Adaptable... Total BS. We have had 10 000 years of stable climate that made farming possible. Now we are driving climate way out of this predictable zone. We can see droughts, wildfires, floods, heavy rain and so on. This makes the foodweb that supports everyone unreliable. Check some limits of growth studies... And at the same time we are losig coral reefs that supports around 25% of all marine species. While our fisheries are changing, over fished, dying, making death zones due to polluted/manuered rivers and so on. Our marine ecosystems are under huge pressure because of human race. This mean many species are just diminishing and pushed toward extinction. And in the same time we are running out of fresh water. Aqvifers have been overused almost everywhere. Our rivers are polluted (ie. UK has found almost none nonpolluted rivers). Our mountain glaciers that provides melt waters during summer are vanishing rapidly (ie. Alpine glaciers by 2050-2070 causing 40% of Europe to lose their fresh water source). Similar thing has been going on in Colorado river basin. And those are just few examples, there are plenty from Andies, Himalayas, Kilimanjaro and so on. Humidity is drawn from soils at rate of 7% per 1C temperature rise. Our forest are drying too and trees are dying because of it. (ie. Finnish study, Bogota in Amazon rainforest is in drought, huge wildfires everywhere, ..) We have lost around 50% of the insect biomass. Mammals have turned from 99,9% wildlife to 3%, just because humans and their domesticated animals and pets takes 97% of total biomass. We are affecting every single corner of this planet with our emissions and pollution (ie. microplastics are everywhere). We are raping last untouched areas as we speak. We have to stop our devastation and leave 30% of this planet totally out from human touch. And make 20% more as sanctuaries where we can see the nature. Permafrost rapidly warming and it is generating more and more ghg's every year. 100-1000Gt of CO2e by 2100 is range of these estimates. That means few decades worth of current human emissions making even 2C targets impossible. Sea level rise is predicted to be 12-20 meters by 2300 with only 2C warming (State of cryosphere 2023). 10-20 meters with current ghg emissions (IPCC). We have to stop burning any fossil fuels as fast as we can. That will avoid most future warming. (Yet still SO2 aerosol dimming effects will rise temperatures at that point with 0,6-1,3C [IPCC, Hansen]. But if we keep burning fossil fuels, the gap rises even higher.) We have almost no way to avoid 2C warming. Our current trend is toward 3-5C warming, but even that means we have to act NOW. STOP ALL FOSSIL BURNING. TODAY.
The only thing I would disagree with is stopping all fossil fuel usage today. I would say stop as soon as humanly possible. We need to really accelerate the usage of renewable energies and energy conservation ASAP. Good luck to you,
Even though disasters are inevitable the fossil fuel industry continues to have a stranglehold on our politicians. Instead of trying to help speed up the transition to renewable clean energy the fossil fuel industry is doing everything it can to slow down the transition even though they have been aware of the consequences for decades. If this is not criminal activity what is.
The real world is trying to slow it down. You lot give up every thing that uses fossil fuels for energy or products and see what a life you have. A least you won't be hypocrites, using the benefits of oil/gas whilst demanding everyone else give it up.
@@votpavel Nope, not exactly, there will be humans still, just possibly not our civilization. Wait a couple of thousand years, it could happen, if anyone cares about our future we can prevent it.
I'm an elder. The system was here long before my parents were born. And BTW, where were the young people at climate protests and marches over the decades? Most were grayheads from what I saw.
Americans are about 4% of the global population, yet have contributed over 50% of the Greenhouse Gases that are causing the warming, while one political party stopped any Climate legislation for 40 years, and pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord to reduce emissions, which some other countries followed after.
Since 1984, all population growth has been from immigration and the children and grandchildren of recent immigrants. It's not American's that are responsible for such emissions, it's select political groups that keep on mass importing people from other countries that are causing half of all US emissions. Meanwhile you seem to have forgotten that China is over double the US's emissions. Do your part, stop buying cheap products built in China where they don't have environmental regulations like we do.
@@jajajaja2606 We were the first and most industrialized country, and even now Americans use 10 times the energy of the per capita average of the rest of the world.
The first piece of artificial intelligence ever on this planet anywhere is neo classical economics which is coupled up with neo conservative politics and the old protestant work ethic thrown in for good measure. See if you can evade its power by doing anything it doesn't want you to do. Life automatically gets harder, and you become socially ostracized. It's not OUR fault. But this AI program will cause our extinction and many non-human species as well.
