Did I hear that Earth can not fall or die due to Human activities?? Can we discuss that comment? Man has steam rolled over this planet and it's not slowing down. As long as there is money to be made, this will continue on and on. Now we can kill this planet and we are on the verge of doing so everyday. This has been happening ever since we figured out how to split atoms. The Soviet Union found out just how dangerous a nuclear disaster can be. The US did it also but kinda on a smaller scale at the 3 mile island. Don't get me started on the Atoll Islands either. Right now there is a nuclear disaster that's going on right now and hardly anyone outside of that country really knows about. The Fukushima Nuclear plant!!! Back in 2011 the Fukushima plant suffered the worse case scenario thay could've happened. Well maybe not, but damn near it. The only thing that could've been worse is if more than 1 reactor had a meltdown. Japan has been running water though the Plant trying to keep it from melting down again and killing more people. Now that Japan has been doing this, they don't have anywhere else to put this radioactive water that they are using. Now I know I am not the smartest guy in the room, but if the water is already radioactive, why can't they just keep on cycling that water? 🤔. I honestly don't know. But I do know that I have heard that since Japan has no where to put this water. They would just release it back into the ocean. I know that the ocean water on the coast of California has a rise in the radioactive tolerance. See there no way to keep radiation out of the water and soil. This is natural from our sun and the elements in the Earth. But these numbers are climbing and climbing. This is only 4 disasters that have happened and 3 of which were on accident. I couldn't imagine what would happen if all of the world's nuclear weapons went off as dirty bombs. I am pretty sure that all life on Earth would be affected. So any animal that breathes in and out will most likely die of radiation sickness or worse live out the remaining years of their lives suffering. The food chain will collapse and this will kill most animals that didn't die at the beginning. The time it will take the Earth to recover will be longer than people and animals will live. So yes I very much do believe that man can ruin this planet and isn't it obvious already that we are still doing it today? Anyway this is only my opinion and that's it. I hope that I am wrong but I kinda don't think so. Please prove me wrong and tell me that all the nukes we have can't kill the world. Thank you for your time and I wish you the very best.

nah unsub ...

Meanwhile it's over 100° on August 29th '23 here in Arizona.

Thanks Exxon!

It's had nothing to do with so called climate change. The moon controls the weather but as it is moving away from the earth at 3.8 centimeters every year it will have resulting affect on global change

😂

But going to destroy the world. A micronova occurs every 12k years. And yes, it's a problem. But obviously humanity has survived before. Checkout Suspicious Observers.

😂😂😂😂

For some reason I imagined a British couple having tea with a "keep calm and carry on" framed embroidery and a photo of the queen on the wall while the world is literally ending. 😅

Our sun will not go supernova, doesn't have enough mass

Your problem is that you went to college in a time of logic, rational thought, reason, and honesty... not political propagandizing... forget everything you learned and act stupid, or they'll come for you... 😉... Enlightenment and Education back "in the day" was different... it was based on actual knowledge, or the lack of, and not biased and flawed computer models based on Political Ideologies.

Well that mechanism of cause is plausible however one must also consider the shielding of the planet from radiation from the sun. How good has that held up during these events or is it weaker now then in past events and the likelihood that having a weaker magnetic field will have more dramatic effect without a lot of energy being used by the sun to create a breaking event? Since it is now 25% weaker now than 1850 and the magnetic field is clearly and quickly moving away from the poles circle? Say we come to a point where if they keep migrating at the same pace by 2040 we have less then 50% strength and the poles are meeting At where the equator is. So Captain Kirk. We know the power of those photon torpedoes coming from that Romulan ship. But I argue that our shields are down by 25% and worse yet there seems to be an issue with the cores energy output so we are not able to beef up power to the shield. So that torpedo barrage is likely to have unpredictable consequences we are not prepared to guesstimate on long term damages. What say you?

Do we not know more about the sun now, 50 years later? I'm not saying or assuming we do, I'm merely asking.

