Is the GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM the REAL driver of climate change?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- In 2019 our sun was reaching the end of it's normal 11 year cycle and began approaching a period of minimum solar activity. This one was being dubbed the GRAND Solar Minimum. Some say the solar cycles are the real cause of climate change and that a Grand Solar Minimum is what is wreaking havoc with our weather systems in the early years of the 2020's and that it may even tip us into a mini ice age. So...what does the science say?
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveath...
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoff...
Download the Just Have a Think App from the AppStore or Google Play
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos?
Check out the FREE DiveDeeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.
climatechange....
Check out other UA-cam Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karver:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown:
/ @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere:
/ @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Research sites -
en.wikipedia.o...
www.google.com...
www.realclimate...
en.wikipedia.o...
commons.wikime...
slideplayer.co...
spaceplace.nas...
solarscience.m...
solarcyclescien...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.pik-potsdam...
skepticalscien...
en.wikipedia.o...
earthobservato...
spaceplace.nas...
www.carbonbrie...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.nasa.gov/m...
news.agu.org/p...
#grandsolarminimum #solarcycles #sunspots
NASA is ready to land on the surface of the sun, they just have to do it at night ;)
😂😂🤦🏽♀️
Great idea! I hope you told ‘em that before they took off.
Actually they're waiting for it to cool down before landing in it.
@Carl Henry lol..you got that right, the thinking by the left, Good one!!
@@Wil_Dsense Ha ha ha, right, and maybe in it dark side.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this. Too many assumptions for me and alot of others to be comfortable giving people I already don't trust more power and influence.
@Gord Orvis there are research papers you can look into that dive into the other types of energy and particles that come at us and the impact they have on our weather and climate. It is not to deny science or even climate change, but to look further into why it is happening. Though I have seen enough to make me question the narrative doesn't make me care about the planet less. I personally want better restrictions on pollution. From farms to produced goods, we are literally poisoning everything around us and killing other species in droves. As far as people's carbon footprint, we would do better in stopping consumerism. Teach people to be happy with themselves and not covet all the material bs we leave behind when we die.
@Gord Orvis The papers are invisible lol.
@Gord Orvis ua-cam.com/video/M_yqIj38UmY/v-deo.html
@@terryowens3860so you've gotten rid of everything you own including food produced since everything in your world is toxic, right?
... did he really just use Wikipedia as his source? If his point on how minimal the suns affect is, wouldn’t the same apply to the minimal amount of trace gases man is responsible for adding to our atmosphere? Only 0.04% of our Atmosphere is Co2, and of that 97% is naturally occurring. That leaves only 3% of the total 0.04%, that’s less that half of one percent of an essential gas to all life on earth that’s man-made, and beneficial. If we could reduced it, only the vegetation would suffer. Nothing about climate change rings true.
Twice.
I think additionally that the extremely small percentage (3% of the 0.04%) is man made could cause a 2W / Sq meter change is completely unbelievable. More IPCC BS data..
No it wouldn't, your whole thought process is ass-backward.
Actually, wikipedia has been found to be a very reliable source. Sure, someone can always put some nonsense on there but others will edit....the whole voluntary concept is pretty cool i think. There is a wealth of information on there about pretty much any subject you may be interested in. In a way it isn't really a single source but a whole bunch of sources.
@@forestdweller5581 Ya, the encyclopedia's of yore were the same way actually.
When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happens. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.
Could it be that the disasters neuer came to pass, because people did things to prevent them?
"Disaster never comes true"...yeah, a lot of German Jews thought that in the early 1930's.....
@@lukasmuller4606 Pompeii?, Black Death?, Ghengis Khan?, Great Fire of London?, 1906 San Fran Earthquake? 2004 Tsunami? Alzheimers?, etc,etc, ad infinitum...not really much control, is there, eh?
The irony that Climate Change is coming to pass as people watch in real time while simultaneously denying it could be man made, no matter how well it’s acceleration matches industrialization statistics, is an embarrassment to the assumed intellect of our species.
Your children will suffer from the climate change caused by excess CO2. Many people have already died because of it.
2020 the year that just keeps giving
The years after will be more
Thank you 2020, may i have another?
@@batfink274 amen
Bring on the ice age!
justin 2020 is the year of VIRUS
You left out earth’s weakening magnetic fields and the increase in cosmic rays
Hey I agree, scroll and find my comment if you agree electrical universe
@Gord Orvis actually uni means 1 and verse means statement. The masses believe in a statement issues by the 🇻🇦
@Gord Orvis go forth and learn my benefactor
Its not weakening, its shifting.
@@banpowel9784 by all accounts a slow solar wind speed is the reason how field lines are not compressed to block small wavelengths. Atmospheric compression also tends to favor better weather conditions due to a higher pressure zones and lower low pressure zones.
Haha all these indoctrinated kids dont remember 6to14ft of snow every Christmas and rarely more than 2to3 weeks summer pmsl
for real
When my mom was a kid in Iowa they had snow to the roof tops. My mom was born in 1928.
Snow is a local daily weather phenomenon. climate is average weather measured over decades. So you snowfall is irrelevant
@@drkstrong And Greenland was ice free but full of Vikings! How far back should we go? By the way co2 was estimated to be under 200ppm. and during a very cold snap it was est. over 1,000ppm? makes no sense right? just like this bull.
@@jamespenn5788 The hottest times on record in the US was the 30's. The dust bowl. Several day's above 90 in all 50 states. Bad news, after this next cooling trend temps are going to drop, then go up again? I can guess too, but not to take every ones money, it's because the real data supports it. Look around please, do we want to see even more people scared? Anything but naïve! But hey the man of the hour, Dr. Vaccine himself, and now the renowned Climate Scientist, is pushing to inject baking soda in the atmosphere? This is like a cartoon, & people even missed the sign's, like "The Science is settled" RED FLAG!
An atmosphere composed of 0.04% carbon dioxide of which mans contribution is 3% of the total is causing the greenhouse effect? I think not. There has got to be other factors involved.
Your numbers are correct. However, what you may have not looked into is that for 10's/100's of thousands of years, natural Co2 emissions have been balanced out by natural Co2 absorption. In the last 100 years or so, human activity has added billions of tonnes of Co2 to the atmosphere of which nature cannot absorb. And since Co2 can sit in the atmosphere for years and/or decades, Co2 levels are now rising faster than they have for thousands of years! This is a concern because nature cannot keep up and adapt to that change!
I cringe every time someone uses Wikipedia as a reference...
Free Dom says:
"I cringe every time someone uses Wikipedia as a reference..."
==
Post the better source of reference.
I agree. Quote from the actual source
I do too
I use wiki quite often. It saves me and shitload of money buying comics😉
If you are discerning about what you accept as true, you can wade through the muck to find the nuggets.
Nice explanation of the workings of the Sun, but perhaps its electrical and that oscillating wave amplitude explains the solar cycles. The wild card is the volcanic eruptions during GSM's usually in the VEI 7 range, which would result in a cooling planet, not from the TSI decreases. Best example Late Antique Little Ice Age (LAIA).
@Gord Orvis Telling people that you can control the weather and climate of Earth by controlling CO2 is misinformation!
Thanks David for pointing this out
Some dumb shit here. You will never catch up to Ben, but keep trying.
I was looking for a comment, which mention David Dubyne....
Aliens. We need aliens to complete 2020.
The military gave us aliens earlier this year. We're missing the time travelers. Where's Marty?
Yeah I barely saw any UFO this year. They dissapeared on the last 5-10 years.
@@Blaishon UFOs don’t mean aliens simply unidentified flying objects... and the worse your are at actually identifying things the more UFOs you will see. Watch thunderf00ts series debunking these incidents “nasa ufo busted”
@@Toxic2T da. Cv19 lockdown.
They even control the f$%kin aliens now. Lol
@@stronghold500 Dunno if aliens, but the governments have something to do with them on our airspace.
So in order for me to keep my fleet of cars and two private jet, someone else needs to give up their carbon foot print for me.
Yes..preferably the family that saved for years to take a trip.
Done you can have mine 😉
@@brendn1264 Did you delete your other thread?
@@penguinuprighter6231 yeah not engaging. Too much hassle I can't be bothered arguing with close minded people. The main stream quackademics and their defence of mere ideas just isn't worth it. Let them off. Enjoy.
@@brendn1264 So you're a chicken and an idiot. Great combo.
You failed to explain why the earth’s temperature was warmer several times in the last several thousand years, including 1,000 years ago. The Greenland ice cores also reveal that during every warm period, an increase in temps always proceeds an increase in carbon. Also, study the amount of carbon cause by human activity in relation to what naturally occurs.
1. The earth's temperature has not "warmer several times in the last several thousand years, including 1,000 years ago." That myth has been debunked many times, most recently by this comprehensive paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
discussed here:
www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-study/global-warming-dwarfs-climate-variations-of-past-2000-years-study-idUSKCN1UJ2DC
2. "Greenland ice cores also reveal ..." So they do. So do Antarctic ice cores. What else would you expect? Surely you understand that - in the absence of a major change in CO2 sources such as anthropogenic emissions or major volcanic eruptions - warming the Earth should cause atmospheric CO2 to increase. So what?
3. As for "the amount of carbon cause by human activity in relation to what naturally occurs". Those same ice cores that you evidently trust (as you should) ALSO show that atmospheric CO2 was very stable until humans started emitting large amount of CO2 by burning fossil fuel, as shown by this graph:
scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png
Those human emissions have now increased atmospheric CO2 by nearly 50%. In other words the NET amount of carbon cause by human activity, currently around 50 billion tonnes per year, greatly exceeds natural emissions that are now actually NEGATIVE, since there is a net flow of carbon from the atmosphere to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
Funny these greenland ice sheets didnt melt away like they are now back then though, or you wouldnt have a recor...but...oh ya, your an idiot, i forgot. My bad. Bwahahahahaha
@@Tengooda Vikings lived on Greenland, and called it green-land. So it may well have been warmer and less ice there.
Don Fields - only the outside perimeter melted during the warming periods. Scientist are reporting that these glaciers have reversed course and have begun to expand in the last several years (Danish Meteorological Institute). Iceland glacier have also begun to grow, but only for one year.
Tengooda - you do realize that the same scientist were claiming these same climate cycles until well after 1992, using there own data. It was in 1992 that they admitted the need to get rid of these climate cycles, and so they did, without providing any justification for doing so. Listen to their own words!