Yeah, this is going to excelerate. Greenland and all of the Glaciers are melting, then you got the Permafrost thawing. God I hope I age out before it spirals out.
I am diving on the Mesoamerican reef right now, and the temperature at 60 feet has dropped almost a degrees since last year! That is almost 6 degrees in the last 10 years !
The important thing is that people change their behaviour. We as individuals are responsible for our emissions and level of consumption of greenhouse gas emitting products. Dietary change (not eating meat) for example can involve the decision of a moment. We choose what we buy and how we heat our homes, what car etc we use and how we travel and how much we fly. Too often the blame is diverted to those we can’t control so easily and to excuse individual inaction. We need political change clearly but we can all contribute as consumers
Sorry but “every little bit helps” is garbage… I still try to do it because it’s the right thing to do… but corporate pollution is the problem, systemic pollution… I pick up litter everywhere I go, and that’s good but even if I dedicate my life to it, that won’t stop others from doing it, no amount of effort I put in can offset the litter that others dump. It all adds up, sure, but their pile will always outpace mine. “Every little bit matters” but only when we all do a little bit Change your diet all you want, if you’re buying food then you contribute to the problem even if you try to fix it, what food could be bought that’s not contributing to the problem. It’s all grown on land that’s been cleared of natural life, treated with chems, mechanically processed, wrapped in plastic and shipped cross country by truck. That’s how the system was designed to work, it’s easy, has long shelf life and brings in the money! When the profit motive is the only motive it’s hard to expect different results.
You lot do it then. But you won't, you expect everyone else to take the hit for your delusions that you have been gaslit into. If you really believe in this stuff you should be stopping all fossil fuel related consumption, products as well as energy. But you would rather use pointless energy up on here rather than get off the electrical internet and give up everything you fear. Until you do it , you cannot expect anyone else to take you seriously. You just look hypocritical. That goes for the lot of you. Put your money where your mouths are.
Can anyone tell me what the ideal average temperature of the earth is supposed to be, and why that temperature? I assume someone must have used the settled scoence of the last few decades to come up with a figure. Once we have that target figure; how much co2 do we have to add or subtract to the atmosphere to get to that target temperature? Got to break the problem down , got to have a target point. Thanks. , and if you have figures please supply attributions/sources for the original person(s) who worked it out. Ta.
I blame all of us, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the final years that the ocean is able to support life. I don't understand why the commentators are not more distraught!
Unfortunately, ocean temperatures are taken at many depths all over the world, and the data shows extreme temperature rise at all levels. Please do some research before you mis- inform others.
@@francismarion6400 And you think you know science? How much pollution do you expect to dump into the environment 24hrs a day worldwide before it has serious consequences on our planet's ecosystem? Thinking human beings aren't messing things up on a grand scale is just complete ignorance.
@@bobdooly3706 WTF! It's like you took absolutely no notice of what the video was saying. But just to make it clear to you. Marine life is not flourishing. The corals are bleaching, fish stocks are falling drastically. The ice caps are shrinking and so plankton, the foodstuff at the base of the food chain in the ocean, is declining rapidly. Plus the AMOC is going to come to a virtual halt in the coming 10-20 years which will stop Oxygen from being circulated through the ocean. That in itself is a climate catastrophe bc if there is no O2 feeding the sea floor then anaerobic bacteria take over and the ocean starts pumping out Hydrogen Sulphide. Get your facts straight before pretending to know it all.
Ocean acidification made ocean warming less than expected for a couple of decades but that chemical reaction can only be pushed so far. The models were adjusted for less warming and are now off the other way. We are headed for more ocean induced storms, ice melt and effects on agriculture and life forms. Nobody will be unaffected.
Co2 dissolves much more readily in cold water. As the water warms the co2 comes out of dissolution. So more co2 in the atmosphere as the seas warm, less weak carbonic acid in the water.
@@toughenupfluffy7294 sea water never becomes actually acid so probably nothing to do with coral bleaching. Research has pointed to several other factors that might be responsible for bleaching. One might be heavy rain water run off from inland bringing a lot of sediment with it which obscures the water , and stops the algae in the coral from getting sufficient sunlight. There are several lines of enquiry but the acidification thing is just activists not understanding the subject yet again.