@@Ragnovlod we have more tools in the modern day to monitor it but that does not magically make the data for the times for which we didn't appear and make a justification ... should we be good stewards to our planet... yes ... should we be careless no ... this climate change stuff sheesh I remember when I was in elementary school and they had us on this big eco thing and that was in the 1980's where cartoons like captain planet and the planeteers still had references to the soviet union vs as we know it today RUSSIA ... and all that time it was all what we hearing now ... Earth is a living system and we are simply a speck of the entire planets history ... we need more data but I'm with most people on the idea we do not have enough of it to draw informed conclusions ... but if you ask the green thumbs they magically do and we MUST listen to them all over again ...

Valentina Zharkova

You can bet your bottom dollar. just pulling out a cliche from the rollo desk in my head.

KanadastanHas entered your comment.

This genius was teaching 8 year olds?

Why do you think that? We homo saps are highly adaptive critters. Somehow the people in Oetzi's time managed to survive the cold snap that preserved him. Catasteophists be damned! My money is on humankind. Oh, for the record, REAL climate scientists like Judith Curry are predicting things to get REALLY cold starting around 2030. I am old and likely won't live to see it. You young folks however . . .

Only if the WEF get their way with their sustainable population of 2 billion. I wonder who those will be.

@@Dionysos640 Pratt

@@Dionysos640humans will be gone a long long long long long time before the earth gets swallowed.

By then humanity will have an advanced space program going that will see colony ships moving out into interstellar space. Some will succeed and some will fail but I tend to think that it is fairly certain that humanity WILL survive in the long and distant term. It would help today if the great powers would stop their constant warmongering and one, the USA in particular. Humanity needs visionaries not warmongers and elitist global bullies to lead it.

fr

And those previous warm periods were *not* in fact warmer than the present day.

@@RedXlV Yes, they were. Look at the historical facts, what people ate and grew. People often use the fact that people grew grapes in Britain during Roman times. Greenland had farms on land that is still permafrost today. Recent reduction of the Swiss glaciers has revealed trade roads that were in use 2,000 years ago. In the case of the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians we can read their records and we know what things were like. That's how we can say that the current warming started in the 1600s, because of Japanese records. In a way it comes down to whether you prefer computer models and proxies or the written records of the times.

@@JohnJ469 People still grow grapes in Britain *today.* Even in northern Scotland.

@@RedXlV Very good. Although you do know that the ones in Scotland are usually in greenhouses? (Kinda cheating to leave that part out, don't you think?) Now perhaps I wasn't clear, I didn't say that they didn't grow grapes in the UK today, but without the mod cons they aren't as good. My apologies. The very real difference that you are ignoring is that the roman grapes were grown outside, without and fertiliser or modern technology yet produced a very hearty crop. Understand that these grapes made wine good enough to export to Italy using the sailboats or carts of the time. If you tried Roman methods in the UK today the grapes wouldn't be of the same quality, it's that simple. According to the Royal Horticultural Society (who know a few things about growing plants) outdoor grapes can be grown in Southern Britain south of the line between Pembroke and "The Wash". But I'm sure you know better than they do. Just because you can plant a vineyard doesn't mean you get good grapes. That's why a knowledge of several fields is useful rather than just reading the Greenpeace website for information.

@@JohnJ469 Now that's what I call a serious takedown. The only reply you will get is the sound of crickets.

And here, in Brazil, many leftists believe that the kettles emanate CO2 and metane into the atmosphere. I would think that the bituminous coal mining causes more.....

Milankoic cycle warming then

Absolutely right

We are currently in an ice age of the brain😂

But you're still here and institutions including schools and the media are still peddling myths of doom in order to sell paywall subscriptions on their websites. News print is the only thing that's not cyclical.

In the '70s scientists were saying we were entering a new ice age. But by the end of that decade, average global temperature started going up and levelled off by the century's end. The earth's climate system is robust and self adjusting. And humans adapt as we always have throughout the millennia. Whether warm or cold, we'll make it through. And fossil fuels help us adjust and adapt better than our ancestors ever did. But trust power grabbing politicians to screw things up to make it harder rather than easier for us to make it through.

