep wondering until the whole house is on fire before acknowledging that fire is fire and grabbing the foam extinguisher?
Could extraction n use of oil throw off this machine earth equilibrium that could be affecting and the earth adjusting to the way we are using the resources
Not I understand the question well but yes, extracting oil in a way that carbon systematically accumulates in the atmosphere affects the equilibrium of the earth's natural cycles as explained in this video: ua-cam.com/video/eec0UYGIeo4/v-deo.html
What isn't covered in all of that is a discussion of why a warmer world would be a problem. 1. More rain is not a problem. 2. Warmer weather is not a problem. 3. More arable land is not a problem. 4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem. 5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem. 6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.
If the projections and predictions over the last 40+ years actually began to happen. World temperature is up about a degree since 1850 and there isn't any catastrophic disaster looming as much as climate science and the press would like us to believe. The IPCC tells us the warming will be at night, in the winter and in the Arctic. So far in my neck of the woods the IPCC is right, we are having yet another mild winter. The predicted crisis just isn't happening. @@-Rishikesh
@@stacase "More Rain is not a Problem." I don't know if you have heard about El Niño and La Niña. Both of these are caused by higher ocean temperatures than normal. The occurrences of these events increase with temperature. Between 1850 and 1950, there were 58 events, while between 1950 and 2023, there have been 130 events. Data from IPCC. And this predominantly affects people in the global south. The recent Chennai floods this year and the floods in Pakistan last year are recent examples of this. "Warmer weather is not a Problem." When temperatures rise above normal levels, the soil tends to dry out, reducing its capacity to absorb water. Consequently, when rainfall occurs later in the year, it often leads to flooding, contributing only to runoff water instead of replenishing the water table. Causing droughts. "More arable land is not a problem." I think you got mixed information that a warming planet is good for plants. Although some weeds and nonessential plants may thrive in these conditions, the yield of vital food crops tends to decrease with rising temperatures. And with floods and increased weather events, it is getting difficult to harvest them after they are grown. Longer growing seasons are not a Problem. I don't understand what you are referring to here "CO2 greening of the earth is not a Problem." The greening of CO2 is a phenomenon exhibited by plants that increases only the "number of leaves in a plant !! " Technically the CO2 does help plants grow, but without increased nitrogen in the soil, the growth would plateau out eventually. i.e., They would have grown even without the excess carbon dioxide and this is not a free pass to continue emitting CO2. "There isn't any Climate Crisis." If all the above points aren't considered a climate crisis, then I think there isn't a climate crisis. But I really do want you to think, think outside the box, think outside your country, and even outside your usual sources of information. Maybe read a science journal once but directly from the source and not from a news channel's perspective of it.
Pakistan has witnessed 28 super floods in its 75-year history. Did climate change cause those floods in the 1950s? World-wide floods, droughts and storms etc. are about the same. We do have more arable land, and longer growing seasons, look at the back of your seed packages, the hardiness zones are moving northward. Not a problem in my book. Yes plants need nitrogen too. And there are governments around the world that want to ban nitrogenous fertilizers. Why? I don't bother with science journals I look at the actual data concerning floods, droughts, storms, tide gauges, food production, polar bears, disease trends and so on. @@-Rishikesh
@@stacase You and I cannot agree more about the region of Pakistan. From 1850 to 1950 there has been 6 major floods. After 1950 as you rightly mentioned about the increased flooding. What you didn't mention is after 2010 there's been a flood almost every year. The arable land has increased because of increased demand for food production and the yields have increased because of genetically modified super crops. That has nothing to do with CO2 and higher temperatures. Actually these genetic modifications actually want to make them drought resistant. Wink wink Global avg temperature increase (Global warming). And i cannot find any countries banning nitrogen fertilizer but governments across the world are try to make farmers efficiently use it because runoff fertilizers cause so much harm to the ecosystem. You can close your eyes to all the opposing viewpoints and data but facts are facts. I would love to change my mind if you can show me otherwise.