Could the rise in ocean temperature be due to infrared light absorbtion as a result of disolved carbon dioxide and methane in addition to loss of sea ice. Ice requires 80 calories for heat of fusion to transition from solid to liquid. The next 80 calories heat from 0 to 80C. Ouch.
Plant Trees!! August 12, 2022 The more trees who die, the less oxygen you will have, and the hotter the temperatures will be because there will not be leaf coverage to cover over the height of human habitation to reduce temperatures. You must remember that unlike trees, man-made objects, like metal boxes to cars to buildings, absorb solar energy and release it as heat into the air. It is not just the gases from combustion and the heat from hot motors (petroleum and HVAC motors), but ALSO the heat-radiating characteristic of man-made object surfaces that raise the temperature of the air. A great example of this are cars and trucks standing outside in the sunlight. How hot is the body surface? What about leaves and branches of a tree - are they hot to the touch?? Whatever solar energy man-made objects absorb, they will radiate it. That includes solar panels. THAT is what is happening right now. You will probably have to disassemble and destroy a lot of heat radiating technologies such as cars, trucks, buildings, AND the blacktop/sidewalk surfaces by deconstituting the elements and returning them to mine sites and reburying them, and put trees back in those places in order to bring temperatures down (and bring in rainfall). It is getting to where trees are treated as ornaments of beauty instead of living beings who provide numerous critical functions while alive - cooling the air at human height by providing shade, providing oxygen, and making rainfall more likely to happen through transpiration of water vapor during photosynthesis. Trees brings rainfall activity, while deserts take it away because there is NOTHING to contribute to the formation of rain clouds, bringing rain. Also, the presence of moisture and trees will narrow down the range of temperature fluctuations that happen over a 24-hour period. Essentially, entire cities act as small deserts, since there is relatively little vegetation/tree coverage. Cities are even worse than deserts in this regard ALSO because of man-made objects' heat-radiating characteristic. I must also add here from more recent research on my part that ocean plants and organisms are also perhaps even more important as far as oxygen generation is concerned, as they produce about half to maybe even 80% of the world's oxygen. Preservation of the ocean is important for our oxygen supply, and preservation of our forests is important as explained in the previous paragraph. That means keeping in mind the effects of drilling, harvesting, and mining disasters in the oceans that end up killing life in the immediate surrounding area. You can end up cutting your supply of oxygen even faster this way than with clearing forests, while through clearing forests, you are raising the affected area's temperature through removal of tree coverage. What can we do in the meantime? Can we grow trees to cover narrow roads and grow vines that grow leaves during spring to cover the roads overhead ahead of the summer months? Can we build vine structures over the majority of buildings for a similar reason? We have to have a way of bringing temperatures down by removing as many man-made objects from contact with the sun as possible in any way we can. It is ridiculous to see 120+ degree F temperatures. Kuwait is starting to become unliveable because of these temperatures. You'll see the Ethiopian Desert normally hit 122 degrees, and it has hit 140 degrees. Even worse is the Lut Desert in Iran, which see temperatures of nearly 160 degrees! American Meteorological Society claims a reading of about 177 degrees. There, electronics stop working very quickly, and you can only be out of the car for two minutes maximum. ACs in many cars quit working. Shoes melt. Assuming that we have started to take apart the technologies such as cars, vehicles, etc. and started planting trees and covering up buildings and roads to shield them from the sun, how then would we deal with the nature of "green energy?" The fact is, if we carry out these actions, then solar energy could become unreliable for substantial power generation because the vegetation, including trees, would then bring on more periods of rain, which would in turn impact the number of days of availability of full sunshine. It remains to be seen what would be the impact on winds by such vegetation, even if the windmills are built with propellers far above the tree tops because of the potential for the moderation of the Earth's temperature across its surface relative to today's present scenario. We may have to examine what wind conditions were like thousands of years ago through descriptions of such in ancient writings in areas that were not yet deforested. I recognize that this might not resemble the scenario in which we regreen as much of today's deforested areas as possible. This may also have an unseen impact on wind energy as a reliable source of energy. I believe the key is reducing the level of technology we have, which can reduce the impact of mining, drilling, and harvesting on the Earth, as well as remove sources of heat generation as described earlier.