Correct ! It’s time to start talking about global cooling ! The influence of human CO2 emissions on global temperatures is so insignificant that we may as well move on to resolve real problems on this planet !
Giorgio Cooper says:
"Correct ! It’s time to start talking about global cooling ! .."
==
There's no sign of cooling.
Where did you find it?
assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2017HottestOnRecord_TopTen_en_title_lg_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg
@Giorgio - You mean the influence of all the heads of each country raping our land for all it's resources, Their factories, and waste disposal of their factories. Humans have a very small effect on this but that is what they want you to believe.
People who put a space on both sides of punctuation are either ill-educated or overly dramatic ! ! ! !
@@@IShallNotBeSilent Well then, YOU are part of the problem since you use said products (unless you posted here by pencil and paper), use electricity (most of which is generated by fossil fuels), eat (unless you grow and harvest your own food), and defecate (unless you shit in a hole you dug).
So . . . FOAD already. Oh, and STFU too.
@@barrywilliams991 says:
"use electricity (most of which is generated by fossil fuels), "
==
Because the fossil fuel industry isn't giving it up.
Not because it's what the people want.
Solar, wind power energies are actually cheaper already and will be even cheaper in the future.
How long are you willing to pay for the higher cost for the electricity knowing somebody paying politicians to keep it high?
www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=KZlpXfCvDsyctAWDmIPICA&q=renewable+energy+cost+less+than+fossil+energy&oq=renewable+energy+cost+less+than+fossil+energy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.23517.29092..30958...0.2..0.287.1398.0j6j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j33i160.Gva02gehhNY&ved=0ahUKEwiw6LXqyKvkAhVMDq0KHQPMAIkQ4dUDCAs&uact=5
You didn't know this?
With 270+ days in a row with no sunspots, we may be already in GSM.
Very cold and fall was almost hard core winter with freezes before Halloween in West Texas. Mild summer number 4 or 5 in row. I wore a jacket in beginning of june to walk my dog. NEVER ever needed a jacket in june in all of my 48 yrs.
@@davidwatson7919 yes I think the IPCC reports predicted more extreme weather events e.g. cold an apps will be colder and heat waves will be hotter , floods would be more extreme and cyclones more severe all because of increasing co2 above 400 parts per million now hasn't been this high for 200,000 years apparently
@@davidwatson7919 maybe u have a medical condition why you need a jacket in the summer. Its been a very mild winter in midwest
@@DD-yr6wc maybe because it windy overcast and in the 50s on a june morning?
And no sign of global cooling. 2019 was the second warmest year on record - the warmest non-El Nino year.
He is good at repeating concensus science.
People have got to wake up !! We are not only warming OUR planet but Mars as well !!
We have totally screwed up Mars ice caps as well over the last 30 years!
Haha 😂 lmao
What????lol
rftulak++++ Wow, you sound so serious to be so hilarious. Oh, the neighbor went to his outhouse after eating too much chili and beans and the planet Jupiter had a melt down by the red spot!!#
Yeah, Mars temperature is totally ignored at this point....and will be until someone comes up with a theory to make screwed up models to prove it's our fault unless we all become hunter gatherers again, except for the elite that will save us all
Boom!
Turn the sun off and then you'll see just how impactful it is ;)
Exactly, and no one either believes, wants to hear, wants to talk about nor wants to PREPARE, ESPECIALLY People with KIDS and GRANDKIDS!!!
It's a EXTREMELY DIRE SITUATION and FEELING, and their NARCISSISM and EGOS WON'T Change Until Kids and Grandkids Struggle and Rage at their FOOLISHNESS of Not PREPARING them WHEN They Had the CHANCE.🤔💭😳🤯🤬😭😵
😬OHH THE HORRORS!!!😱
Other comments about yours show just how unbelievably dumb most people are. They don't even get that if the sun went away then that alone would end all life here. Everything is dead without the sun. They seem to think of the poles shifted or CO2 levels rose astronomically or sea level rise by a foot or twenty meters but the sun still shone as usual it would destroy all life and destroy the planet. They can't grasp the fact that the sun is why anything and everything lives, has lived or will live and without it nothing lives or will live.
@@OverTaxed42Long Nobody has the slightest doubt that if the sun "turned off", then we would all rapidly perish.
But since that has not the slightest chance of happening, there is little point in worrying about it, or allowing such a possibility to distract us from the very real dangers of global heating.
Even NASA has quietly announced that Solar Cycle 25 will have fewer sunspots than any other in the last 200 years. Prepare for a Year Without Summer like 1816.
@@traditionalfood367 The 1816 Year Without Summer was mainly caused by the eruption of Tambora (Indonesia), and possibly also other volcanic eruptions earlier. There were widespread reports of haze or fog obscuring the sun. Large volcanic eruptions blast both volcanic ash and sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight back into space and reduce global temperatures.
The summer of 1816 was actually just after the maximum point (March 1816) of the sunspot cycle 6 that started in c.Jul 1810 and ended in c.Apr 1823, although this was in an overall period of lower solar activity known as the Dalton Minimum.
Average global temperatures are already well over 1degC warmer than during the Dalton Minimum, and there is no known prospect of a large volcanic eruption (though these are largely unpredictable), so there is no reason to predict a similar "year without a summer" is imminent.
You know this is extremely accurate when UA-cam feels the need to put a Wikipedia link to climate change and global warming under it 🤣🤣
Thanks for pointing me at the video I need to watch UA-cam 😂😂
Your spot on, the global elite will use this natural cycle to loot & gain control from the people in the name of saving the planet. Every time I see the propaganda link I know there over the target & should pay attention.
UA-cam sucks ass...heaven forbid actual science be discussed...
So what if we go into a solar minimum? We've got lucky that we're further allowed to pump our atmosphere with co2 and methane without too many consequences. But what happens when this minimum ends in 100-200 years, we raised the co2 amount in the atmosphere very high and the people living then have a big big problem. So your solution is to push the question of using renewables to further generation so yours can live an easy life?
@@sixtus9559 there was a ton more CO2 back when the earth was much younger....we'll be fine relaaax
@@claudiafahey1353 yeah but you do know in what time intervall this co2 accumulated in the past right? Hundredthousand, million years not hundreds and the temperatures were up to 12 Celsius higher than now. Let's add everywhere 12 Celsius, in how many places is it nice to live now? Nearly none just some furthest north.
CO2 in the atmosphere as the main driver of climate is like pouring a cup of coffee into an Olympic pool and expecting the water to turn brown.
Well then it's a good thing scientists use observational data to prove their positions and not some unsubstantiated analogy!
@@House_Stark By the comments below, it looks like you've got a lot of work to do. They never stop coming. ;)
It's more like the pool turning dark blue because one of the swimmers just peed in it.
Grand Solar minimum is part of a much larger 400 year cycle not 11, please get the information correct.
I’m just starting to research this. Do you have some good resources you can point me to, please?
Not really, space and it's matter can change it's cycle when it wants to, just like you change your diet and lifestyle. Was you alive 400 years ago? Who did you get your source from? An ice lolly stick. Leave the guy alone and enjoy the video he made for entertainment. Go and look down your toilet for facts, there you will find your worth in how your seen and smelled.
You forgot to mention plugging up all the active volcanos.....one good volcanic eruption puts out more green house gases than man ever thought of!
not true by a long shot
deniers keep spreading their lies
You obviously weren't alive when Mount St. Hellen's erupted back in 1980. It was the worst summer for triple digit heat I ever lived through in the Midwest. triple digits even through the night....but you can go on believing your lies!!!!
@@deathgatedeathstar9259
@@dogpatch5220
im sure it was awful
but in terms of emissions Vulcanos just doesnt come Close
www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
!According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.!
www.nbcnews.com/id/6635776/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/mount-st-helens-top-washington-polluter/#.XV7hmnduKLQ
"Worldwide, sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanoes add up to about 15 million tons a year, compared to the 200 million tons produced by power plants and other human activities."
so no
No. Just No. As Deathgate Deathstars link in this thread shows it is miniscule compared to human emissions. In historic time, volcanic eruptions have caused significant disruptions in global temperature patterns -but that is on the downside (Tambora -1816 The year without Summer or Pinatubo 1991 -a one degree C drop in global temperatures for a couple of years). Even supervolcanoes in the distant past like Toba or Yellowstone only cools (albeit massively). It takes a flood basalt eruption to match the current volume of human emission of greenhouse gasses, but emissionwise they are nowhere near the PACE of human activity. The Siberian Traps eruption (252 mya ago) or The Deccan traps (66 mya) were CONTNENTAL-wide events that unfolded for MILLENIA! On some info on REALLY BAD volcanic eruptions: ua-cam.com/video/st_2C_Wrw4A/v-deo.html
@@madshagen5849 I pointed out to him that he probably wasn't alive when Mt. St. Helens erupted, I live 1800 miles away from it and we had the hottest summer ever in my 67 years...triple digits through the night.
H2O number one greenhouse gas by far... no mention of it. No mention of cloud cover variation whatsoever. Water vapor is not only two orders of magnitude more volume in the atmosphere than CO2, but clouds have a dramatic cooling effect by reflecting radiation back into space. So water can both warm and cool the planet depending on variations in quantity and surface area.
What video also fails to mention is that cosmic radiation has an effect on cloud cover and cloud cover is increased when the Earth is hit with these particles.
There's also a variance in the distance the Earth sits from the sun. When a solar minimum lines up with an apex in distance from sun, more cosmic radiation hits us, and condensation increases in the atmosphere... causing excessive cloud formation and precipitation. This causes cooling. And this is why temps are going to drop over the next decade.
Dear Sir, your table presented at ~9:42 sucks. CO2 is app. 4% of the 'greenhouse gasses' only. Where is the MAJOR item - the water vapor?
That chart was showing atmospheric drivers. Water vapor is a feed back. Meaning, it's increase or decrease is dependent on temperature change via evaporation.
And no respectable scientist discounts Water vapor. They agree that it's the most dominant GHG as well as the most dominant feedback in the atmosphere. It's what makes climate sensitivity so strong when Co2 levels rise!
Water vapor isn't in the chart because it's not a climate forcing agent. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it precipitates out. C02 does not. In fact, C02 molecules can hang around up there for centuries, and it's that accumulation that's causing our problems.
Water vapor also has “windows” that allow some heat to escape without being absorbed, and it's concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.
