How sad to see how frantically the thugs strive to censor any view that threatens their slipping grasp on power. Imagine having to insert warnings that the video you're seeing is false to try and make people view other vids. I hope they cry themselves to sleep at night, fearing their power is being lost. 😂
Another video deserving of two thumbs up. I like these short fact filled videos. I don't have a lot of time for long drawn out videos so I appreciate getting all that information quickly and efficiently.
We are in an interglacial period in an ice age. Ice has been melting since the interglacial period started. Tiny fluctuations make no difference at all.
@@hosnimubarak8869 When the interglacial period ends, we will see a rapid decrease in temperature and a corresponding increase in ice coverage. We will notice the change within a couple of decades of the ending of the interglacial - perhaps even less time.
@@CCoburn3 Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 C. The rate of recent warming is 10x that of the gradual warming that ended the last glacial period.
@@hosnimubarak8869 The change in temperature is well within the limits of natural variability. Furthermore, there has been no significant change in temperature in the last two decades. Additionally, temperatures are cooler now than they were in the 1930s.
@@CCoburn3 "The change in temperature is well within the limits of natural variability". No, that's a lie. "there has been no significant change in temperature in the last two decades" Again, that's a lie. "temperatures are cooler now than they were in the 1930s". Here is how denier sites/blogs fool you. They post newspaper articles about past localized heat waves like the 1930's. It's called cherry-picking. The 1930’s were very hot years in the United States. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet, including the oceans. The land area of the U.S. accounts for only 2% of Earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. sweltering in the 30’s, those years were not especially hot over the rest of the planet. Globally, 1930 temperatures were actually cooler than average for the 20th century. You can confirm my comment by searching for. “NASA Science Briefs Whither U.S. Climate-NASA"
Really enjoying these fact checks which are so spot on. Few people are looking at the sun which drives our climate not just on this planet but other planets too. Our solar system rotates constantly and willl never be in the same poket of space it was once in, our climate is an ever changing beast.
Satellites have measured no increase in solar output in the past half century, meaning it isn’t even remotely credible to argue that solar output can be responsible for the anomalous warming of recent decades. Average solar activity in the 2020s was no higher than in the 1950s whereas average global temperatures had risen markedly over that period.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Actually solar intensity has bee declining toward a grand solar minimum since 1950s. The Maunder and Dalton minima were responsible for the Little Ice Age, yet global temperatures have risen by over 1 C since then. Also, if the temperature rise was caused by increasing solar radiation, the troposphere and stratosphere would both warm. If caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool. That was predicted in1967, and has been shown to be what is happening by satellite data. Syukuro Manabe, the surviving scientist who made the prediction (his collaborator Richard Wetherald had since died) was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 2021.
Climate scientists study things like volcanoes, changes in solar output, changes in the Earth’s orbit, multidecadal natural variability in the Atlantic and Pacific, and other factors that impact climate change.
@pshehan1 ...you don't have a lot of sense, common or otherwise. Simple observation tells you that a ship disappears hull-first, until only the mast is visible, showing the world slopes away from you. The trouble with commonsense is that it is not very common...
The "massive complexity" is why Mototaka Nakamura, PhD in Climatology from MIT with a career behind him in climate modeling, said we humans were NOT able to model the climate - in part because we did not have the computer capacity for such complexity and in part because we did not have sufficient data for a "Time zero". He explained this in his book/booklet "The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis." (2019)
@@Satyr1971 Yes they have. Temperature is rising as predicted by Hansen et al in 1981; at 3 C per doubling of CO2 concentration as predicted by the IPCC first report in 1991; ice melt as predicted( NASA grace satellite data- Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year); sea level rise. (NASA satellite and tide gauge data); ocean pH (Jiang et al Nature 2019); NOAA 2020)
But! But! But! -- What about all of those wonderful Ice Sheet Catastrophe Animations?!? We know there's no official data supporting the narrative.., but! Daaannnggg! The Animation is top notch! Award-Winning Animation! That has to be worth something! Where's the balance? Data must be balanced with Aroma Therapy, Crystal Power, Chanting, and Seances! Right? Riiiiiiight???
Governments make so much money from carbon taxation, there is no other aspect from the economy that can raise as much money without increasing unpopular personal taxation, so if they can make you believe that by paying carbon taxes, you are going to save the planet, you will be much happier to pay them. The oil company BP, made more profit last year from carbon trading, than they did from oil and gas. The public must not know the truth about climate change.
I had a student working on Ice Stream B". She was explaining glacial "rivers" that flowed amongst the other frozen sheets. Apparently possible underground volcanos might be keeping the ground warmer so the flows going. Fascinating topic.