@@stephanieellison7834 a bit long , but interesting nonetheless and I would agree to an extent. It is puzzling that official organisations seem to go completely the opposite direction , chopping down trees at any opportunity and building concrete and glass over huge swathes of good arable land. It is almost as if governments local and central don't actually believe in the conservation rhetoric that they spout.
Question, The guys and gals I communicate with on social media are not interested in environmental issues. How can I open them up to the conversation of environmental improvement.
You should show them all the recent heat and rainfall records that have been broken this year and in the past few years. 2023 is the warmest year ever, along with 2016 and 2020. China has had record rainfall, USA deadliest wildfire on record, the EU has had their largest fire in 2023 and the record breaking SSTs.
Ha! Good luck… I been trying for 30 years and people still treat me like chicken little… I’ve not tried to CONVINCE anyone in years. I simply speak as if it’s an accepted fact and if they dispute it then I save my breath
Show them Exxon’s own studies from the 1970’s on the effects of climate change. Not going to change many people’s minds, but can show how real this is, and how real it’ll get for everyone eventually
Then show them all of the record temperatures etc from many decades ago, then realise it's all pretty much normal, give up panicking and go and have a good time with your mates. There is more than enough crap in the world without worrying about stuff that is largely made up.
@@user-it7lf7kk8m record uk temperature up to 1970: 36.7°C - record uk temperature up to 2003: 38.5°C - record uk temperature up to 2024: 40.3°C - 2023 hottest June and September on record, February 2024 mildest February on record for eng - wales and the wettest on record as well. Every 1°C of warming in the atmosphere gives 7% more rainfall and oh! Coincidentally, how are we breaking rainfall records? USA 2021 and 2022 extreme floods, 2023 rounded 47°C in Spain, record temp in Europe is in 2021.
The warmer the planet gets, the faster it gets warmer. I don't understand why something that should be self-evident hasn't been factored into the predictions.
@@woodchipgardens9084 : SEE: -“MET Office UK, Causes of climate change” -"Columbia Climate School, How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?" -“MIT, How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere? -NASA: Vital Signs, Global Temperature
Plant Trees!! August 12, 2022 The more trees who die, the less oxygen you will have, and the hotter the temperatures will be because there will not be leaf coverage to cover over the height of human habitation to reduce temperatures. You must remember that unlike trees, man-made objects, like metal boxes to cars to buildings, absorb solar energy and release it as heat into the air. It is not just the gases from combustion and the heat from hot motors (petroleum and HVAC motors), but ALSO the heat-radiating characteristic of man-made object surfaces that raise the temperature of the air. A great example of this are cars and trucks standing outside in the sunlight. How hot is the body surface? What about leaves and branches of a tree - are they hot to the touch?? Whatever solar energy man-made objects absorb, they will radiate it. That includes solar panels. THAT is what is happening right now. You will probably have to disassemble and destroy a lot of heat radiating technologies such as cars, trucks, buildings, AND the blacktop/sidewalk surfaces by deconstituting the elements and returning them to mine sites and reburying them, and put trees back in those places in order to bring temperatures down (and bring in rainfall). It is getting to where trees are treated as ornaments of beauty instead of living beings who provide numerous critical functions while alive - cooling the air at human height by providing shade, providing oxygen, and making rainfall more likely to happen through transpiration of water vapor during photosynthesis. Trees brings rainfall activity, while deserts take it away because there is NOTHING to contribute to the formation of rain clouds, bringing rain. Also, the presence of moisture and trees will narrow down the range of temperature fluctuations that happen over a 24-hour period. Essentially, entire cities act as small deserts, since there is relatively little vegetation/tree coverage. Cities are even worse than deserts in this regard ALSO because of man-made objects' heat-radiating characteristic. I must also add here from more recent research on my part that ocean plants and organisms are also perhaps even more important as far as oxygen generation is concerned, as they produce about half to maybe even 80% of the world's oxygen. Preservation of the ocean is important for our oxygen supply, and preservation of our forests is important as explained in the previous paragraph. That means keeping in mind the effects of drilling, harvesting, and mining disasters in the oceans that end up killing life in the immediate surrounding area. You can end up cutting your supply of oxygen even faster this way than with clearing forests, while through clearing forests, you are raising the affected area's temperature through removal of tree coverage. What can we do in the meantime? Can we grow