C02-driven warming accelerates evaporation, which fills the atmosphere with increased water vapor which then acts synergistically with C02 to drive warming further. Thus C02 is not only the most effective forcing agent but the most crucial element in keeping our temperatures high enough to prevent earth from descending into an icebound state.
This channel should change it's name from 'Just Have a Think' to 'Do Not Question Mainstream Science'
Can you cite any science in the video that is erroneous? Please cite your data and provide links. We'd love to see what horseshit you're going to mine from the internet's cesspool of misinformation.
Store food to the rafters. We will have a decade of very poor food production
Blame the Sun or blame yourselves either way you need to learn some personal survival skills Community survival skills just saying
By far, the BEST hedge is an abundance of low cost reliable energy and that is what the IPCC and others do NOT want. Being prepared is a great idea.
Tulsa Fox- Everybody needs to learn to farm and garden for themselves and this guy is a NWO probably paid-off liar.
Also known as a shill. Bald head and all.
That is so true. What generations before 1950 considered common sense behavior: storing food, extra blankets and being self-sufficient is now called "prepping" and criticized for being extreme. Granted the critics go to the grocery store for their protein.
Tulsa Fox says:
"need to learn some personal survival skills Community survival skills just saying"
==
Rising temperature will continue hundreds if not thousands of years.
While you can be dead in two weeks without food from agricultural failure from climate change.
How are you going to survive that?
Hunt wild animals, while millions trying to do the name?
What kind of survival skill do you have?
Do you know what will be most helpful skill?
Know how to cook human flesh.
That would be the only thing plentiful around you, at least for a while.
You'll find out what your son or daughter, or mother taste like.
As carbon levels go us so does the growth rate of plants on land and in the sea. As temperature increases, the air can hold more moisture. As the moisture laden air rises it condenses into clouds that reflect sunlight back into space. Carbon captured from the atmosphere by plants. Sunlight reflected back into space. Two natural processes that help to regulate earths temperature.
you global warmer shills are spinning another narrative.
use to be we were burning up. now you'll have to weave another story to show why it is cooling
Confusing couple you are.
@@prioris55555 We're not cooling. 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record. Did you watch the video?
Yes, and as CO2 goes up, the icecaps melt, sea levels rise, high tide flooding increases, storm surges elevate, hurricanes intensify, and wildfires, drought, desertification, extreme precipitation events, heatwaves and marine heatwaves increase. The additional moisture held in the air then works synergistically with CO2 to drive temperatures even higher. All the latest data shows that increasing clouds in the future will not be cooling us, as they largely do now, but will increase warming still further. ( Imperial College London, the University of East Anglia; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Read the book Global warming. Hot topic cold science by Fred Singer who was actually an award winning meteorologist. Climate change is a religion now. Honest scientists are afraid to speak against the ideology. Climate change is this generations “Acid Rain” cause celeb.
When talking about the "Little ice age" starting 50 years before the Maunder, you failed to note the Wolf and Spörer Minimum. The Wolf wasn't a big one but the Spörer was. Not as deep as the Maunder, but it lasted a lot longer.
Mr mesmerised can you back me up in my comments above with swiftly tilting planet and get others to do so. We have had a gutsful of the rheteric and narrative of man causing weather when it is the sun. With their debunked fraudulent reports that they use to debunk science with to keep the scam going why we ate robbed of carbon tax. GSM is here now, finished them.
@@davidwilliams-xt7pe I will not back you, because you are wrong. For the past 60 years the Sun's activity went from a "grand" maximum to a minimum in (roughly) a 155 year cycle. If it's all about the Sun... we should have had global cooling since the early 1960's. The exact opposite happened. Oops.
"swiftly tilting planet" -- That is just wrong on every level. The planet itself is not "swiftly" tilting, it's the magnetic north pole that's on the move. And it's not tilting, but the exact opposite: it's moving towards the geographical north pole. Thirdly. I am quite certain you have absolutely no idea why this shift supposed to be relevant for your claim. Check the trajectory of the magnetic northpole over the past millennium and cross reference it with cold or warm periods (you never did that, right?) and you get an idea of how little relevance it has to your claim.
"With their debunked fraudulent reports" -- I get the feeling you never fact-checked those alleged "debunkings". And how can you even tell what's science and what's fraud? In just a few lines with superficial catch words and claims, you already made some very simple, bad mistakes.
"with to keep the scam going why we ate robbed of carbon tax" -- Even if the carbon tax is misguided, that doesn't make the science wrong. Bad argument.
"GSM is here now, finished them" -- I repeat... despite this... there's still global warming, not global cooling. Good luck explaining that away
@@MrMezmerized there is no warming, temperature has been fairly steady.
In The 70's we had global cooling 80's global warming today the liars come out with so called Climate Change all hoaxes for money and power to the rulling elite mostly within a certain political party. Eugenicists! Hold your own breath Patriots will rise up and peacefully stand strong!
@@kyrnsword72 yes. Agree. Make some comments to swiftly tilting planet above in comments section in support of me. We must attack these criminals so others can see comments and prepare for grand solar minimum we are going into now.
Also, the verbiage:
"Our sun is reaching the end of it's normal 11 year cycle and is now approaching a period of minimum solar activity. This one's being dubbed the Grand Solar Minimum" i.e. the first thing stated above is false. The now current minimum of solar activity is NOT the GSM. Further misrepresentations. The GSM is NOT a normal solar minimum it is a period of time encapsualting one or more low periods of maximum solar activity.
I think he said it right. The sun has 11years cycles and its in a min cycle thats going beyond 11years. I guess ill have to watch the video again. Over all i thought it was well presented
You do realize the scientist have a relatively small section of cycles to compare
@Andy Theber ... Well (and I hate quoting them) NASA reckon we are as did Landschiedt and Zharakova. The signs are everywhere with massive crop losses across the planet, new all-time cold records everywhere and the odd warm one too. Both are signs of the developing GSM. Real cooling does not properly begin until 2020. Current cooling (about -0.5C since end of 2015) can be mostly attributed to ENSO.
Global warmists make accurate predictions only after the event.
Remember snow and the ice caps melted a long time ago. Many times in fact. Of course NH snow mass was 3 sd above normal earlier in the year.
GSM... that will destroy the climate scam. Of course we know media will say the GSM is worse from manmade climate change. Bet your lifesavings on it.
Have u watch the video? He is not saying it’s gonna happen but he is showing scientific evidence that it will not slowdown global warming that way we would like to. Fighting reality won’t save us from unnatural climate change either. We gotta make a change, and believe me we will live a lot happier in a healthy world.
It's strange how this video is in my recommendations every day when I watched it a month ago.
Google wants you to eat this up quickly. And they also don't want you to learn about solar particles (hundreds of millions of times more powerful drivers of weather than the CO2) and solar magnetic fields.
@Gord Orvis I doubt it's Google as a company, but a few key decision makers carefully placed at the top.
@Gord Orvis suspicious0bservers.org/
@Gord Orvis zero dollars.
@Gord Orvis no, WTF?
I've been living in Texas and Oklahoma for well over 60 years. We've had hot years and cold years and floods, droughts, and storms -- as in exceptional storms. However, the weather and climate doesn't seem to be any different than it has been all my life. Variation from year to year, and decade to decade, but it doesn't seem any better or worse than it's always been.
We should probably look at what the climate has been since humans developed. That should give us a bracket for what we can live with. Doing that it does seem we are and have been in something of a sweet spot for global climate and it's understandable that we'd like to keep it, but it's the weather, so what you going to do?
Check out the work that's been done with Liquid salt cooled nuclear power reactors -- particularly the ones that can use Thorium. They can let us get rid of the fossil fuels, pull carbon from the atmosphere, desalinizate sea water, and burn existing nuclear waste as fuel.
The answer is more AND cleaner energy, and advancing technology and space travel to get resources without messing up the planet.
This guy is very nice and well spoken, but I'm suspicious that he's trying to push an agenda of poverty and low prosperity (except for the elites) and if you want to talk about disaster, then that's the path of doom. Make no mistake; we're going to go nuclear and exploit space resources eventually -- the question is do we do it now when we can go carefully and safely with as little environmental impact as possible, or wait until we have no choices, at the last minute, desperate and reckless of other long term consequences in a last ditch effort to avoid catastrophe?
Knowing people in general and guys like this in particular -- it's almost a certainty that it will be the latter.
Okay. Don't LIKE the nuclear way? Then let's do it till we can put up orbital power satellites and beam power back here. We have the ABILITY now to fix all of our non interpersonal issues, the question is do we have the balls to DO it.
Nice explanations and summary. Not sure why these twats always try to subtly weave in their small-minded thinking, in the form of Socialism/Communism - for us commoners, of course. I am actually concerned about the problem of climate change, but we have all of these polarized politicians pushing more division, so we get absolutely nowhere, or only a step forward.
@@sammcrae8892 you're partly right except for one thing. Looking at the weather or climate since humans isn't the correct way to do science. You need to look at climate over the long term way before people have any impact. It was much warmer during the Roman warming period than today and warmer than today during the medieval warm period. They obviously weren't driving cars and manufacturing en mass.
Biggest problem with using just the TSI as the sole indicator of the energy and forcing from the Sun, is that it only accounts for the UV radiation. The Sun also gives us x-rays, visible light, gamma rays and ionized electrons. These mostly come as a result of solar flares and CMEs (coronal mass ejections). Interestingly enough when you look at the TSI curve and match it to the know solar flares, the TSI strongly dips, like the UV radiation has been blocked. How can that be?
There are just too many assumptions and misinformation or missing information in the speech to cover. For example, misleading is leaving out water vapor, clouds and oceans in that little forcing chart. Also misleading is taking about cleaning up the environment. Climate change had nothing to do with environmentalism. There are so many reasons to find another energy source beyond fossil fuels but CO2 is not one of them. It's just the easiest one for the politicians to tax.
We also need to consider solar and galactic weather too. I'm sure wherever we are in the galaxy makes a difference too.
Exactly. Reducing the sun's influence to TSI is one of the biggest blind spots in climate science.
Zharkova has given a frightening explanation.
you don't see any of that in this video. Only TSI, nothing about the sun earth connection.
Not everyone in the science community agrees.
@@TheMrCougarful only the ones who are paid by geroge soros don't agree people with an agenda
@@Royelsworth That reptile gets everywhere !!!!
@Andy Theber If he were a physician with the same qualifications, would you go to him to treat your cancer? I don't care how good his bedside manner is I would not.