The sun has cycles every 240-280 years that repeat, clearly seen throughout our history. Like a motor, stable enough, it can speed up and slow down in its production of heat and light. The lowered irradiance or intensity of light created during this time is thus weakened. Circulating fields of plasma within the sun, always interracting, sometimes interfering and sometimes reinforcing wavelength field output, results in a cooling of our climate, presently the case. Why the heat? Think of the motor that slows down, its corresponding magnetic field also weakens. Because our magnetosphere is generated by the sun magnetic field its weakening allows more cosmic and solar radiation to enter our atmosphere, warming our land, sea and air. When oceans warm they release greenhouse gases from dissolved suspension, a symptom of warming, not the driver. Historical data show warming always occurs prior to CO2 increase and vice versa. Nature in its wisdom to balance the heat weakens the suns light and creates clouds by ionizing the atmosphere.. Charged particles grow in size due to the ionizing effect, attract moisture, fuelled by accelerated evaporation of our water sources on earth and then become clouds. Between weakening sunlight and added cloud cover over the earth, the earth falls into a cycle of cooling temperatures and longer winters. Reference the Grand Solar minimum, last occuring in the dark ages, where frigid temperatures were experienced. Due to what amounts as cloud seeding, random increasing rainfall and flooding is experienced. Crops will and are failing due to a phenomenon that comes and goes in the regular procession of nature. Yes, man is undoubtably contributing but nature carries on. Those pushing the agenda will not go there. And who do you think is behind this, the same peoplecand organizations that own big oil. About 20+ years ago i was reading nasa articles that revealed several other planets were also experiencing symptoms of Global warming and they went on to say it was likely caused by increasing Cosmic radiation passing through from space. You see the sun fuels the magnetosphere, not just around earth but the entire Solar system.... Then it became political and they forgot what they knew.
We are having another late and cold spring arrival in western canada. Late crops will undoubtedly fail to early frost this fall. No matter how much environment Canada and Nasa adjust the temperature data the truth will not bend.
The warming that occurs due to solar cycles occurs on the span of centuries or millenia. The warming that is occurring now has happened in the span of a few decades. ua-cam.com/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/v-deo.html
Stanley Goddard you are aware nasa and environment canada are borh adjusting the raw data. I can tell you where I live temps have not been warming. Our growing season is shrinking.
Stanley Goddard I really do not deny temperatures changing. Nothing stands still. Our climate is a dynamic one. It is not static. Where I live winters have been getting longer. I am looking out the window now. I wish I could send you a picture. Lots of snow. -10C at 10:00 am. It will delay spring seeding for our farmers. I wish our governments would be more transparent with us regarding the temperature data tampering that has been done to feed the climate models. We are now spending trillions of dollars to fix a questionable problem. It makes the rich richer, the government’s more powerful and the general population poorer. It is just sad to see our cost of living increase needlessly, and the prosperous future for our children disintegrate.
@-Rishikesh If you believe that then it's probably time for your 5th booster jab. We've heard the alarms since 70s, world will end nonsense. Like covid, if the media didn't ram it home we'd have had no idea anything was wrong.
Oil companies have produced products fundamental to our way of living. End users are under no obligation whatsoever to use cars, plastics, pharmaceuticals, gas central heating, air travel, products that have come from abroad via shipping, IT equipment, phones, lip balm. What's the argument here?
There is some truth to that but it is also fair to acknowledge that large corporations and lobbies (car, plastics, food and many others) have made people pretty "obligated" to buy these products, as we've know for a long time and as this recent article points out: www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/plastic-problem-recycling-myth-big-oil-950957/
@Stanley Goddard I take your point but there hasn't been only right-wing politicians in place since the 1950s (to stay within the scope of the story told in this particular video). It is not only about right-wing vs left-wing, it is more complicated than that I am afraid. Lobbies and corporations work regardless of the politicians in place.
@Stanley Goddard you're partisan politics is clouding your argument. Politicians will do whatever is profitable and sensible for the economy (though its maybe easier for you to believe they are evil, purchased shills). There is no easy replacement for plastics and pharmaceuticals, lubricants, clothes, etc etc that are no derived from oil, and these products have transformed our world. As for gas and oil for energy, ships need diesel/heavy oil and planes need jet fuel. There's a lot of sense in moving cars away from hydrocarbon for air quality reasons, but if rushed without due thought will it end up being less environmentally friendly. You have to approach this from a neutral stand point. 'Fck big oil and corporations and Conservative politicians' is not a very bright way to discuss the topic. You as an end user can choose to use as little of these products as you wish.
@@learnsustainability I'd agree historically large corporations have not been transparent and probably protected their interests. Suggesting large companies now like exxon, BP, shell are like that is not based on reality. The culture has changed, though some would struggle to accept that. Some people genuinely believe hydrocarbons bring a lot of good, and want to produce them safely and with minimal environmental impact. In fact I'd suggest the majority of energy sector workers share that thought
@@drewdrewman28 Hydrocarbons CAN bring a lot of good (plastics used in the health sector are a great example of that). But they would have to be extracted and used in quantities that don't put the world and the people at risk. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that and now our entire society is built around something that puts us at risk and that is getting harder to change every day. The point of this video is to show that the poor (and profit driven) decisions made by the oil industry over the years have created a situation that is very hard to change and that they should be accountable for and help rectify.