trees to cover narrow roads and grow vines that grow leaves during spring to cover the roads overhead ahead of the summer months? Can we build vine structures over the majority of buildings for a similar reason? We have to have a way of bringing temperatures down by removing as many man-made objects from contact with the sun as possible in any way we can. It is ridiculous to see 120+ degree F temperatures. Kuwait is starting to become unliveable because of these temperatures. You'll see the Ethiopian Desert normally hit 122 degrees, and it has hit 140 degrees. Even worse is the Lut Desert in Iran, which see temperatures of nearly 160 degrees! American Meteorological Society claims a reading of about 177 degrees. There, electronics stop working very quickly, and you can only be out of the car for two minutes maximum. ACs in many cars quit working. Shoes melt. Assuming that we have started to take apart the technologies such as cars, vehicles, etc. and started planting trees and covering up buildings and roads to shield them from the sun, how then would we deal with the nature of "green energy?" The fact is, if we carry out these actions, then solar energy could become unreliable for substantial power generation because the vegetation, including trees, would then bring on more periods of rain, which would in turn impact the number of days of availability of full sunshine. It remains to be seen what would be the impact on winds by such vegetation, even if the windmills are built with propellers far above the tree tops because of the potential for the moderation of the Earth's temperature across its surface relative to today's present scenario. We may have to examine what wind conditions were like thousands of years ago through descriptions of such in ancient writings in areas that were not yet deforested. I recognize that this might not resemble the scenario in which we regreen as much of today's deforested areas as possible. This may also have an unseen impact on wind energy as a reliable source of energy. I believe the key is reducing the level of technology we have, which can reduce the impact of mining, drilling, and harvesting on the Earth, as well as remove sources of heat generation as described earlier.
Until ppl are ready to talk about the biggest problem we have which is there's too many humans i don't care how warm the ocean is getting or climate change. The planet needs to or we will destroy earth completely.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I would say it’s the magnetic excursion taking place as well as influences from solar plasma emissions from the solar storms.
@@micklaws5520 Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) ----------- Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr". Time to grow up people - industrial CO2 induced abrupt global warming was first analyzed in detail in 1890 by Svante Arrhenius! Current CO2 levels are already well above anything in the past 3 million years! There's already over 400 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans accumulated since 1995. The Arctic will soon be ice-free with 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption" - just a 50 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth. no. I'm happy to answer questions, though you should keep in mind that my 26-year-old Greenland work has been superseded by more-recent studies, especially for the Holocene (the last 11,000 years), and in particular by the studies that combine records from a half-dozen ice cores in central and northern Greenland. These studies were lead by the Copenhagen glaciology group, and you can find them on Google Scholar. Bo Vinther was one of the main authors. I read quickly through the "carbonbrief" article to which you linked, and it seems accurate to me. If you read that carefully, it should answer the main questions you have. Having said that, my direct responses RE my study published in 1997 (and its predecessor in 1995): 1. Those studies were primarily designed to examine the glacial to Holocene transition (20--10 kyr ago), and they are *not* the best way to address the issue of recent warming and its millennial context. They captured the start of the current warming but were not designed or capable of resolving it well. And even if they did, it's just for one location in central Greenland. Using one location is a valid approach if examining very long-timescale changes (e.g., the 20--10 kyr transition) but not at all a good idea for decadal-scale changes. The noise at the short timescale requires that you average a group of sites spanning a region. "Noise" means both failures of the proxy record to record climatic temperature accurately, and real climatological / meteorological variability that arises strongly from atmospheric dynamical patterns. 2. In the context of (1), the questions you raise about how accumulation and isotope calibrations are treated in different studies is irrelevant to your concern. Those are minor issues. 3. The entire approach of comparing recent observed warming to past variability *for the purpose of inferring mechanism* is fundamentally a weak argument because the timescale is too short to reconstruct past variability well or, more importantly, to reconstruct the climate forcings well. This argument will become stronger as warming proceeds. 