There's more to the sun's influence other than irradiance.
There seem to be many dozens of variables from solar forcing. They look at just one in irradiance. Lol
@@jackpleb2360 Suspicious0bservers did a good breakdown of the additional solar forcing factors
Mike Peacock the moment they ignore water vapor as by far the most significant greenhouse gas I know they have an agenda.
Just for fun.... try asking any of these so-called experts what the 'right amount' of C02 should be.
Aren't you paying attention!? It's all down to folks like you leaving your phone charger plugged in too long. Unplug it right now so I'll have 11 years left to live before mankind self destructs instead of 10
There is an error in your calculation of the solar forcing. You divided the amount of forcing by 4 to account for the difference between the Earth's surface area and the actual area of solar irradiance it intercepts, but if you do this then you should also do the same for the irradiance figure of 1361 Wm^-2. The same applies for the albedo correction. Both corrections would apply equally to both the irradiance and forcing figure, meaning that including them makes no difference to the ratio you end up with.
The change in the forcing will simply be the ratio of the change in irradiance to the total irradiance - roughly 1/1361 = 0.07%. You'll note that the actual figure stated on the report you show at 9:10 is 0.05%, whereas you state it is 0.018%.
Take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive
Doesn't matter, solar irradiance is minuscule compared to the magnetic and electric fields that charge up the sun and the earth's atmosphere.
BFD
This is a direct result of Daylight Savings Time.
How does this only have 30 likes?
@@KetOMAD Because people dont believe him ? He is trying to blame it all on man made CO2 , and at 0.042% its unlikely he is correct , add to that the fact that out of 31 units of CO2 released to the atmosphere only 1 was man made. Yes thats right the 96% of CO2 released was completely natural , and the 4% ( that I have rounded up from 3% ) was man made. we could bomb our economies back to zero CO2 emissions and it would hardly make any difference.
🤣🤣😆😆😆
@@budbud2509 Exactly. Who is this guy, who pays him? Where does he get his information from?
@@budbud2509 Termites emit more GHG than humans do (methane mostly) estimated 6 - 15 % - compared to 4 -5 % GHG from all human activity. Water vapor & clouds are WAY more influential, 95% , than GHG on climate. By the way, the whole "climate crisis". "climate catastrophe", "climate Armageddon", "climate End Times", "climate end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it" scenario ...seems to be a big issue only in Christian countries, not non-Christian countries. Know what I'm sayin'?! Just sayin'!
He must have got his degree in global warming ( no wait it's climate change now, no wait it's climate extremes now) from YTU (UA-cam University.
Actually, everything in the video is based on accurate science. What part do you think he got wrong?
Let's think logically about this...somewhere around 10 to 12 thousand years ago, glaciers that covered most of the northern hemisphere melted. Since then, there have been much higher temperatures than current temperatures without the benefit of man's contribution of CO2...I would say that the sun's cycles, along with the Milankovitch cycles are the culprits...which any self respecting scientist should agree with.
Also, what never seems to be brought up is that prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were within 30 ppm of plant death...had man not evolved to the point of burning fossil fuels, when he did...everything would be dead in less than a million years because of a lack of CO2....let that sink in.
You state: "I would say that the sun's cycles, along with the Milankovitch cycles are the culprits...which any self respecting scientist should agree with."
But "self respecting scientists" have calculated that the change in solar irradiance due to the Milankovic cycles are so small that they would NEVER have been able to draw us out of an ice age without the greenhosue effect feedbacks. CO2 comes out of the ocean due to a little bit of warming and this sets the whole feedback in motion for a swing in temperatures that the Milankovic cycles would never achieve by themselves.
@@dnboro sorry, but you are totally neglecting to consider the fact that there have been multiple glaciations and interglacial periods for tens of millions of years, which indisputably proves that the planet can be drawn out of a glacial period without any human influence whatsoever. there is no scientific consensus on the causes of glaciations, so there is no way any of the numbers in this video can be related to any climate changes at all.
@Nob the Knave there is absolutely evidence. ..first of all those cycles have been happening for billions of years. ..although there has only been evidence of glaciation over the last few million years, there's no reason to believe that glacial periods haven't been happening since the beginning. Secondly, the overall trend for the last few million years is a decline in temperature regardless of CO2 levels. ..both of which have been higher in the past without man's assistance and in which life on the planet flourished.
@@dabeagleigl You state: "sorry, but you are totally neglecting to consider the fact that there have been multiple glaciations and interglacial periods for tens of millions of years, which indisputably proves that the planet can be drawn out of a glacial period without any human influence whatsoever. "
But I didn't say that it had to be "human influence". You are correct, past interglacial periods were indisputably not human induced. But the scientific community does indeed have a consensus that external influences like Milankovic cycles are insufficiently strong to cause the swing in temperatures between glacial periods and interglacials by themselves. For a half decent mathematician, it is relatively easy to calculate the change in forcing due to Milankovic cycles - it is quite a small forcing. But what happens is the small amount of temperature increase driven by the Milankovic cycle causes the oceans to warm a bit and then CO2 comes out of the ocean, into the atmosphere and this causes more warming! Without this feedback and the overall greenhouse effect we would not be here today because the planet would still be trapped in ice with an average global temperature around -18 degrees C.
@@17wolf359 You state: "first of all those cycles have been happening for billions of years."
Do you really believe that climate scientists did not already know this. Do you really, really think that?
Of course they know this. Not only do they know that there has been glacial and interglacial periods over millions of years, they have also done insane amounts of studies to understand the forcings behind these changes. As a result of these studies they know that the Milankovic cycles etc are a small forcing and when you calculate it, it cannot explain the extent of the swings in temperature that we see between glacial and interglacial periods. Now if they have their maths wrong, publish your own calculations that show the forcing without the atmospheric greenhouse effect is big enough to cause all the previous swings in temperature.
What the science actually says. Previous warming to exit an ice age is initiated by Milankovic cycles and this causes some warming and as a result CO2 comes out of the ocean as the ocean warms. And because it is a greenhouse gas, this extra CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the warming from the Milankovic cycle and you end up with a big enough swing to exit the ice age and enjoy an interglacial.
And yes lots of forcings, include atmpspheric CO2 concentrations have varied in the past without Man's help. This time HUMANS are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere making the driver of the current warming different to historic events.
If you want to argue what the scientific literature says, then you should start by at least trying to understand what it actually says rather than pretending that all scientists are so stupid they don't know that we have had glacial and inter glacial periods in the past.
Photosynthesizing plants are believed to have changed the atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing, a billion or so years ago. Perhaps we owe them a favor...
Over 40% of our CO2 emissions are never absorbed by plants. That's because they already have more than what they need to thrive.
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
As long as you wear two mask's in you house while running!
Scientists: "The sun is "BILLIONS AND BILLIONS" of years old. We've been watching it for 200 years. We can now predict the future. Give us moneys please."
We know the age of the oldest rocks (over 4 billion years) through various dating techniques, so it's not really a stretch to guesstimate the age of the sun.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 You don't even see the retardation in the term "oldest rocks"? Are you talking about asteroids from space or something? Every rock on this planet is the same age, man. Dating techniques are seriously flawed and often circular. Example: We know the age of the "layer" by the fossils it contains, and we know the age of the fossils by which layer we found them in. Then they send the fossil to a lab where they use radiometric carbon dating, which when tested multiple times gives multiple results. Those results are then averaged, and if it doesn't agree with the supposed age of the layer..... it is thrown out.
We have no idea how old the sun is, or how long it will be around. We don't know for sure that it's nuclear fusion either. This is NOT TESTABLE and therefore NOT SCIENCE. "Science journalism" isn't science. It is people using scientific theories (philosophy for the most part) and telling you they are facts so that you think they are authorities on any given matter. "Science" is the new religion of humanity. People with white lab coats are now priests and you must do what they say. The mask mandate is a PERFECT example of this. First they were pointless, then they would save us all, and now the data shows that most of the people who contracted the fake coof were wearing masks. Funny, you'd think rebreathing all the toxins that you were meant to expel would be hEaLtHy!
@@CaptCutler Every rock the same age? So every time a volcano spews lava and it hardens into a rock, that's 4 billion years old? So when the skeletal fragments of marine organisms form into limestone, those rocks are 4 billion years old? Whenever river sediment is compressed, that too is 4 billion years old? Rocks are recycled but the new rocks aren't the same as the originals they evolved from. Thus they're "new." Dating techniques aren't circular. Sometimes index fossils are an easy way to date rocks but it certainly isn't the only way. You really don't need me to list all of the dating techniques scientists use. Right?
You sound like one more dense brick in the wall of anti-science lunkheads, assuming it's all made up because you can't understand it or it clashes with your political leanings.
Your mask data sounds like the idiocy from Trump, who is apparently incapable of reading and understanding studies. Go read that study for yourself and see how badly he misinformed you. Then read all the meta-analysis on mask efficacy. If you're not going to adequately inform yourself, then for fuck sake's please don't vote.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 you sound like someone who would watch this channel. You project too much. Now you're talking about politics and Trump, and somehow I'M THE ONE who is blinded by my political leanings? You're too much, man. Vote all you want. It doesn't mean anything anyway. You think rocks have an age, so you're too dumb to see that our politics are rigged. Enjoy getting played over and over, by scientists and politicians, by talking heads and academics. You don't understand the world at all.
@@CaptCutler I mentioned Trump because you practically quoted him verbatim with your opinion on masks. For you to reject a mountain of evidence supporting mask-wearing and swallow whole the idiocy from your sociopathic president speaks volumes about where your head is at. You're so deeply entrenched in a fortress of confirmation bias that no light can possibly penetrate. You're the one being played, my friend.
And it doesn't explain why all the planets are having weather changes...!
Every planet experiences changes in orbit and axial tilt, which can affect climate.
He references the IPCC and trusts their data, however not a single of their models was able since 1988 to accurately predict temperatures. All these models are running much too hot, that happens when you need a predetermined outcome and weighs the influence of CO2 far too heavy. The presentation started well but soon enough came down to the fantasy world of activism.
For one, the IPCC is a review body. They have no original data they use. They review and post data that's already been published in the scientific literature of science.
Two, the models the IPCC has posted have predicted temps very well. See "Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase". Risbey et.al. 2014.
Also, climate models are mathematical equations that use past climate data. So they hindcast with almost 100% accuracy. Their forecasting ability is based on scenarios of Co2 emissions. The more we emit the more they predict warming and so on! So i'd love to see this "website" you got your info from that says models haven't predicted well!