@@zoephin6205 Again still no peer review and "Even though there are over 1,600 major volcanoes on Venus, none are known to be erupting at present and most are probably long extinct." And you think the planet just started releasing geothermal energy and that is what is heating the planet NOW!!! LMAO. The geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts and split approximately equally between radiogenic heat and heat leftover from the Earth's formation. This comes to 0.087 watt/square metre, which represents only 0.027% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation of which 5 to 6 percent, is absorbed by the atmosphere by greenhouse gas molecules. That's at least 184x MORE than geothermal. Not only that you have to INVENT a mechanism for turning on and off geothermal. At least you're good for a laugh. See YOU just fabricated a self serving lie.
I can't believe this only has 5,000 views. Watching this somehow helped me realize that if you can politicize reality, 50% of people will likely disagree with it just because it doesn't align with the interests of their tribe. Stockholm Syndrome.
I know. The UA-cam algorithm is funny like that? but at least you found it a watched it Thanks for your comment! 😊
Exactly! If you are interested in this topic please listen to Drilled by Amy Westervelt.
"Profits is the deadliest of all addictions" Yes, it is an addiction, just like gambling is.
Watching and recommending, a 2nd time. Excellent work!
Cheers! Thanks for commenting!
Status-signalling is the deadliest of all addictions, because it kills the entirety of society, not just the addict.
Thank you for putting this together! This is important and has been unspoken for too long 🙏 I hope more people watch this
Glad you liked it. Thanks for your comment!
@@learnsustainability the real conspiracy is the lies and deception of thenfossil feul industry not renewable tech the politicians are bought by big oil and brainwash people to deny climate change wake up sheeple
Here is undercover footage of one of Exxonmobil's top Washington lobbyists - speaking candidly about his efforts to undermine new legislation to protect the environment: ua-cam.com/video/5v1Yg6XejyE/v-deo.html
If you find this video interesting, please subscribe alturl.com/jc8u6 and leave me a comment below 😁
I hope this kind of content is taught in schools right now. Their future depends on knowing the truth and demanding change ASAP.
This video is so well done! Thank you for all the work you put into it!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for leaving a comment!
That part about Nelson Mandela was funny
Excellent video and summary of the dis-information campaign run by the oil industry.
My concern is the politicians and to a large extent the public want to keep growth going as fast as possible, despite the fact we're on an unsustainable course at present. As things stand we are essentially not paying the 'full price' for goods and services because we are not paying for the environmental cost that either the extraction, usage and/or the disposal phase causes. That cost is instead been stored up into the future and compounded.
Imagine a plane in level flight, politicians promise growth with long term unsustainable policies but that deliver 'quick wins' that can be seen within the next election cycle. Its the equivalent to pulling up the nose with the controls but doing nothing else, you gain a bit of altitude but sacrifice your airspeed. The problem is the longer they keep operating on a short term growth cycle basis without addressing the 'whole cost', the increasingly difficult it will be for the economy as well as the wider environment and ecology as those forces compound over the longterm. Eventually just like the aircraft in this analogy, economies too will enter a major stall, the phase where we'll be living with the consequences we've been storing up: environmental and ecological degradation on a global scale, the increasing costs of trying to adapt, having to attempt very expensive and risky geo-engineering type solutions, large swathes of the planet becoming difficult to live in contributing to massive humanitarian and migratory challenges, likely all within an increasingly unequal world, something always liable to lead to a significant rise in civil unrest, none of which are conducive to economic growth in the long-term.
We need to be looking at adopting more sustainable approaches now to set us up with a better long-term outlook ahead.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with everybody Thomas! Very much appreciated!
Actually this proves the climate lying cults are a abomination to the world and freedom as we'll as prosperity
Be careful what you wish for my friend kingdoms often fall in the end
Let's expand this fast
Today, 2022, the ice at the North Pole the last year continued its recent expansion at its fastest rate in 18 years. Ships were frozen in Hudson bad for weeks. Now down South at that pole ice is contracting. Why? Winds and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. This has been happening on. Earth for a long long time.
Thanks for sharing your opinion!
I agree with you. Nicely said !