4. Following from (3), the reason we know the recent warming is due to changes of the atmospheric greenhouse is that we can measure the effects on the radiative balance of the planet and compare it to uptake of energy by the planet (primarily manifest as ocean warming) and to other forcings such as solar intensity. Here's an analogy: you are sitting in your house on a cold evening. You pull a thick blanket over yourself and start to feel warmer. Why do you feel warmer? Was it the blanket trapping heat (yes, at least in part, it must be)? Was it your furnace working harder? Was it a sunbeam coming through a window? There are only a limited number of options, and you can know about the role of all of them. In this case, greenhouse gases are the blanket. The sun is your furnace, etc. 5. Following from (4), the evidence is overwhelming that most of the warming of Earth since 1980 has been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the feedbacks associated with warming. The warming from 1850 to 1950, however, contains a "natural variability" signal in addition to an anthropogenic signal, and this natural component can be regarded as the "end of the Little Ice Age," and it was partly solar and partly volcanic. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to give a confident and fairly precise statement about how much of this earlier warming was anthropogenic vs. natural (most of the warming occurred between 1910 and 1950, as I recall), but there are strong arguments that it was at least half anthropogenic. The problem is we will never be able to head backward in time and launch some satellites to get the measurements needed. Best wishes, Kurt Cuffey................................................................................................................... Kurt M. Cuffey Professor, Department of Geography, University of California
first reason....... The long term trend. No Sir. second: El Nino - sure. third: Honga Tonga. False - the effect is negative. Meanwhile the eruption has a slight cooling effect - if at all. -------------------- forth: Missing cooling effect through aerosols. /Ships reduced their sulfur emissions drastically. fifth: Ocean heat content came up like a bloob. ------------------------ I'm not a climate scientist - but I know all of this is in discussion. The friendly guy who teached us here only mentioned the 'good' cases.
Sorry, the long term trend is totally legitimate and data supported. Wish you were right. You can take away, El Niño, and other temporary effects in a long-term trends are still pointed up.
While volcanoes generally produce a temporary cooling from soot, Honga Tonga ejected a great deal of water vapor into the upper atmosphere which is causing a slight but not insignificant warming for several years. Something like .03ºc.
@@lrvogt1257 I think you’re splitting hairs. For me, just knowing that we’re putting more greenhouse gases in the air every day is all that matters. Watching the glaciers melt, and the sea ice extent Shrink, Permafrost melt etc., I know what’s coming. Do your best to take care of yourself and your loved ones. When it really hits the fan, you will have less regrets.
The only physically possible way to warm the oceans is through the sun since infrared light only manages to penetrate one mm or two of the ocean surface, which means this ocean warming cannot be caused by extra CO2.
And you're obviously an oceanographic climate scientist, right? You know all the answers, don't you? Thanks for helping us all out of this horrible situation with your deep insights.
@@toughenupfluffy7294 It's basic common science, anyone who looks it up can see for themselfes that the sun stands for the majority of heat going into the oceans, blaming it on infrared light that bounces back from the CO2 rich atmosphere is ridiculous since it's not energetic enough to heat our oceans that much. Think about this have you ever actually gotten heated up from the ground when you are outside on a walk during sunny weather? The answer is no because it's not energetic enough for infrared rising from the ground to heat the skin surface, only the sun manages that.
God Bless all the SENTIENT creatures from heaven bind them into your MANSION Lord Jesus Christ for they are harmonious with nature and not of form mind and present the way humans should be...God Bless Amen ❤
Once the Beaufort Gyre in Greenland lets loose that'll all go back to really cold real quick. Tell me that you know what that is, and what will happen when that much cokd water flows into the North Atlantic?
This is a situation I'm very unclear about. If the AMOC were to slow enough or stop it would prevent warm water from getting to Europe but the warm water would build up at the equator. This could cause much greater extremes of hot and cold at mid latitude which, I would think would result in much more extreme weather.
Northern Europe will no longer be able to sustain its crop production, just like in the Little Ice Age, when famine in Europe was widespread, leading to social strife and multiple wars. Along with this, temperature gradients between the North Pole and the equator will be dramatically increased, leading to many more, stronger storms, from the equator to the Pole. This is just the local effect of shutting down the AMOC. Global effects will occur also, as the equator heats up planet wide.