2 месяца назад
Well, this three odd minutes of vid will never see the light of day on main stream media. Great work as always. Can these snippets be gotten on to Tik Tok for the kids to see?
Why is it that no one points out that most of the continent has a lot of volcanic activity. They are quick to point out that the Australian and South American sides of Antarctic continent is losing ice but not that their is a string of volcanoes under the ice that might have something to do with the loss.
@@pshehan1 I am not talking about an increase in activity, most of the ice loss is directly attributable to (ongoing) volcanic activity in the area I specified.
Quite right and so is Greenland, which on average gains 400 billion tons of ice per year, since 2007, when Al Gore said that it would be ice free by 2014. It's all lies to keep the public happy to pay carbon taxes, when they believe that the Government is saving the planet. One person asked if AL Gore was a Prophet and Richard Branson replied, "How do you spell Profit?" ha ha
What I love is when they compare temperatures at a location going back 600,000 years based solely on CO2 analysis. Note* For litigation purposes analytical carbon analysis has a "stability shelf life" of 7 days.
The arctic is from the Greek word ἀρκτικός (arktikos), "near the Bear, northern"[ and from the word ἄρκτος (arktos), meaning bear. The name refers either to the constellation known as Ursa Major, the "Great Bear", which is prominent in the northern portion of the celestial sphere, or to the constellation Ursa Minor, the "Little Bear", which contains the celestial north pole (currently very near Polaris, the current north Pole Star, or North Star. Antarctica means opposite to the arctic. That is, at the south pole.
@@pshehan1She is smart enough to write that script herself & believes in that what she is saying is the truth & factual. Yet another negative post by you.
@@leialee6820 If you did not like that one read my longer one. I don't think she wrote it which is why I am not holding her responsible for the dishonesty.
Antarctic ice is melting in one spot, seriously. That's cos the Flying Saucer buried inside is warming up!!! And scientists have found the buried civilisation and turned everything back on!!! Here come the long lost relatives!!!!
I agree with the geologic cause. Besides sitting on the western Antarctic fault line, the Ross ice shelf has active Mt.Erebus on its eastern flank. There has been an active lava lake in Mt. Erebus' crater since it was discovered in the early 1970's.
Jasper Alberta Canada has a mountain glacier that was supposed to melt to nothing for the past 2 decades. They keep changing the sign pushing the date back. The glacier barely changes year to year.
I'll start worrying when the most northernmost (warmest) area of Antarctica warms enough to support vegetation during it's brief summer. Otherwise realize the whole continent is a frozen wasteland and will remain that way for eons.
Humans didn't exactly appear on this planet 6000 years ago but millions of years ago and have been tolerating planetary change from the very get-go.. .
Prior to the Holocene, a small population of humans had lived in hunter gatherer bands who could gather up everything they owned and walk to greener pastures when the climate changed. That is no longer the case.
@@Ironic1950 Yes but sea levels have not risen dramatically in that time and 'cities' were small. You going to move New York LA, San Francisco, London. Sydney, Melbourne etc etc 'uphill'?
@@Ironic1950 Yes and sea levels remained pretty constant over that time and 'cities' were much smaller. You going to move New York, LA, San Francisco, London Sydney Melbourne etc etc 'uphill'?
@@pshehan1 Yes; the Indonesians are literally moving their capital Djakarta 'up hill', although the cause is groundwater extraction, rather than rising seas. London has the Thames Barrier to stop high tides flooding the city, while New York (on land that is rising) and San Francisco, would need several metres of sealevel rise to be affected in any way, in a few hundred years time. New Orleans only exists still because of the Levees, but people still live there, and the Dutch have been living below sea level for centuries!
@@jimmoses6617 Coincidentally I made a comment on Heller to another video just this morning: You are quoting Tony Heller. He is a less than reliable source. For example in that article he writes: "But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees [F] warming by 2020." The newspaper article he is quoting from says the temperature is predicted to increase by 3 to 4 F. In fact the article is from 1988, not 1986 as Heller claims. And Hansen testified before congress and published a paper which with some CO2 mitigation measures in place, the global temperature would rise by 1 C. That prediction turned out to be correct. He also references an article by Ross McKitrick But again, McKitrick is discussing GLOBAL temperature data. "A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products" Heller has a habit of mixing US and global data and hoping no-ne will notice. McKitrick says the number of US GHCB stations " has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s. Heller says 80%. The number of GHCN does not alter the reliability of the data. There are still plenty of stations covering the US for an accurate determination of temperatures. I could go on but you get my drift.