@@House_Stark Your quote ..Also, climate models are mathematical equations that use past climate data..maybe this why they are changing historical data with AC v 1 - 2 🥶
This video is misleading in that it only examines the effect of solar irradiance on the climate and gets that wrong by dividing the changes in value by four to get to an average for the Earth. Whereas what matters is where the radiation is received, such as in the tropical oceans of the Southern Hemisphere where the effect is greater due to the obliquity of the Earth. It also ignore changes in solar UV and the effect of ozone production both in magnitude and where it is produced in the stratosphere, and the effect of the changes in solar energy flow on gamma ray entry into the atmosphere and cloud formation as well as changes in the magnetic field. So if you were in my University class you would get an F-
Greta didn't even go to class. LOL
insufferable knowitall Hermione granger😬
So... What did this have to do with the biggest Ozone Hole that just closed, during the lock down?
There is another factor you missed. It's not just how much received but how much is reflected back into space and how much is trapped by greenhouse gasses as well. It's a balance game.
It also completly ignores the most powerful greenhouse gas which is water vapor.
According to Science, the earth has had 6 ice ages. Also according to science, each one of those Ice Ages was preceded by growing amounts of carbon dioxide!!!
Just watched a Greta Courses series on Paleontology and it said the exact reverse.
CO2 doesn't drive climate and never had.
@@fullmontyuk it doesn't drive temperature. Water vapor controls temperature. The sun drives it. CO2 has little effect.
@@fullmontyuk bull crap. CO2 in trace amount never was a driver of climate and physics backs my statement. Deserts and rainforest and clouds prove you wrong everyday.
@@fullmontyuk like I said, you'refull of crap
Glad to hear a voice of reason. I will never read the comments here again though.
Probably better for your sensitive nature!
Trolls smell truth and but down to smother it in shit.
Funny how the truth still shines through anyway, ain't it?
Good call
3 years later and we're still here. I wish you would have shown the ice core temperature data from Greenland that shows the temperature of the last 15,000 years that shows we're at the bottom of a normal trend but I think that's against your agenda.
Greenland ice core data shows temperatures in Greenland, not the whole world!
@@House_Stark ROFL NO LOL
@@joshblick Then by all means, explain to everyone how you think that oxygen isotopes measured from Greenland ice reflects the temperature of the entire planet! Especially considering that the whole planet does not have the exact same temperature...or oxygen isotope measurement for that matter.
@@House_Stark I could explain how oxygen isotopes 16, 17, and 18 are you used to monitor past atmospheric conditions but I get the feeling you don't want a real answer because you have already made up your mind to follow what you've been told to believe. I could point that while certain natural evens can effect the outcome for a short time like volcanoes, (months or even a few years) they are still a very good marker as to what the entire planet was doing over thousands of years. Think of it as measuring a specific point (not a wall) on one side of a enclosed room. The other side may be a degree or two different but it's a good estimation if not almost exactly the average. I could point out as to while we're being told every decade that the world is getting hotter because of us the hottest recorded instant was from 1913 in southern California, just one year after they started measurements with accurate technology. I could also point out that the hottest year on record in the US was from 1934. Both of which kills the narrative of our planet burning up. When the core samples show how much warmer the atmosphere was for thousands of years and we're coming out of a low point of course it's going to get a little warmer but that's natural. I could also point out that billions of dollars are funded to climate studies every year but only to those that go with the "man is killing the planet" narrative and that is fact but you don't want to hear that. I could point out the lies about the great barrier reef and that it's actually doing better and getting bigger or that there are more polar bears then when we first started counting but you don't want to hear that. I could point out that while it's said our CO2 is going crazy and we're to blame and we need to throw money at the people that tell us so it's just not true. CO2 makes up only 4% of our atmosphere, only 4%. And guess how much we make of that, 3%. 97% of that is created naturally, not by man. But you don't want to hear that. Were you around 50 years ago to hear that the world was going to burn up in 10 years? Then again in 10 more years? And again and again? So go ahead and read your lies about climate change. They are literally rewriting those exact charts to follow their narrative. All I have written here are facts. Don't be a sheep.
@@joshblick I'm not sure why you felt the need to go off on such a long-winded response that addressed nothing of what was asked and only perpetuated long debunked myths anyways! But i digress:
Your original comment suggested that somehow Greenland ice cores, which are used to record air temperatures thru oxygen isotope measurements, can be extrapolated to show global temperatures. I responded by stating that Greenland ice cores only measure temps in Greenland, not the world. You preceded to laugh at that(which suggests either your blatant lack of respect for science or your ignorance of it...or both)! And your last comment is nothing but a Gish-gallop of long debunked climate change myths that i can only imagine is an attempt to get out of answering the original question!
You said, *"I could explain how oxygen isotopes 16, 17, and 18 are you used to monitor past atmospheric conditions"*
What i asked of you was to explain how you think oxygen isotope measurements gathered from ice cores in Greenland can be used to extrapolate temperature worldwide! I already know how they're used to measure past climate conditions. I've read many published research papers on this subject. What i want to know is how YOU think they can be used to measure world wide temps! I'm very much interested in how you came to this conclusion. Published research backing this up would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Winter is coming
PRECISELY!!!😨👍🏽
Costco has excellent cold weather clothing, and for unbeatable prices!!!👍🏽 They have this brand called 32° for $1 over cost😍, and the Department stores at malls have it for $20 mark ups, INSANE!!😡
What if "winter is coming" was predictive programming?
The GSM proponents I’m aware of aren’t concerned with waning thermal output from the Sun, but the diminishing of its magnetic field which they claim shields us from cosmic ray bombardment. They’re basically claiming that when cosmic rays pass through Earth, they agitate silicates in magma, resulting in more volcanism to the degree where massive ash clouds cool the our planet. Additionally, they claim that cosmic rays increase cloud nucleation and hence, the size and ferocity of storms. Both of these phenomena take a toll on crop production to the degree that civilizations are in put in jeopardy. Please address these claims in another presentation. Thanks!
electroverse.net/new-scientific-study-finds-we-could-be-entering-the-next-grand-solar-minimum/
Yah Gord O .... We are making up FACTS. LOL
Kiss yer flyspeck CO2 GloBULL warming BYE. ROFL OMG HILARIOUS.
@Gord Orvis ... Your CO2 QUACKERY THEORY is looking more and more STUPID every day now. LOL
Well the volcano claims are basically guess work.. They are basing it on a short paper showing some possible correlation between solar activity and some big vulcanic eruptions... The paper does not address the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures... And those are important for crop production... Because there is none...
Human activity is blamed to give us a sense of control (hope). All we can do is prepare to mitigate the effects.
No, sorry that's wrong, we did it. However we are pretty much to mitigation at this point.
@Truth that, too
Well... You could pray about it. Only a fool would believe that humans can do whatever the F$#K they like without it having consequences.
@@tim1883 Yeah we killed those poor dinosaurs too! Damn those humans and their climate changing activities! They've caused so much damage to the climate that our CO2 went back in time and ended the Ice Age!
@@Mephilis78 An asteroid killed the non-avian dinosaurs. Your response makes me sad that so many are so science illiterate. What you say is like peeps stating that evolution is JUST a theory. You do not know enough to realize how focking stupid what you say is. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Just a thought... If GSM is predicting a mini ice age (and I've heard that since my college days in geology), it seems like having an increased atmosphere of CO2 heat may be beneficial in many ways. We just may need that shield of heat.
No one is predicting a mini ice age, except for some idiots. So no, it's not a good thing.
There is no mini ice age. A drop of a half a degree during a GSM will be noticed by exactly no one.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 ...But a rise of half a degree will result in the end of life as we know it...
@@geekchameleon I love when people make things up so they'll have something to scoff at.
@@geekchameleon that's not what climate scientists are saying
I like how he literally says : 'we all must radically change out lifestyles and habbits if we are to survive'.
Whilst in the background sits a graph showing China, India and the developing world cutting this monster contribution as they modernize.
Like all environmentalists he has two main messages:
1) developing nations: fuck off and die, stay in the stone age.
2) Humanity is shit, feel guilty, change, yes you personally.
Not even a single mention of nuclear as the only reasonable souloution 🤔.
Just vauge suggestions of 'needing to all do.... Something...' and 'NOW!!'.
🤷🏻♂️
I suspect we are dealing a heavily restrained watermelon ghost story here. It's restrained to look nice and avoid buzz words like 'government', ''regulations", 'socialism' or 'taxes/subsidies'. As not to let the cat out of the bag that what he really wants is less capatalisim and MoRe SociALISiM.
I really tried to stay open minded. But you lost me when you clearly omit the developing world's contributions, how those contributions also let them eat.
So vauge so shit, not helpful nor with any actual suggestions.
Info on solar minimum was interesting thanks, stick to that in future.
You may want to do a simple calculation on how much of those countries pollution/emissions are from our lifestyles over here in green clean America. I mean to say, how much of our purchasing power and industry fuels their output. That's conveniently forgotten in these debates.
No Lucas it is not.
We are not responsible for their emissions. They choose to supply goods and services in such a destructive dirty manner. That's on them. They could use nuclear. They tend not to. That's on them.
Your point simply tries to shift blame back onto the west again.
Your point simply tries to diminish Chinese and Indian responsibility.
That's pretty gross mate.
@@jamie59685 That is not what I was suggesting. You misunderstood me. Sure there's responsibility on their part. But it's our lifestyle driving it. If those goods were manufactured here, we'd have the emissions on our plate. I was not suggesting shifting responsibility to the West.
More like, not demonizing nations who are fulfilling our gluttonous appetites. More like, ackowledging universal responsibility. Shared responsibility. More like just thinking for a moment that the world economy is a real thing, and this is the world's problem. The world's responsibility. It's easy to point fingers at others that our doing our dirty work...
You took it personally, and that's pretty gross mate.
Your just inventing nonsense now Lucas. I took nothing personally lol.
All I did is point your tactics out for what they are. That you have gotten so pissy about it shows that I'm right mate.
Anyway. Your entire argument is basically: 'oH BuT BEcaUSe oF GlObaLiSATiOn iS tHe WeST'S FaUlT aNAWaY!!!'
No. They are responsible for what they do. We bare not one iota of responsibility for someone else's destructive actions.
You can't demonize someone with the truth Lucas.