"In September 2022, the area that was at least 15 percent ice covered was 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), tying with 2010 for eleventh lowest in the satellite record." NOAA. Yes maybe it expanded in extent compared to previous years. Yet: "According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the amount of ice that survives the summer melt season has shrunk by 13 percent per decade relative to the 1981-2010 average. In the 2020 Arctic Report Card, experts reported that the average minimum extent for each third of the satellite record has successively declined: 6.85 million square kilometers (2.64 million square miles) for 1979-1992, 6.13 million square kilometers (2.37 million square miles) for 1993-2006, and 4.44 million square kilometers (1.71 million square miles) for 2007-2020." It's not the extent that's the real issue - the volume is over 75% gone. The multiyear ice is over 90% gone. Extent can disappear fast as the thickness goes down.
Awesome video! Thanks so much
Cheers! Thanks for your feedback!
It is scientific malpractice to discuss global warming without discussing or while dismissing ice ages. We have had 5 known ice ages with the last one ending about 12,000 years ago. The very melting of the last ice sheet carved the Missouri river and was the boundary of the migration of the last ice sheet. We know ice ages are cyclic but what is lesser know is why. They are either internal or external forces at play. Internally would set our focus on plate tectonics and volcanoes. Externally would put our focus on the sun. Geologically speaking we are still exiting the last ice age. Warming is predictable, inevitable and immutable by mankind. There are forces at play much greater and older than mankind. Climate change denial, far from it.
Ice ages happened during periods of lower greenhouse gases (let's say, CO2) and warm ages happened during periods of high amounts of CO2, like the Cambrian period, which had about 4,000 ppm.
Yes, there have been natural cycles, and their multiple causes aren't totally understood, but the correlation CO2-heat is undeniable, and proven by chemistry and physics. Now, we are experiencing the effects of a sudden increase of CO2 originated in the burning of fossil fuels, again, proved by chemistry and physics - and history. Climatologists agree. As the video shows, fossil fuel companies also agree, but their reaction is to seed uncertainty to keep their profits - what you say issues directly from one of their slogans: "climate changes are natural, nothing different here, nothing to do about it."
Your argument is like someone saying that wildfires are natural and unpredictable, therefore it is scientific malpractice to put off the burning frying pan over your stove that is filling the house with smoke and setting the curtains on fire.
Will you keep wondering until the whole house is on fire before acknowledging that fire is fire and grabbing the foam extinguisher?
your content is very good
Very much appreciated! Thank you for commenting.
I wish tesla car is getting affordable.
Could extraction n use of oil throw off this machine earth equilibrium that could be affecting and the earth adjusting to the way we are using the resources
Not I understand the question well but yes, extracting oil in a way that carbon systematically accumulates in the atmosphere affects the equilibrium of the earth's natural cycles as explained in this video: ua-cam.com/video/eec0UYGIeo4/v-deo.html
What isn't covered in all of that is a discussion of why a warmer world would be a problem.
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.
what evidence would change your mind ?
If the projections and predictions over the last 40+ years actually began to happen.
World temperature is up about a degree since 1850 and there isn't any catastrophic disaster looming as much as climate science and the press would like us to believe. The IPCC tells us the warming will be at night, in the winter and in the Arctic. So far in my neck of the woods the IPCC is right, we are having yet another mild winter.
The predicted crisis just isn't happening. @@-Rishikesh
@@stacase
"More Rain is not a Problem."
I don't know if you have heard about El Niño and La Niña. Both of these are caused by higher ocean temperatures than normal. The occurrences of these events increase with temperature. Between 1850 and 1950, there were 58 events, while between 1950 and 2023, there have been 130 events. Data from IPCC. And this predominantly affects people in the global south. The recent Chennai floods this year and the floods in Pakistan last year are recent examples of this.
"Warmer weather is not a Problem."
When temperatures rise above normal levels, the soil tends to dry out, reducing its capacity to absorb water. Consequently, when rainfall occurs later in the year, it often leads to flooding, contributing only to runoff water instead of replenishing the water table. Causing droughts.
"More arable land is not a problem."
I think you got mixed information that a warming planet is good for plants. Although some weeds and nonessential plants may thrive in these conditions, the yield of vital food crops tends to decrease with rising temperatures. And with floods and increased weather events, it is getting difficult to harvest them after they are grown.
Longer growing seasons are not a Problem.
I don't understand what you are referring to here
"CO2 greening of the earth is not a Problem."
The greening of CO2 is a phenomenon exhibited by plants that increases only the "number of leaves in a plant !! " Technically the CO2 does help plants grow, but without increased nitrogen in the soil, the growth would plateau out eventually. i.e., They would have grown even without the excess carbon dioxide and this is not a free pass to continue emitting CO2.