We have ice ages in Canada all the time 😆

So fossil fuel industry propaganda has gotten to you. Did you notice how they got you to flip the narrative, to make the "evil" scientists sound greedy, when in fact oil industry CEOs make 100 times their income per year? The nearly 100 climate-denying front groups, think tanks and websites the industry funds (source: Drexel University) freely promote false information about climate science. For them, there are no repercussions. For scientists to peddle misinformation? A loss of credibility, of funding, and a career. Contrary to the nonsense you've been fed, scientists must PROVE their findings with evidence-based data, and that data must be confirmed and replicated by others. They can't LIE without being caught. So they DON'T. If you think anyone in climate science has lied, name him. Fossil fuel industry marketing has quite literally taught you to think this way. Sad.

Because the so-called benefits are absurd in relation to the damage. The only benefit I see is that monocots and C4 plants (corn) will grow well. Dicots (apples, strawberries) depend more on insect pollinators and insects are particularly sensitive to thermal change.

I noticed that too. Smfh.

They drove really big SUV's , too.

What about COW farts and methane?

Lol exactly. I’m all for objecting on the status quo for climate change, but the argument he gave for an example of short term warming is so incredibly weak.

Living in Munich the Ötzi-Museum ((Bozen/ Bolzano) is just 280 km - so I saw it and learnt that cool info was found out by investigating his food of the last 24 hours where he was walking down and up in the mountain! As this could be tracked by the different herbs and seeds he was continuously eating by grasping stuff from the environment. By these plants also the climate should be clarified as well - knowing the altitude of the valley and where he was shot!

Just as I thought....this video is BS. Thanks, you saved me 16 minutes of watching it.....

Quote « Ötzi died in a snow-free gully near the pass. Exposed on the surface, he freeze-dried, which led to the exceptional preservation of his body. Then snow fell and buried the body and the artefacts. A short time later, a glacier covered the area, and buried the body and the artefacts for more than five millennia, like in a time capsule »

@@mandoralen43 My comment was an ironic take on the unlikely assumption that Ötzi's walk occured in a bronze age climate that immediately gave way to an ice age when Ötzie was shot. I have no argument with your account :-)

Nope. It wasn't a global phenomenon. Our planet is still in an ice age called the Quaternary Period because there is pack ice in both polar regions year round. We're in an interglacial period called the Holocene Epoch, but it's still an ice age. There is no reason to expect the weak forcings from orbital eccentricity can overcome anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The last glaciation of the Pleistocene will be the last until CO2 goes back down, if ever.

@@rps1689 😄😄😆😆😅😅🤣🤣😂😂

correct , which is why I have bought 400 hot water bottles !

Indeed

@cesararias7023 And who exactly were responsible for those great advancements we’ve made? That’s right, the people who refused to just accept the things we don’t know.

@@oscarfernald9402 The things that we don't know can't be accepted or refused. We can only seek for answers and hope to find one. What we cannot/should not do is to make bold statements on matters we don't have a definite answer about.

@@cesararias7023 Of course I meant to say ‘accept the fact that we don’t know things’, I should have phrased it better. Regarding climate change, we will know soon enough…

@@oscarfernald9402 I wish we could get some real unbiaded info real soon but I will not set my expectations any high.

There were no huge Galciers in the Alps during the ROMAN period Oetzi? Lived far far far before then Several thousand years His little patch of glacier survived all that time

That's a perfect example of how global warming deniers have to just make shit up, because facts don't support their positions at all.

If he was being chased to death, he may well have tried to escape by getting to a higher altitude where there is ice. There are a million scenarios. Both could be correct.

I don't know but there may be evidence that mountain glaciers have been expanding and contracting more than a few millennia. The question not mentioned. How much?

@@michelleshirek9253 how did the Roman emperors get to eat icecream and cold drinks if there were no glaciers?

Now that is what I was expecting this video to say.😀 Great summary. Do you recall the names of the Russians who wrote the paper?