Your just getting pissy because I'm calling you out.
@@mr.lucasifer For you not to be an idiot. You would need to be able to make the case that it's not the people who produce the emissions that are responsible, it's the people who buy the product.
You haven't made that case yet, so I'm sorry to tell you Lucas but you kinda.....
Whenever the solar irradiation has decreased and volcanic activity increases the global temperatures suddenly plummet. The warmest extreme was in 1100 BC during the Hebrew Exodus (much warmer than today). Then a massive drop in global temperatures during the Grecian empire (Mount Vesuvius erupted destroying Pompeii) then the temperatures climbed again during the Roman Empire until Krakatoa blew her top sending us into the dark ages 600 AD. After that the Earth warmed back up allowing the Vikings to explore the Northern Hemisphere (1300 AD). Then we had roughly 90 major volcanic eruptions in 1660 which triggered the "Little ice age".
The earths global temperatures have a lot to do with solar activity in combination with volcanic activity.
These people don't care. It's a political movement that has co-opted real science. To say C02 is causing warming is a bold faced lie.
Yeah...but how do you expect con men like Al Gore and David Suzuki to scam the public while getting wealthy in the process.
@@powelllucas4724 LOTS of people are getting wealthy on this.
@@stuartkeithguitars4251 that's the idea. The power shift away from the petrodollar. There's a nice video detailing all the links behind greta thunberg. The elite are already shifting themselves into plave for the impending power vacuum. ua-cam.com/video/9Jpk8Ix1CCg/v-deo.html
Worth watching.
"Global Cooling"
UA-cam Context: Global warming.
bRUH
Search anything.... you will get the opposite Lefty approved results.
Like Piers Corbyn will get 3 results and MORON commie brother will get a thousand.
@@GordoGambler But the video is about global warming, did you watch it? And also do you know how search algorithms work? Are you imagining them to be little leftist Kobolds who manually alter every search-result?
@@GordoGambler "Like Piers Corbyn will get 3 results"
And all of them wrong if his history for predicting global temperate is an indication
*YOYO EFFECTS* And Strange Temperatures Never Heard Of.
*HOT MAN MADE IONIZING NUCLEAR PARTICLES RELEASED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT REMAINS 🔥 HOT FROM SECONDS TO BILLIONS OF YEARS!*
Never mentioned.
Global COOLING came this spring, DOWN .38C. FACT
Oversimplification of a very complex problem. Human history is short compared to climate history all the while with a pretty constant solar output.
Instead of just saying "the science is settled and if you don't believe global warming you're an ignorant, evil person" (like so many people do these days), I really appreciate how you present the science in context and illustrate the varying levels of impacts.
Just read through the comments on this video. He presented papers and the actual science and there are still people that say this is bullshit. Why would anyone bother with discussions and presenting the actual science when there are dumb fucks who then simply say 'nah thats wrong'?
That is not what he does. He cites ordinary weather events as due to warming and suggests they were predictable when the truth is the accuracy of predictions made by climate alarmists have been pretty much 100% wrong. he is talking about predictions not real events. He is suggesting the alarmist scientists have been accurate which is a LIE. This guy is a complete paid for fraud. If you want the truth watch Tony Heller or CDN or Net Zero Watch and give this guy the contempt he deserves.
@@grahammillington790 That's where you're wrong. Tony Heller has been debunked numerous times for cherrypicking and misinterpreting sources. The predictions are pretty much spot on. If you don't believe me please cite one or more papers where predictions were plain wrong.
So basically we have four climate changes going on they're called spring summer fall and winter👊👊👊
All divided by Night and Day
Great comments...
@@mustlovedogs6308 Woof Woof
In New England we have five seasons: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Mud.
That depends on where you live on our ball, unless you think the planet is flat!! lol
I’m sure fixing the problem is a massive tax on the middle class, Well no thanks.
I'm sure understanding the science first is important, then doing something about it. In the US the problem is that one party has decided to deny the science, then muddy the waters about the science as well as what to do about it.
I'd prefer we simply go back to the tax brackets we had many decades ago. No need to tax the middle class.
If it has to be solved with taxes, then you choose.
1. Small tax now.
2. Massive taxes later to you and your grandchildren and their grandchildren ... as you and all future generations try and cope with the damage of out of control climate change.
The longer you delay selecting option 1, the bigger option 2 gets.
The carbon tax will not fix anything.
@@dnboro My 55 years on the planet have taught me one thing; taxes NEVER go away. They might cut a tax a little bit, but just until a Leftist govt comes along and restores the tax.
@@yosemitesam6945 Precisely.
Big contributor is negligent fishing practices, destrorying massive carbon sink ecosystems in favor of dragging nets for fish. Want to make an impact locally, stop buy fish
Lost me at "Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change".
Those commies are after your bodily fluids.
@@penguinuprighter6231 Not only your bodily fluids but your organs as well!!!! :-))
@@samhunt9380 Your purity of essence.
keep reading, there might be a book that teaches text comprehension and even spelling.
Maybe God and Beck and Crowder and Prager and the drug addict Peterson have something to do with your denialist stance.
It's funny how the ice cores show CO2 peaks before global cooling, rather then before a warming period. Might want to check those out.
Excellent
The ice age ended twelve thousand years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch because of the warming sun. At that remote time, mankind was not using fossil fuels. Something to think about.
No it should have but we still have polar ice caps! In a true Halocane period ther is no year round ice on Earth
January 30th, 2019 From USA Today "A devastating cold front, complete with extreme low temperatures, wind and precipitation, is hitting much of the United States this week."
This can't be the result of your global warming, could it????
According to the comments below, you've got a lot of facts from a bowl of alphabet soup.
He's another global warming nut! Probably a Cub of Rome member. When the Climate Banking System was announced, the game was up. Follow the money
I've been thinking about this for many years. It is clear climate change is due to the way we humans live every day. I'm not one who states we should all leave our current way of live but one who states we can live much smarter. We should not ditch our cars but look at better fuels like EV's and H2. Power from Nuclear (baseload) and renewables instead of coal. Just these 2 alone will remove 70% of carbon we put in the atmosphere. Also we need to limit human population and increase and renew forest plantations.
There are too many humans who burn and release carbon for energy and cut down forests.
Says the guy on a computer, in a wood house, that drives a car, that is using electricity to merely post personal opinions on a UA-cam video. Way to save earth.
Ridiculous. The ONLY thing covered in this nicely done presentation is whether or not the decrease in solar activity during a solar minimum results in a significant drop in insolation on earth. The sun earth relationship is much more complex than just that. And the correlation between solar minimums and climate is too.
"We all have to change our lifestyles radically". I'm not convinced that's true. As a small example of what I mean, Changing to an electric car from and ice car doesn't feel like a radical change. Changing to the new meatless meat patties doesn't feel like a radical change. etc... In fact. Think of all the changes that have happened from around 100 years ago. Now that's a radical change. The amount we would have to change to completely offset co2 seems quite trivial in comparison.
Lucid Moses that’s what they all say. 🥺
You can still have a weed whacker. You just need to get a battery powered one.
@grindupBaker I have a battery one and a bigger yard then most brits
We don't have to change our lifestyles radically if we can find a way to continue using a similar amount of energy, I doubt that's possible over the next 20 years.
@@dougmc666 It's not the similar levels of energy that's needed but rather the same amount of work done. For example. Old incandescent vs led lights. Same work. Less energy needed. Now only if everything else was as easy.
As for how fast we are changing over.... Yes, we should be doing better. Yet sometimes I’m impressed buy just how fast some things are moving. Small energy companies are already starting to annoy the large energy providers by dropping the price on them. Soon they will not be able to compete if they don’t start major investments in zero energy input systems (solar steam, solar, wind, hydro, etc).
Actually, the first statement is another myth!
As one prominent scientist said, ''...practically every thing we know about the sun entirely contradicts that hypothesis.''
What prominent scientist?
@@penguinuprighter6231
Read up on the ''electric universe'' on youtube.
@@niklar55 Your wooniverse is pure garbage. Who's the prominent scientist?
@@penguinuprighter6231
See above.
.
@@niklar55 Name just one of those idiots that is not an electrical engineer.
How dare you!
Lol
Voted best overall reply. Hilarious!!!!
Congress said it was warming from cow farts!
Burps actually. Most of the methane comes out in burps :-)
We need some data. Begin experimenting with a gas mask and hose hooked to a cows arse
@@jasonschmidt9569 Yes AOC needs to sniff those farts!
funk We need a T-Shirt of this AOC person wearing only a gas mask hooked to a cows arse
whats amazing is this is the science we are expected to take as gospel, even the debunking of solar forcing and earths magnetic fields influence on weather, yet they still get the weekend weather wrong? ive seen enough to know that until all sides of this equation start working together, tomorrows weather will always remain a mystery.
Weather and climate are two different things. Weather is your mood; prone to erratic change and hard to predict. Climate is your temperament; stable over the long term and far easier to predict.
I can't predict the weather five days from now. But I can predict the climate for my entire state in January ten years from now: COLD.
The sun's output never varies by more than about a half a degree up or down, so any change it creates in the overall climate is extremely limited. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, can trigger feedback responses that together can raise temperatures several degrees. That's why greenhouse gases are ranked as stronger forcing agents than the sun.
Meteorologist used to be the only job, you could make $110k/ yr & be wrong 99% of the time. Now it includes working for WHO & CDC🤣
@@roberttyrrell2250 [citation needed]
You are comparing the temperature at a specific time at a specific location with the temerature averaged over 30 years and over the whole world.
Some things you said didn`t add up. People farmed Greenland years ago. So if man was causing temps to go up where are the farms now? If man was causing seas to rise 1cm over 100 years what caused it to rise 1500 Ft before the last ice age? Al Gore said all Polar Bears would be gone due to loss of pack ice. We in truth have more now. Co2 helps Trees grow and in fact due to modern life we have more trees now than 100 years ago. Why didn`t you address this? 11 years till we are all dead but Obama buys a 15 million dollar home 30 feet from shore and about a foot from high tide. I'm not a PHD but see B. S. when I see it.
*" If man was causing seas to rise 1cm over 100 years what caused it to rise 1500 Ft before the last ice age"*
Not sure where you got that 1,500ft number from but the same thing that caused sea levels to rise before are the same thing causing it now. Rising global temps. The only difference is that it's happening faster now due to fossil fuel use when before it happened over centuries naturally!