"There isn't any Climate Crisis."
If all the above points aren't considered a climate crisis, then I think there isn't a climate crisis.
But I really do want you to think, think outside the box, think outside your country, and even outside your usual sources of information.
Maybe read a science journal once but directly from the source and not from a news channel's perspective of it.
Pakistan has witnessed 28 super floods in its 75-year history. Did climate change cause those floods in the 1950s?
World-wide floods, droughts and storms etc. are about the same.
We do have more arable land, and longer growing seasons, look at the back of your seed packages, the hardiness zones are moving northward. Not a problem in my book.
Yes plants need nitrogen too. And there are governments around the world that want to ban nitrogenous fertilizers. Why?
I don't bother with science journals I look at the actual data concerning floods, droughts, storms, tide gauges, food production, polar bears, disease trends and so on.
@@-Rishikesh
@@stacase You and I cannot agree more about the region of Pakistan.
From 1850 to 1950 there has been 6 major floods. After 1950 as you rightly mentioned about the increased flooding. What you didn't mention is after 2010 there's been a flood almost every year.
The arable land has increased because of increased demand for food production and the yields have increased because of genetically modified super crops. That has nothing to do with CO2 and higher temperatures. Actually these genetic modifications actually want to make them drought resistant. Wink wink Global avg temperature increase (Global warming).
And i cannot find any countries banning nitrogen fertilizer but governments across the world are try to make farmers efficiently use it because runoff fertilizers cause so much harm to the ecosystem.
You can close your eyes to all the opposing viewpoints and data but facts are facts. I would love to change my mind if you can show me otherwise.
Very good - thanks!
Who else has a list for the upcoming purge😈
The Nazis had some lists also, who are you planning to genocide if you get the opportunity?
Make a video about geoengineering
There is already a very good one here ua-cam.com/video/dSu5sXmsur4/v-deo.html
👍
Wait so you are saying New York and California will sink into the ocean?.... DRILL DRILL DRILL pump that oil folks lol
Most of the south too, thank god
@@theamberabyss1745 I agree lol
You are French because you have French accent
This video lacks on scientific research. Its just politics.
That's fair! It is true it is more a recap on the last 50 years of climate politics.
The sun has cycles every 240-280 years that repeat, clearly seen throughout our history.
Like a motor, stable enough, it can speed up and slow down in its production of heat and light.
The lowered irradiance or intensity of light created during this time is thus weakened.
Circulating fields of plasma within the sun, always interracting, sometimes interfering and sometimes reinforcing wavelength field output, results in a cooling of our climate, presently the case.
Why the heat?
Think of the motor that slows down, its corresponding magnetic field also weakens.
Because our magnetosphere is generated by the sun magnetic field its weakening allows more cosmic and solar radiation to enter our atmosphere, warming our land, sea and air.
When oceans warm they release greenhouse gases from dissolved suspension, a symptom of warming, not the driver.
Historical data show warming always occurs prior to CO2 increase and vice versa.
Nature in its wisdom to balance the heat weakens the suns light and creates clouds by ionizing the atmosphere..
Charged particles grow in size due to the ionizing effect, attract moisture, fuelled by accelerated evaporation of our water sources on earth and then become clouds.
Between weakening sunlight and added cloud cover over the earth, the earth falls into a cycle of cooling temperatures and longer winters.
Reference the Grand Solar minimum, last occuring in the dark ages, where frigid temperatures were experienced.
Due to what amounts as cloud seeding, random increasing rainfall and flooding is experienced.
Crops will and are failing due to a phenomenon that comes and goes in the regular procession of nature.
Yes, man is undoubtably contributing but nature carries on.
Those pushing the agenda will not go there.
And who do you think is behind this, the same peoplecand organizations that own big oil.
About 20+ years ago i was reading nasa articles that revealed several other planets were also experiencing symptoms of Global warming and they went on to say it was likely caused by increasing Cosmic radiation passing through from space.
You see the sun fuels the magnetosphere, not just around earth but the entire Solar system....
Then it became political and they forgot what they knew.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. It has definitely become a political problem!
We are having another late and cold spring arrival in western canada. Late crops will undoubtedly fail to early frost this fall. No matter how much environment Canada and Nasa adjust the temperature data the truth will not bend.