@nigelliam153 no Russians were involved in this paper as were no Russians involved in any interference.

Yes it is! Google or KZfaq Valentina Zarchova for her theories with added variables other climate scientists have not considered!

Clouds are derivative penetration products, due to solar penetration.. of which you completely are leaving out of the equation.. because you are not informed or aware of what the cause is, especially considering you are only looking at 11 year cycles... You need to include full details if you ARE aware, because what you put here is easily refutable. 6k and 12k cycles as in the past show the effect with the geomagnetic pole slips, which is ongoing and speeding up as our atmospheric shell contracts further and further, and allows in the greater penetration of solar pressure. This "cooling" effect is no different than the super heated effect, for they will both occur, and YES THEN with the shift and dust accumulation as effecting the sun AND IT AFFECTS all of the planets as it is.. there will be indeed a glaciation age again. The problem is.. you leave out so many factors.. I dont think you are clear AT ALL of all this can entail or will cause in problems for the world. You need to look into SuspiciousObservers for the full playlists and details.. there if FAR more than this brevity pinpoint you are looking at.

Forget about climate change. I just want unpolluted air and water.

So if they say we’re moving through the cosmos how could there be apocalyptic cycles,wouldn’t apocalyptic events be unpredictable since our galaxies moving through the cosmos would have different effects on us from solar winds and cosmic radiation’s changing constantly?

We are moving through space but it doesn’t negate the cycles? If that’s what you’re asking

The sun is the principle driver of earth’s climate.

No, but it might get you the attention you crave...and maybe a sore hand for a while.

Speed bump! Terrorists gluing themselves down to the street.

😂😂😂

No but it sure will expell more emissions from idling vehicles.

Theres a video on Fox news. Looks like New Mexico; they chained themselves to a trailer. Best part was the cops weren't having it. Believe protesting on A Federal Road carries up to ten years in prison. Didn't apply in Minnesota.

and the hysterical data.

Historical jumping to conclusions. A cave man was found in the mountains - therefore it was warm (?) - but they were frozen & mummified - therefore it got cold again real fast (?) - therefore rapid temperature change is just a thing we accept as fact now (?) *Confusion & doubt intensifies*

The guy they found in the mountains was dressed for cold weather

Except where he said we just realized recently that the sun affects the climate they have known that for hundreds of years or more I think there have been writings that go back thousands of years about solar and Cosmic activities. They started writing about it a lot in the maunder minimum and afterwards

John a Eddie wrote the book the maunder minimum in the 70s

Some of the things that were predicted by main stream climate science that materialized: Planet greening, global average surface temperature will rise due to added greenhouse gases, nuisance flooding in low lying cities will get more frequent, sea level rise will accelerate due to thermal expansion and land ice melt, CO2 fertilization, agricultural hardiness zones and wild species ranges moving poleward, the Arctic warming faster than the equator, the stratosphere cools while the troposphere warms, marginal farmland going out of production, causing refugee flows and political instability, increased rate of species extinction, tropical pest species invading the subtropics. Subtropical pests invading temperate zones, and permafrost melting. More predictions are still on track. Predictions from mainstream climate science have been accurate for half a century; they mostly use climate models. Not only do climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change, they have predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Also mainstream climate models have accurately projected global surface temperature changes. Climate models have given us a better understanding of the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere plus global patterns in the ocean, atmosphere, and records of the types of weather that occurred under similar patterns in the past, and they have reduced the uncertainty of climate change impacts, which aids in adaptation to name a few. This is the reality when these models use physical laws and mathematical equations that reflect our understanding of atmospheric and oceanic processes. Models are just tools; they don't drive the data: they are attempts to understand the data either in terms of specific reactions or in historical terms.