😄the core has slowed down in the process of reversing,that means a weaker elictromagnetic field,that means more solar radiation will get through, hence a warning period,the process will take around a thousand years to complete -This is just the beginning people
Forest fires and specifically Honga Tonga (most volcanoes tend to cool the atmosphere from soot) do have some warming effect but this is in addition to warming from Industrial CO2. The warming from CO2 is making forest fires worse.
@@lrvogt12572023 Canadian wildfires From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Beginning in March 2023, and with increased intensity starting in June, Canada was affected by a record-setting series of wildfires. All 13 provinces and territories were affected, with large fires in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. The 2023 wildfire season had the most area burned in Canada's recorded history, surpassing the 1989, 1995, and 2014 fire seasons, as well as in recorded North American history, surpassing the 2020 Western US wildfire season.
He did not mention the cutting of sulphur from ship fuels. Sulphur has a cooling potency hundreds of times more than CO2 warming, per tonne. This sulphur cutting since 2020 has had a measureable effect on solar flux. Measured by satellite. And they compare the shipping routes with non shipping areas, so it is a very marked signature, not random chance. This has been widely discussed in the climate science community, so he must know. Why no mention? It can only be for political reasons not scientific.
Let it happen (cynical comment on the way). The earth has had many biodiversity contractions and a few major extinctions events over the last 600 miilion years. Each time the number of species recovers but it takes 10 to 20 million years. New species are formed from vacated niches, but it's very unlikely to be homo sapiens!!!
I used to use margarine. It's so far inferior to butter. When you factor in the water that gets whipped into the margarine, and the lies about the " toxic, inflammatory seed oils" it's made with, butter looks very good. I hear those naysayers in the background chanting about cholesterol, etc. We have no clue what the long term effects of margarine are, but we know that humans have been eating butter for many centuries, and done quite well.
This spring many of my fruit trees failed to produce fruits, because the weather was too extreme. Next year it might be the case for all trees and perhaps vegetables as well. We cannot continue to produce food like it was business as usual. There's need for innovative strategies, like alley cropping, increased covering, intercropping, covering plants, drilling wells for watering in case of drought and only then, learning about agriculture of warmer countries, etc.
Climate change causes both droughts and flooding at different locations at different the same time. The Panama Canal relies on locks to be filled from inland waterways to rise shipping over higher elevations than sea level. The inland waterways are currently experiencing drought conditions which slow the time it takes to fill the locks of the canal.
What matters are yearly global averages, not temporary local events. Even in Texas, if you look at temperature trends, the averages are going consistently up. There will be fluctuations and strange events. But overall, your temperatures are rising.
@@woodchipgardens9084 go and check all the heat records that have been broken in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and even 2024. UK first ever 40C (40.3°C) in 2022 (record was 37.1°C back in 1990, 38.5°C 2003, 38.7°C 2019) and oh yeah, rounded 20°C in January in the Scottish highlands… The ever warming is right here and right now.
@@woodchipgardens9084 and yes, the years 2016, 2020 and 2023 are the top 3 warmest years globally, on record. 48.8°C in Sicily in 2021, 46.8°C Valencia, Spain in 2023. 2020 is Europe’s warmest year ever and 2023 is the second. South America, North America and Asia for example, all experiencing record heat. If you want to keep denying climate change before it’s too late, then so be it.
@@COVID_Is_Not_Over_Yet Debate anything false, Heat is always temporary, Night time is always cooling, Winter is always Freezing and Forest fire smoke melts Glaciers, debate anything false.
@@COVID_Is_Not_Over_Yet 2023 Canadian wildfires From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Beginning in March 2023, and with increased intensity starting in June, Canada was affected by a record-setting series of wildfires. All 13 provinces and territories were affected, with large fires in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. The 2023 wildfire season had the most area burned in Canada's recorded history, surpassing the 1989, 1995, and 2014 fire seasons, as well as in recorded North American history, surpassing the 2020 Western US wildfire season.
Increased deforestation, humans are cutting trees down way faster. If trees are the earth's lungs, then she has no alveoli left and is barely able to cool the mass body of the earth.
One of many reasons why the climate is changing. Our exploitation of planet earth will decrease only because the sustainability of our actions will get snuffed out as ecosystems implode. Not because we will do the right things to live in balance. The political cost is too high.