Currently -97F in Antartica Someone turn on the AC, it's hot there. Of, don't let those undersea magma displacements and volcanos on the West/Southwest areas that are melting, barely, any ice. Who knew lava could melt ice?
Actually mass is measured in gigatonnes or billions of cubic metres. Antarctica is currently losing 150 gigatonnes or 150 billion cubic m of ice per year. That is enough to cover Georgia in 1 m of water every year.
@@ZiggyWolf.4.0 With an area of 14 million square kilometres (5.4 million square miles) and an average thickness of over 2 kilometres (1.2 mi). It is the largest of Earth's two current ice sheets, containing 26.5 million cubic kilometres 150 billion cubic metres is 150 cubic km, or 0.006 %. That is 20 times the loss rate claimed in the video. (three ten thousandths of 1 percent or 0.0003
Usually, air temperature is not the cause of melting. Do the math: how many cubic meters +5 C air you need to melt one cubic meter 0 C ice. It will be huge. Besides, you must make the air contact the ice, but warm air tends to rise up while the glacier stays at the bottom. To melt a glacier you'll need a warm ocean stream, geothermal heat, lukewarm rain or positive radiation balance. You'll need thermal energy, air temperature is not very efficient.
Thanks for the video. You should include specific links in your video descriptions, to documentation for all claims in the respective videos, not send us to a website, where we can easily waste hours attempting to match up the claims made to the actual documentation. Alex Jones used to tell us to go look it up, rather than provide documentation.
@@jimmoses6617 Thank you alex jones, that is what he would say when he had no documentation. Thousands of us would look and find nothing, wasting valuable time when we could be advancing the cause, given well deserved documentation. I believe these people have done their research and they should share it. I'm post in order to help the cause, what have you posted ever that was worthwhile. I would love to see your work, but by guess is that you have nothing at all, have never written anything more than a one sentence insult as the one you just wrote. Try doing any research at all yourself, I doubt you even done any of that period. 😄
@@jimmoses6617 Since you are an adult (cough) what have you found about 'this' issue that you can share with us, your observations would be nice, not asking for your documentation just checking to see if you actually have light on upstairs. 😄
Whatever happened to that hole in the ozone layer we were made to fear just a few years ago? I don’t hear any blustering from the world governments on how their coordinated interventions fixed that “problem”.
Water expands at the freezing threshold and maintains the same expansion throughout further cooling. Going from -30⁰ to -28⁰ doesn't cause expansion. Water does have a triple-point, it can go directly from solid to gas.
If the earth is warming up during winter, why is my furnace constantly running, and why am I paying Canadian carbon taxes for natural gas to stay warm?
I'm curious about any apologies from young people, such as Linnea, coming to those who will negatively be impacted by the manufacturing of consent from such videos (meant to benefit the elites) offered to the millions of victims of ocean-rise, and even during Linnea's life-time?!? Does Linnea have the training to invite and even interview specialists such as Dr. Ella Gilbz? It would be interesting if Linnea would make these statements in the presence of an experts on Antartica - who has actually been there!?! It is VERY OBVIOUS that poor Linnea is being groomed to be too shy to interact even with women that may be around her own age, such as Ella! Generational child-abuse from The Heartland Institute (hosting this video) is NOT something to be proud of - domestication KILLS the potential for developing a fully actualized "human" brain! Shame on those incapable of shame! For Linnea to heal herself from this abuse by her peers, she would have to apologize to millions of people while in her thirties, forties, fifties, and so on, concerning many false claims on a variety of topics! If this is not child-abuse, then I do not know how to explain it to you any further...HAVING THE PROPER SCHEMAS MATTERS! Professor-Marty. PS. I DO predict that THIS particular comment will quickly be deleted! :(
@@andrewadams8384 Hi Little Adam-Andy, Sorry, I have now decided to respond ONLY to those that I am addressing, and not their little-minions - have YOU ever tried such a thing?!? Don't bother answering HERE! Professor-Marty.
These are excellent videos. If you could, list the research with citations in the description box, please. Thank you, Linnea! For bringing intelligence and reason to the climate discussion.
@@anthonymorris5084 And you fell for that anthony? Seriously? She tells you to go to "Climate at a Glance". That's Heartlands own crackpot website and book. Their nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Search for this, "Still Deniers After All These Years: A Review of the Heartland Institute’s ‘Climate at a Glance’ - Part I" and "Still Deniers After All These Years: A Review of the Heartland Institute’s ‘Climate at a Glance’ - Part II".