Agreed. The oceans are an incredibly important factor in the earth's climate. Trying to remember a stat I heard recently......something like the oceans possess 100x the energy of the atmosphere. They certainly possess 45x the CO2. They are also a fluid like the atmosphere. Current science can't begin to predict future atmospheric temperature due to the interaction of two fluidic environments as diverse, dynamic and complex as the oceans and the atmosphere. Also, very importantly, the models are based on IPCC worst case scenarios (they run hot) and have incredible difficulty with cloud which is a far greater influence on global warming than silly ole' trace gas CO2. In my book, the alarmists bent on the control of humanity by ushering in their communist utopia should have picked water vapour from industry and Granny Smith drying her clothes on a clothes line rather than CO2 but admittedly they've done a good job of pounding their anthropogenic CO2 silliness into the soft heads of the media and the masses. I also hear that they are now frustrated by the awareness of common folk who just aren't buying the anthropogenic CO2 thing and so they are thinking about their next great source of fear - fresh water availability. Awe, cycles within cycles indeed.

@@Snowdog070 The amount of CO₂ in the air closely matches the known quantity of fossil fuels consumed, minus the quantity that the oceans have absorbed. Oceans absorb 30% to 40% of the added CO₂. They're absorbing CO₂ because the partial pressure is higher in the air than in the water. By huge measure water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas of all, causes variations in atmospheric temperature variations, but water vapour is a feedback, not a primary forcing, to a very good first approximation, because it rains out. The arithmetic sign of that feedback is positive, which makes it an amplifier. If only we could demonstrate water vapour feedback (to the forcing by noncondensing GHGs) with a negative sign. We’d be famous and rich. Brings to mind Henry's Law describes equilibrium conditions, but climate “skeptics” love to to bring up Henry’s Law when going on about how CO2 lags temperature when it does, but not when it doesn’t; trying to make an argument that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere. But any one familiar with basic atmospheric physics knows Henry’s Law doesn’t apply now because there is no equilibrium now because human activity has disrupted the equilibrium, which is why oceans are absorbing too much CO2 now because the partial pressure of CO2 is higher in the air than in the ocean. Henry's Law will not apply again until equilibrium is restored.

Now follow your thoughts down the road and try to connect the available data. What else happened around that time? When did the "little ice age" start? Of course we dont have any real data for the suns activity for that time, but we can try to calculate what was going on. ;-) BTW: How is the sun behaving today? How many volcanoes started to errupt in the past couple years?

maybe tell gretta bloombum,, that 1 decent volcano spews out more sht than we do in a thousand yrs,, & ask if she will stop them, ......

Hasn't the Justinian Plague happened around that time? Probably directly caused by the malnourishment caused by volcanic wi ter induced crop failures etc

Volcanic activity and magnetic pole movement have both increased since the 1880s and especially increased in the last 15 years

Actually, the event occurred in 535 AD and we know this due to the evidence found in the fossil record, the ash layer it put down, historical writings that survive to this day, and tree rings from trees that lived during that time. It was the same volcano we know as Krakatoa today. It caused the deaths of millions of people and animals. Caused Global winter lasting almost 2 years. It exploded again during the 19th century And it will explode again on some level in the not distant future.

my thoughts exactly . IF this video was pro climate change it'd easily have 1million views .

your telling the truth thats all that matters WE ALL WARNED THEM NOW THEY WILL SEE blessings to you@@randoir1863

Competition is or will keep them in check to a degree, Twitter(X) and other platforms allow free speech.

"Everything! changes." Better save than sorry. At first I did think this was anti-climate change propaganda, but then I watched the entire video...and again "better save than sorry."

@@Dionysos640 Thanks for pointing out my need to "read" what I wrote.

Well stated.

During the Little Ice Age...25% of the people in Denmark starved to death. In a big Ice Age, billions of people would probably starve to death. In Global Warming, large amounts of land in Canada and Siberia would become farmland.