*"Al Gore said all Polar Bears would be gone due to loss of pack ice"*
Al Gore isn't a scientist and not all of his claims are backed by science.
*"Co2 helps Trees grow and in fact due to modern life we have more trees now than 100 years ago"*
It is true that plants/trees can see some benefits to higher co2 levels. However, their accelerated co2 growth has limitations for multiple reasons; 1.) plant stoma only stay open for so long as they lose water during this process. So in a warmer climate, they would stay open even less, negating any elevated co2 levels. 2.) Accelerated growth from Co2 is also hindered in that plants would require more nitrogen and more water to sustain that growth. Not always the case in most areas as global temps rise!
*"11 years till we are all dead but Obama buys a 15 million dollar home 30 feet from shore"*
Not sure who said that we'd be dead. That sounds made up! Either way, Obama buying a home near the ocean doesn't discount climate change. As sea level rise takes hundreds of years! Current sea level rise is about 3.4mm a year or 1.33in per decade. That puts it as about 100 years to rise 1ft!
Maybe you need to read some published research and lay off the BS mainstream media!
@@House_Stark
1.(Not sure where you got that 1,500ft number from but the same thing that caused sea levels to rise before are the same thing causing it now. Rising global temps)
ua-cam.com/video/cJRFuKhARSo/v-deo.html
So what caused the sea to rise 20,000 years ago?
2. (Al Gore isn't a scientist and not all of his claims are backed by science.)
Glad you agree with me his movie is fantasy.
3. (It is true that plants/trees can see some benefits to higher co2 levels.)
So where was this on his chart?
4. (Not sure who said that we'd be dead. That sounds made up)
So you don`t know that alarmist has made the clam we are doomed unless we spend 2 Trillion to save the plaint. China alone puts 25% Co2 into the air fallowed by India. While the USA does about 12%. With the others increasing their output and only USA putting forth effort, our gains will amount to nothing. While if we don`t spend this and go forward with natural gas efforts we are far better off. Maybe the Paris accord could include the largest polluters and have China spend 4 Trillion and India spend 3 Trillion instead of 0.
5. (Maybe you need to read some published research and lay off the BS mainstream media!)
You spout B.S. from the mainstream, and now say this?
You are more than confused as you rambled on subjects you had no clue about.
@@MrYort13 So what you are saying is "look at me, I am a denialist twit"
@@House_Stark Hi Mr Stark..hope you are well. I have been away from screens for a while, but Potholer sucked me back in. Damn him all to hell.
Ponder me this: Why is my electric usage going down while my nat gas usage is increasing over the past eight years? Other variables held constant? Global warming my !!!
Pretty dumb
@@penguinuprighter6231 - ??? How so? Your hearsay is more accurate than actual Usage kept over an eight year period? Really? Just call it dumb and it goes away?
@@MrMensa141 you're tracking kw/hr vs cubic ft usage, not just cost? Electric prices per kw/hr have been falling like a stone, along with distribution costs, while gas has stayed more or less the same for me. Also: have you bought any new energy efficient appliances or swapped out incandescent bulbs for LEDs? or gotten a new TV recently? or worked from home more or less? Not trying to bust your chops, just trying to get a feel for how much time you're staying in your house vs being out and about and how much energy you're using when home (not counting 2020, that was a weird year)
@@davidtee5367 - Not cost at all - just usage.
What if you are wrong and the sun is electric. What if the universe is electric?
Gold Hunter - Electromagnetism cannot explain all the phenomenon that we observe on the entire earth. So, you definitely cannot explain all the phenomenon that we observe in the universe. If electromagnetism had been the answer to all of physics, then it would have been discovered in the 1800's and we would have anti-gravity technology by now.
@@grippercrapper Assertion, assertion, assertion. Good job out of you.
Rodary Windsor Cleveland - Do magnets stick to your body? Furthermore, how do you explain gravity on planets with a frozen core? They don’t make magnetospheres like Earth, but they still have gravity. As, I said before, if the electromagnetic force could explain everything, there were plenty of scientists who would have been extremely happy to demonstrate it. BTW, do you know how atomic bombs work?
Rodary Windsor Cleveland - First magnets don’t stick to the human body unless you’re using super glue.
Second, you’re playing games with words. You can call gravity and the nuclear forces electricity all you want. That doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of a better understanding of how the universe works.
So, unless you got something more than some charlatan faking shit on UA-cam, you all talk and maybe a parlor trick or two. That’s worthless to me. If you really think you are some sort of genius, then stop wasting your time trying to talk about it and demonstrate how your “electric universe” theory can produce a practical technology that takes us beyond what we already can do.
BTW, your intense habit of putting an exclamation point after virtually every sentence that you write, tells me you’re not all there. It also tells me you like attention and overhyping things.
Less talk, more real results please. Don’t expect me to respond to you after this comment. I’m not interested in giving you attention. We’re done here.
Even if the Maunder minimum was a notable contributor to cooling, if we're seeing warming during a time when you'd expect cooling, then we'd basically be _even more_ screwed than what we realise.
Most the warming in the last 40 years was caused by changes in amount of low-lying clouds. Fewer clouds let more sunlight warm the surface. It's nothing to do with "man-made warming".
Man-made warming, or anthropogenic global warming, AGW, is an untestable, non-validated hypothesis. The only so-called evidence for AGW comes from models, written by modelers, who assume humans are to blame. Such models only confirm the bias of the modelers.
@Nob the Knave how much of the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthroprogenic?
It should be relatively easy to find out.
@@mark4asp Please cite your credentials and research. Otherwise, stick it where there are no sunspots.
@Nob the Knave no you found someone that is no a moron like you! These scientists are paid by the government to do these experiments. The scientists will publish only what the government wants. So climb back in your hole and pay your carbon tax with no squabbles. Dipdhit
@@mark4asp : That is false but cloud cover is affected by warming. Your entire second paragraph is demonstrably untrue and it's a cheap argument to slander climate scientists.
The Paris climate accords allows polluters to by carbon credits. These carbon credits allow the polluter to continue polluting. I suggest pass legislation so the funds that would have been paid for the carbon credits have to be invested into alternatives like building Nuclear reactors for electricity and Methanol plants to supply the transport industry with low carbon fuel. In the future hopefully the Methanol plants can give way to a Solar generated hydrogen powered transport industry. Eventually in 2060 we may have the technology to build an all electric transport industry.
Pretty soon we will all be forced to buy V8s and use them for even short journeys , like taking the bins out , to offset the urgent emergency of the climate cooling catastrophe
Global Warming, Global Cooling, No matter what happens the answer always seems to be to give up more money, power, and Freedom, to the Government.
Bring it on!
I've got my 6L ready to go
Pretty impressed. Coldest summer i have seen here in South Australia in 62 years
I'm pretty impressed too. 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record globally. 2020 tied for first.
It's as if 60ish is the all knowing age group. They've seen it all, but in fact didn't notice a thing.
Been cold in the UK too. cant be the solar irradiance by this clown's argument because it is such a minor factor.
@Colin Killian No consensus of mainstream climate scientists ever warned of global cooling. A handful of outliers? Yes. Crackpots? Yes. But the mainstream? No. Sensationalist articles in magazines that featured those outlier scientists is not science. Science is determined in the scientific literature, and the overwhelming majority of scientists in that literature have always warned of global warming. See 1970S COOLING MYTH and check for yourself.
The term "climate change" has been used in scientific journals since the 1950s. Nobody changed it from "global warming." They're two different terms. "Climate change" encompasses all of warming's efects. "Global warming," by contrast, only denotes warming.
We are not going to cool down when we have 417ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Complete rubbish ........ Go look at the raw data the 1930's were much warmer than it has been now. And before that it was much warmer when the Romans were in the UK .............. newtube.app/TonyHeller/hpBtSRL
Nice video, BUT! The author has focused only on solar irradiance which seems to be the least important of the sun's contributing factors to climate change. Anyone seriously interested in the sun's potential contribution to climate change should read "The Neglected Sun". The book exhaustively explains many contributing factors the sun provides for global warming. If you have little interest the whole picture then stick with these types of videos that are careful to omit real facts!
Darrell Cotterill How does solar energy reach Earth if not by solar irradiance?
Unlikely that a GSM will cause a “mini ice age” as explained in the video. Thank you for this.
We are at the bottom of a solar cycle yet 2020 tied 2016 as the hottest year on record. So a future hot house is our concern as the power of a huge increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will dramatically override any slight decrease in solar irradiance.
Also for those in the comments cold weather does not mean global warming isn’t real. Weather =/= climate, regional =/= global.
Solar cycle 25, off to a strong start, thanks you for your support.
@@penguinuprighter6231 Solar Cycle 25?
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Just agreeing that there is no GSM.
@@penguinuprighter6231 oh, well we are in a GSM but it won’t have any effect
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Sorry, we are in a normal 11 year cycle. A GSM is a decades long period of very low or no sunspot activity. There is no evidence of this.
And u also forget low output from this sun allows more cosmic ray from space, and the effect is more cloud cover, the effect of that, less sunlight on earth, so u underestimate the changing sun cycles .
Articulate foolishness and propaganda. Watch out parents, they're coming for your kids!!
What part was propaganda and foolishness?
If you haven’t, please consider addressing ‘global dimming’ or ‘aerosol masking’ (especially if it poses a paradox with CO2 reduction).
I find the fact that this sort of interference is taking place more scary than anything else when climate systems are clearly not fully understood. The result of 'dimming' on food production could be severe especially if carbon dioxide reduction programs are pursued at the same time.
Correct! The issue as a multiplier where we may be caught in a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" particularly with reflective particle emissions... Many curious as to how bad is it or how much influence? And can it be used for geo-engineering?
@@ZigZagHockey Well, if we manage to elimate ALL of our CO2 production and stopped breathing, we're still left with 97% CO2 production. You see, humans only contribute 3% of CO2 to the world. A fact conveniently left out of any of their arguments.
In the past year numerous scientific papers have come out addressing the "albedo effect" issue. As far as the effect of this dimming on global food production: It isn't really an issue in my opinion as the amount of light that plants can get even at high lattitudes on an overcast day is still more than enough to photosynthesize, even with our current relatively low amount of CO2. The real issue is more indirect: the cooling effect will slow down plantmetabolism to a crawl and many crops will be impossible to grow at higher lattitudes because of this.