The warming that occurs due to solar cycles occurs on the span of centuries or millenia. The warming that is occurring now has happened in the span of a few decades.
ua-cam.com/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/v-deo.html
Stanley Goddard you are aware nasa and environment canada are borh adjusting the raw data. I can tell you where I live temps have not been warming. Our growing season is shrinking.
Stanley Goddard I really do not deny temperatures changing. Nothing stands still. Our climate is a dynamic one. It is not static. Where I live winters have been getting longer. I am looking out the window now. I wish I could send you a picture. Lots of snow. -10C at 10:00 am. It will delay spring seeding for our farmers. I wish our governments would be more transparent with us regarding the temperature data tampering that has been done to feed the climate models. We are now spending trillions of dollars to fix a questionable problem. It makes the rich richer, the government’s more powerful and the general population poorer. It is just sad to see our cost of living increase needlessly, and the prosperous future for our children disintegrate.
Absolute nonsense, manmade Co2 is 0.0048% of the 0.04% of Co2. 😂
I hope you're sarcastic 😁
@-Rishikesh If you believe that then it's probably time for your 5th booster jab. We've heard the alarms since 70s, world will end nonsense. Like covid, if the media didn't ram it home we'd have had no idea anything was wrong.
You are a propagandist.
AHAH! That's ironic! I thoughts it was clear that the oil industry was doing the propaganda here!
@@learnsustainability The system has recognized your unquestioning belief in high-status beliefs, and your rewards are incoming.
Cyber Dragon Zekrom Which oil company do you work for?
Oil companies have produced products fundamental to our way of living. End users are under no obligation whatsoever to use cars, plastics, pharmaceuticals, gas central heating, air travel, products that have come from abroad via shipping, IT equipment, phones, lip balm. What's the argument here?
There is some truth to that but it is also fair to acknowledge that large corporations and lobbies (car, plastics, food and many others) have made people pretty "obligated" to buy these products, as we've know for a long time and as this recent article points out: www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/plastic-problem-recycling-myth-big-oil-950957/
@Stanley Goddard I take your point but there hasn't been only right-wing politicians in place since the 1950s (to stay within the scope of the story told in this particular video). It is not only about right-wing vs left-wing, it is more complicated than that I am afraid. Lobbies and corporations work regardless of the politicians in place.
@Stanley Goddard you're partisan politics is clouding your argument. Politicians will do whatever is profitable and sensible for the economy (though its maybe easier for you to believe they are evil, purchased shills). There is no easy replacement for plastics and pharmaceuticals, lubricants, clothes, etc etc that are no derived from oil, and these products have transformed our world. As for gas and oil for energy, ships need diesel/heavy oil and planes need jet fuel. There's a lot of sense in moving cars away from hydrocarbon for air quality reasons, but if rushed without due thought will it end up being less environmentally friendly. You have to approach this from a neutral stand point. 'Fck big oil and corporations and Conservative politicians' is not a very bright way to discuss the topic. You as an end user can choose to use as little of these products as you wish.
@@learnsustainability I'd agree historically large corporations have not been transparent and probably protected their interests. Suggesting large companies now like exxon, BP, shell are like that is not based on reality. The culture has changed, though some would struggle to accept that. Some people genuinely believe hydrocarbons bring a lot of good, and want to produce them safely and with minimal environmental impact. In fact I'd suggest the majority of energy sector workers share that thought
@@drewdrewman28 Hydrocarbons CAN bring a lot of good (plastics used in the health sector are a great example of that). But they would have to be extracted and used in quantities that don't put the world and the people at risk. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that and now our entire society is built around something that puts us at risk and that is getting harder to change every day. The point of this video is to show that the poor (and profit driven) decisions made by the oil industry over the years have created a situation that is very hard to change and that they should be accountable for and help rectify.
Imagine this: You're selecting all scientists that accept a faulty premise!
phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/
@Stanley Goddard
One can easily SEE that you just fabricated a self-serving lie. NASA cited a peer-reviewed paper.
@@zoephin6205 Again still no peer review and "Even though there are over 1,600 major volcanoes on Venus, none are known to be erupting at present and most are probably long extinct." And you think the planet just started releasing geothermal energy and that is what is heating the planet NOW!!! LMAO.
The geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts and split approximately equally between radiogenic heat and heat leftover from the Earth's formation. This comes to 0.087 watt/square metre, which represents only 0.027% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation of which 5 to 6 percent, is absorbed by the atmosphere by greenhouse gas molecules. That's at least 184x MORE than geothermal. Not only that you have to INVENT a mechanism for turning on and off geothermal.
At least you're good for a laugh.
See YOU just fabricated a self serving lie.