@@pigdroppings Funny, that nutritional science has recently discovered that supplementing magnesium reduces cancers overall 40 to 50%! Where would humans get lots of magnesium, glacier water 💧 passing through glacier rock 🪨 rubble piles. And it appears that after the Mad Cow 🐮 prion disaster in Europe Scandinavian countries went back to eating more wild game, fatty fish, and that has made them 2 inches taller, like American 🇺🇸 cow 🐮 boys until a few years ago our average hight lost two inches and that average hight of 5’ 9” is only seen in humans in the past with Hunter Gatherers! The cowboy diet, meat (meat ALWAYS out under the sun so it has tons of vitamin D when butchered) and potatoes 🥔, with mountain waters loaded with minerals to drink is the HEALTHIEST DIET, mean while science tells us we are a tropical species but out diet genetics says we are Scandinavians!

@@pigdroppings It is scientific fact that has never been denied that the Icelandic diet is the healthiest diet, that is with 50% of fats omega 3!

Pffft.if we lower co2 enough food won't grow and the billionaire class can get rid of the poors.

I wouldn't worry about us (humans) cooling the planet, because we don't have that much influence as well as making it hotter. All those "human induced" climate change narrative is used for other purposes (financial, power grab, etc.)

So this is why the big rush is on to cover the earth with reflective and extreme cold metals. To bring on the ice age

@@robertlanham4306 Wa- huh Solar Panels aren't reflective. If they were reflective, their entire idea wouldn't work.

Really. "We are currently in a rapid cooling period" even though Earth continues to rapidly warm?

The cycles of the sun are 11 yrs, our planet has 12,000, 6000, 1500 years apart events, you can check for yourself the weakened magnetic shield our okles have moved dramatically volcanoes under the waters will cause a mini ice age…it is real and politics aside✌🏼

That’s false, sea leaves have risen roughly 1/8 of an inch per year

@@93pants93 No, it hasn't. Not here at least.

@@93pants93 Some places it raised, some places it has fallen. Nothing to do with climate.

It wasn't FOX they are deniers, still are. What news, they sound entertaining.

👍It must definitely be taken into account , although many don't.

Totally agree. I have watched (talks) and read (papers) "thousands of hours" of climate related material, and found this video a really well put together presentation, more in layman terms, that more people can readily absorb without endless graphs etc. And for sure, I think the one point they did not address was the current variability in the Earth's magnetic field (poles rapidly migrating). Good point @onesciencedad, high five. HNY.

Yes, but modelling that stuff on a global scale would require more computing power than chatgpt

About the only thing that can be said with much certainty about the climate is that it's very complex, we don't even understand all the factors at work, and even if we did we couldn't measure enough of it accurately enough or have enough computing power to model it for anything but very short term predictions.

You left out that no mechanism has been discovered for variations in the solar wind or magnetic field to affect Earth's climate significantly. It is a red herring when folk claim these forcings do; popular on "climate skeptic" pseudoscience blogs, but we know once a talking point gains inertia in the "skeptic" echo chamber, it never dies. The steady decline in energy output, the 11 year cycle in sunspots, and the variations in the solar wind shows no correlation with climate on annual, decadal, nor century scales. On time scales relevant to human history solar irradiance is practically constant. Even near solar minimum, when galactic comic rays have easier access to Earth, and during the solar maximum, their spectrum remains relatively constant in energy and composition, varying only slowly with time. Just as the solar cycle follows a roughly elven year cycle, so does galactic cosmic rays with its maximum.

Citation please

@@1lightheaded Google.

Definitely another 0bserver 👍

The sun is irresponsible

Thats true and doesnt even take into account all the geoengineering spraying the skies and using atmospheric heaters.

NO

Not disagreeing however there needs to be clear understanding of what "sustainable" actually is. The minerals for electric, solar and wind are being mined and processed in an unsustainable manner and not replaceable once altered. Not to mention are toxic in their natural and altered forms. Also create more of the "evil" CO2 to be processed from discovery to usage. How much plant life "that helps absorb CO2" is sacrificed for the fields of solar panels, either by clear cutting or dead for loss of available light? How much wind is redirected via the resistance induced by wind farms? Changing the natural path of temperature variance and direction? How big is the crater being created to mine the minerals needed to create the "sustainable" thus changing not only wind patterns, but also rise and fall of moisture to the atmosphere that could create rain producing clouds? Or the overall mass of the land the hole now is in creating a potential difference is "above sea level" measurements? If the green religion were honest they would be able to admit that not only emissions but sun, clear cutting, water diversion, artificial fertilization and multitudes of other factors come into play. However those are not profitable for politicians and zealots. It's easier to finance the extreme to sit in traffic causing vehicles to idle for hours - causing more emissions to enter the atmosphere- than it is to risk honesty and loss of funding of political pet projects that turn into financial profit, or for the "scientists" to make money via government funding to keep studying things relevant and non relevant.