You are all wrong this is natural been happening for millions of years. You are tell me you after 400 years on this continent you can predict what is going on. And the beat weather man can’t predict the weather
I wonder if all the trash I'm dumping in the ocean is helping? The ocean is too cold. Environmental extremism is making me burn tires and old batteries! Keep pushing this and I have plenty of trash. I'm already triple bagging and using the maximum amount of plastic!
A non-science answer: if everyone thinks the earth is warming, then it will warm - rapidly because more and more people think so. It is our thoughts that control this and we have been duped. Wake up people!
There has been no change in average volcanic activity that can be causing this warming. This has been taken into account. Honga Tonga is an exception because, unlike most volcanoes, it ejected a great deal of water vapor into the upper atmosphere but that is relatively small and very recent addition of warming. This episode of warming is due to Industry increasing CO2 to 150% it's natural high level. Industrial CO2 is a different isotope so this can be measured.
@@lrvogt1257Debate anything false, Heat is always temporary, Night time is always cooling, Winter is always Freezing and Forest fire smoke melts Glaciers, debate anything false.
@@woodchipgardens9084 Yes, that's right. But by any means not near Greenland. That aside, natural Co2 emissions is nothing compared to human caused emissions. Our presence is the cause of rising temps, both on land, air and sea. This is easily accessible facts.
Dark matter phase transitions could be a primary climate driver. If the solar system passes through an area of higher liquid dark matter content the planets cores would all receive more heat due to increased phase transitions thus heating the earth from the inside out. This could be controlled comparatively cheaply. Heating of the planet from the inside out would result in : Increased ground temperatures Increased sea temperatures Increased nighttime temperatures Increased seismic activity Increased earthquakes We are currently passing through the S1 dark Matter stream which, as it is going the opposite direction around the galaxy was described as a dark matter hurricane. June-July 2020 Earth Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn conjunctions July 2020 Siberian heatwave and Antarctica temperature spike Jan 9 2022 Venus Earth conjunction March 18 2022 Concordia Station spiked 39 C degrees due to unusual air patterns near Australia North Pole regions hit 30C above normal Venus atmospheric temperatures from 2009-2017 also were higher after conjunctions NASA issued a climate change warning for Mars after Mariner 9 Neptune has been heating up since 2018
I got an outdoor thermometer for Christmas, and I've noticed that every week since then I've recorded a record high temperature on it. Something is drastically wrong! Why are temperatures rising so dramatically from the beginning of the year into April? If you think that sounds silly, think about the temperature records that are being broken. We've only had the Argo ocean temperature measuring system in place for about 25 years. We've only had satellite temperature systems to accurately measure global temperatures for about 45 years. We've only had widespread use of accurate thermometers to measure local land temperatures for about 150 years. And we've only been doing widespread tidal measurements for about 200 years. What drove the Vikings off of Greenland, which they settled and named during the Medieval Warm period about 1000 years ago? It was the Little Ice Age (LIA). Was the LIA caused by human activity? If global cooling can occur naturally, why can't global warming? The greenhouse effect is real. If it wasn't, earth would be frozen and we couldn't live here. Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas; CO2 is a very distant second. Anthropogenic CO2 has a MINOR effect on the NATURAL climate change that has taken place in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. And the cost to decarbonize is economically CATASTROPHIC, unlike the MINOR temperature changes that are happening now. Climate is actually getting MILDER, NOT more extreme. LOW temperatures are rising (mostly at night, in the winter, at higher latitudes), NOT high temperatures. THAT'S why the average temperatures are increasing. Extreme weather is NOT increasing, contrary to hysterical MSM "fear porn" headlines.
Everyone does know that the climate does. Since the Earth was first forpeople need to stop freaking out. And evolve just like all our previous ancestors did
It's not troubling. This is a Life CYCLE. Your soul chose to be here during this time. Stop with your global warming BS MSM. Tell everyone the truth. ❤️🌀💙
Same as the fact people do not want to believe that our food choices (mainly animal agriculture) are having profound effects on the environment. Denial is easier
@@patrick247two Human mindlessness. Even those agreeing with manmade climate change talking about the weather and they don't even have the caring or intelligence to get off their fucking lazy asses and LEARN. How's that?
Before posting any videos about climate change, first go through your company and make sure that everyone is not driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee 🙄. I can't stand liberals that talk one thing and do another