The most hilarious and ironic thing about this whole debate is that nature would actually love for it to be a bit warmer and CO2 rich. In fact, _all_ previous biological blooms in this planets history have happened at our peak CO2 levels which I believe are over 2000ppm. But goodluck telling these fanatics.
@@Flyingdutchy33 Yep, Moore, Happer, and others are saying a doubling of the current levels of CO2 would be a good thing for the planet and the people of the planet. These scientist get labeled 'deniers', as if denying the validity of the bull-shit we are fed by the IPPC and the mainstream media is a bad thing.
@@Flyingdutchy33 "humans only contribute 3% of CO2 to the world. A fact conveniently left out of any of their arguments.
"
And you conveniently left out the bit where the natural carbon cycle takes the 97% back out again each year. You need to learn about the natural carbon cycle (a nice equilibrium) before making such a ludicrous and ignorant comment.
scied.ucar.edu/carbon-cycle
Sure take action but cow farts have nothing to do with that. I have a feeling you’re gonna be a grasshopper either sitting in a mini ice age. So will come back and revisit this video in like about a decade and see where we’re all sitting.
Convenient to start your chart in 1975.
most idiots were born in ;75,just trying to educate them,brainwashed robots..
Huh? He had charts going back hundreds of years.
Hundreds of years? And here I thought by suv was causing it
Of course they start the chart in 1975, if they started it in the 1930s it wouldn’t show a rise and that doesn’t fit their narrative or agenda. It’s one of the many “tricks” in the alarmists arsenal.
@@fullmontyuk more heat records were set in the 1930s than any other decade of the 20th century. It was by far the hottest decade. In 1975 scientists thought we were going into an ice age because it was unusually cold. That’s why it’s disingenuous to show a trend from the 1970s because it was the coolest decade of the 20th century. Look at the “unaltered” data of these decades, it’s freely available on the internet.
Well, if all you're measuring is the sun's influence on one square metre of the earth's surface then damned near anything could be shown to have more influence on climate, up to and including unicorn farts. This is an excellent example of the Chewbacca defense.
Blame it on Chewi Farts LoL
Per square metre. No one square metre.
I don't understand this criticism. What else should they be measuring? How is the amount of energy received from the sun per square meter and second not what matters?
Please go back to school. I suggest you start from about the level of a 9 year old.
The light from the Sun is different, it is insipid and being a professional photographer the different light leaps out at me, it is weak like a winter Sun, I must point out I have been photographing landscapes to wedding etc for over 30 years so what I am saying is, eleven year ago, twenty two years ago and thirty three years ago the Sun light was NOT like it is, the cloud formations where never in my life time like they are now, there is something much bigger than the eleven year cycle going on!
I do not follow the official theories of global warming being CO2 induced, that has been shown to be fake to fit the official theory, I don't buy it but everyone can have their own opinion though time will show you to be wrong.
Well, certainly not by anybody on the BigMouth CO2 side...
Oh yeah, and according to the CO2 side, anybody who disagrees is a loony-tune nazi earth-hating loser. The typical Leftist Neo-Facist NewThink Doctrine.
YES, since around 1953 I have always remembered the beautiful iridescent cerulean blue sky, and around 1990 I observed that blue to have vanished to be replaced by the insipid colors you mention. I do not know exactly when it happened, as for a long time I was watching my navel, but I constate it is so, and I still know cerulean blue when I see it- it is not mine eyes!
moron
You lost all credibility when I saw the one book you can read on the shelf. How dare you?
What book?
Clearly not a real scientist.
Right, just another mouthpiece.
Is this her dad or something?!?!
Great book you should read it.
You should read it . Great observations. It actually makes it easier to survive under capitalism if you understand how it really works.
as a south east texan.... bring on the cooling please. this heat sucks 🤣
California is with you on that one 🤙🏼
Smykush I live by Toronto and it has yet to snow..
Please send us some warm winds. Gonna be just above freezing next weekend
@Smykush dont worry warming stops at the borders just ask China
move to Scotland, bring a thick coat, and that's for summer
Solar minimums according to my previous studies result in higher amounts of cosmic radiation penetrating the heliosphere, which in turns results in the atmosphere being bombarded with more cosmic radiation. This in turn is shown to trigger wider and higher cloud formation above the oceans, which in turn might cool down the troposphere locally. Both rainfall and snowfall increase, and also larger bodies of air cool down faster as opposed to the periods of solar maximums. Researchers are still looking into this, but why no media has ever mentioned this makes me very suspicious towards their own part in the hysteria. Good job on this presentation by the way.
Scientists have tried to make the connection between cosmic rays and significant climate effects for fifty years and have so far failed. Part of the difficulty is that clouds both reflect and trap heat. ua-cam.com/video/7spe1FBlLYQ/v-deo.html
Yes exactly the week the sun the more clouds blocking it's heat from reaching the earth! But the weekend KP also increases volcanic eruptions putting more ash into our atmosphere blocking out even more heat!
Yep just like Milankovitch warned us 100years ago! But the alarmists have prevented us from preparing for it and they will murder 3.5 billion people!
....possibly, but the documents I have here, suggest otherwise. The difference is, I do not steep to labelling your 'ideas' as hysteria, suggesting arrogance, narcissism, and the expected, religious overtones. I do research. That's one, easily observed ,constant in those denying the mass of findings from varied, scientific research, and it's still at about 90% surety. That's science!
@@JanMorsø We will see... In 18 years or so, we will all be here. In an ice age, and all of you who have been unprepared will have died from hunger
Very good but there is a few things that are left out.1/the reduction in solar wind during low sun spot activity increases cosmic rays that reach the earth that stimulate high altitude clouds increase.2/There was no mention at all of the most prevalent and powerful greenhouse gas of all(by far)H2O water vapor.3/The very complex orbital variations and there cycles
Great comment, totally agree
Welcome to climatology. They never focus on the whole.
The observed temperatur changes are not significant. It is a cycle of 11 years, with ups and downs, of course there is not lasting change caused by that.
Coolest and wettest 2021 May in UK for a decade. That makes me think that a 11 year cyclical does exist. Anyway, global warming must be a good thing as it stops my wife complaining about feeling cold.
Here’s something to really make you think; the end game for humans will be our total demise in less than 5 thousand years! So, does any of this ‘climate change’ really matter???
There are other beings on the planet. Do you know how hot and dry it's been in Siberia? Have you heard of Greenland blocking? Maybe have a little look around.
I keep thinking he wants to sell me a vacuum cleaner.
@@Oi.... Nope - pretty sketchy vacuum cleaners - they'll break down - won't live up to the hype / sales pitch / propaganda!
Yeah he's selling something ! A big over sized load of manure.
It’s a glitch in the matrix
that just could be .
A glitch in the election
You mean Dominion has their hands in everything? No wonder there is climate change. mMybe we are actually cooling, but they flipped the votes.
"A grand solar minimum might cool the planet 0.3 degrees Celsius." ----NASA Don't sell your Bermuda shorts anytime soon, crackpots.
So same Nasa that lies and gets its money from the same people screaming Global Warming? We have been cooling since the 50s. hot years were during solar max cycle. Been cool for years where I at. Of course media screams its warm but most are aware its cooler than normal in truth. Grand Solar is coming and it caused the little ice age in Europe. Killing millions. Look it up..Munder Minimum. had early snows in US for years. ...Dare you to watch his vids and try to disprove. ua-cam.com/video/rxJTZvRl13Q/v-deo.html
@@davidwatson7919 The "media" is not producing the science. Scientists are. Media reports it. If you have data to refute what is now over 100,000 peer-reviewed climate change studies, we'd all love to see it. Please post it.
The Maunder Minimum didn't cause an ice age. There was no ice age, little or otherwise during that time. There was a period of slightly cooler temperatures initiated by volcanic activity, their sun-reflecting aerosols and feedback mechanisms. The Maunder Minimum didn't kick in until at least fifty years into this cooling period and added only an additional half a degree of cooling.
You can believe NASA or you can believe crackpot pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists like Tony Heller on the internet. I know who my money is on.
Thank you, about TIME someone talked about thus! Am sharing this on my MeWe page!
By far the most important source of energy for earth???? It IS the very most important energy source for earth. Because without it we would be a moon
No without the sun we wouldn’t exist. Perhaps the constituent parts that make up the earth would still exist but they’d just be free floating elements in a cloud not a planetoid body of any sort. To be a moon we would have to orbit another planetary body which would itself orbit another sun 🤦♂️ the suns existence caused the planets to form as material surrounding the sun collided and massed together drawing in more material while it moved around the sun. The sun is the most important source of energy because all the other sources of energy are derived from some amount of the suns previous outputs of energy: coal=energy converted by plants from solar energy, oil=also energy converted by plants from solar energy, wind=energy created by gas movement due to solar energy warming certain areas, geothermal=as previously explained the planets exist bc the sun exists and without the mass of the earth and the movement of the iron w/in it there wouldn’t be geothermal so again that’s a derivative of solar energy. He was being hyperbolic when he said probably and I wouldn’t have bothered to explain all this except that 8 ppl liked your comment demonstrating to me that at least a subsection of ppl didn’t understand how incorrect your statement was.
Prince buddy - ‘by far the most’ is a much stronger expression than ‘very’... so what is your point exactly?
I don't blame the sun I blame Monsanto . People aren't allowed to live in harmony with nature.
@@dannyboywhaa3146 Yeah, I really don't get what OP is trying to accomplish with that comment.
@@dannyboywhaa3146 srry it was a quote of what he had said.
The Sun spot chart: the only chart that hasn't been changed....yet
I can right now feel the memory-hole pulling it into the event horizon of *actually* inconvenient truths.
The Sunspot chart will be changed to fit the agenda of some tax-hungry politician wanting to micromanage something. Do not worry. It will happen soon.
@@indridcold8433 too late! The government of Canada decided earlier this year to delete 100 years of climate data.
It's known as future fallacy. Everyone in the past was stupid and everything in the future (unknown) is smarter. Even though national IQ levels are dropping.
@@bengorman5214 better to have no data then a little data for the models imma I right guys?
I’m surprised UA-cam let you put this up !!
Why? It's debunking the pseudoscientific notion that we're entering an imminent ice age. We're not. We're continuing to warm.
If he had said that the sun is responsible for the change in climate then the Tube would have stepped up and removed it.
it is now mid 2021 and the planet still warms ... so much for solar minimum ... how about that solar max in about 2025 ... so much conjecture ... so much we don't know ...
So much we do know as well.