@@dondavi5798 What a load of tosh.

Sustainable sources of energy?? I always wonder how much energy is used to manufacture the millions of solar panels, wind turbines and now lithium batteries for electric vehicles. Sooner or later they will need to be recycled = more energy.

Yes by all means, live cleanly, conservatively, use less, and be mindful of what we leave behind, and be kind to each other. "Leave the campsite cleaner than when you arrived".

Everybody?

You are so right. The Solar Flux has been decreasing since the 1970s.

Wow you should work for NASA or NOAA, I'm sure they haven't considered the sun's output or earth's fluctuations before.

​@@cubsfanbigmike31 i'm sure they have. but climate change is an industry. people are paid to complain about it, find "solutions", etc. so they gonna keep doing it. feminism does a similar thing, its not going to go away because so much people depend on the problems persisting, so they never going to solve the problems it is tasked to solve. its also one of those "when you have a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail" situations. if you are tasked with "solving" climate change, then you have already asserted that it is a problem you need to solve, so you are going to apply your hammer to any problem you see, even if the problem is not a nail. if its too hot, the problem is climate change and you need to have more activism to solve it. and if it is too cold, then the problem is climate change and you need more activism to solve that as well. i can see in the the future, and when the temperature starts dropping they gonna be saying "its because of this thing humans did that the temperature is now dropping. we need more control over people and to take more of their money to solve the problem".

@@DemonsCrest1 you dropped your tinfoil hat King 🧎‍♂️ 👑

That and the other volcano eruption that send particles into the atmosphere causing harsher and longer winters. 20 eruptions of a larger scale this year alone could make this winter pretty wild.

@@t-technews Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.. kinda. Well its effect is like that of a greenhouse gas and it is in far larger quantity then the trace gasses such as co2 and water vapor interact with a broader range of IR including the part of the spectrum that co2 interacts with. I'm skeptical of the whole green house effect having any role in long term climate as it seems the 30 degree day night swings in temperatures show that absorbed ir is less absorb and more diffused through the gas atmosphere giving ambient temperatures rather then just radiant heat from solid object emitting heat.

@@NeverSuspects....there are credible sources that say Co2 is not a greenhouse gas because it collects to close to the ground.

@@t-technews "other volcano"? Cut and paste not working? 🤔

@@TheHoveHeretic You think there is only one volcano in the world...?!

Well tere never was a scientific consensus about an imminent ice age in the 70s. There were two papers, by Schneider, Kukla, and Rasool, that made headlines when the reporters misread them. They predicted the slow cooling of 1940-1980, which was caused by global dimming might continue. Their papers said that If that trend had continued, the ice sheets would be back, in 20 to 40 thousand years. But the reporters missed that part. The tabloids ran an imminent ice age scare and the newspapers picked it up from them. Then it went to The Late Show and there were references in sitcoms, and that silly show with Leonard Nimoy.

Yes, tune into Suspicious Observers.

Ben Davison lol…….

Ben is a genius. Been following him for years now.

Don't leave out Adapt2030 along with Suspicious0bservers and Diehold foundation. They are all talking about the coming ice age, solar killshot, etc.

Most channels that covers this topic are shadow banned .. Adapt 2030 and magnetic reversal news is some more

@@Dionysos640 If we took "you" out of the sentence it will help even more.

Yeah sure... read about Hannibal s crossing of the alps...

You do not need to travel on glaciers to cross the Alps.@@etienne8110

@@etienne8110 Regarding "crossing the Alps": No Carthaginian sources of any kind have survived, and the accounts by the Greek historian Polybius (written about 70 years after the march) and his Roman counterpart Livy (120 years after that) are maddeningly vague. Reconstruction of both imaginary descriptions of the crossing, points out on just one posible mountain pass, and that's Col du Montgenèvre which is on 1,860 m. There are no glaciers in Alps on such altitudes today, and there hasn't been glaciers 2200 years ago.

@@snowcrash.snowcrash there is only one paper from 2013 claiming the alps were "ice free" 2000 years ago. The paper is written by a well know climate negationist financed by thz fossil fuel industry. Many scientists critized the paper, so much that it was invalidated. But lying is a second nature amongst your kind. Read the science. There were glaciers back then.

True, but our contribution towards the current observed changes are undeniably supported by hard evidence such as the direct correlation of atmospheric carbon and less energy leaving our planet than arrives from the sun than without that blanket.

But the government can keep taking your money so you can't afford to prepare.

@@jjrickards do you actually believe that cow farts are melting glaciers?

@@kathymcmcthat person didn’t mention cow farts anywhere. Get a grip. Read into the physics of how carbon dioxide warms. And since you may be confused, methane is the greenhouse gas you’re thinking of.

climate models have overestimated c02's affect on temps. from 2015 until recently co2 went up while temps stayed flat. now with this sun cycle temps seem to be going up. It's the sun. Also, past climate disasters show us things could be more worser. Perhaps the real deniers are those who claim that if we stop making c02 then the climate won't change -- for a chaotic system is ever changing; we are just limited in predicting just how it will change, but change it will.

Well no mainstream climate scientist ever made that claim.

@@rps1689 I realize you prob weren't around, but it was taught in schools, It was being pushed by the epa. Thats pretty mainstream.

@@Noahfence251 I was in school in the 70s and no one in main stream climate science in the 80s told us acid rail would kill us all before 2000. Best to avoid predictions from tabloids, hippies, and politicians.

But this kind of change was definitely NOT anthropogenic.

Climate is not a constant. Its dynamic. Dont believe the fearmongering on mainstream media.

And when I was kid, the Sun was yellow and you could look at it for second or 2? Now it seems white? Hotter? Hotter sun, warmer planet?

Pacific Northwest: Growing up In the 1970’s and 80’s there were many high wind and lightning events; Much more so than today. It all changed around 1992. 1992-1996 the weather was phenomenal.

The drop in temperature? Or maybe the season that Utzi died compounded by his lethal wounds.?

There is a dif between pollution and the cycles of our planet involved in a cosmos-of change…

Yes that's exactly what he said In video.

Pollution and climate are competing agendas, and without all this global warming shite we could focus on pollution which is both measurable and solveable.

Pull your head out. Pollution is a problem all over the world but human life and our activity does not affect the planet’s temperature any where near the fear mongering alarmists claim.

Men made MMR is a danger 🛑towards Earth Magnetic field...

Absolutely, I also watch Suspicious Observers, Ben keeps us updated on the earth’s failing magnetic field.

@@reddune6185 Suspicious Observers 👍

The Earth's magnetic field has changed multiple times throughout geological time. These changes detect while mapping the sea floor after WWII and comparing it to changes in magnetic orientation in volcanic rocks and layers of organic sediments are the basis for the Continental Drift Hypothesis being seen as idiotic to the beginning of the Plate Tectonic theory. Amazing what a little time can do in theory!! The magnetic pole actually switched over and over again. Recently the declination of True North have changed at a more rapid pace! So maps that have declination listed are no longer accurate. You need to look up your declination for your latitude to adjust your magnetic compase! Cheers

Wrong. It has not a lot to do with climate.

Time to take off the tin foil hat. The thousands of stations south of the Arctic circle and north of the Antarctic circle is more than sufficient to get a picture of the current rate of global warming not to mention most of the surface of the world is covered in seas and ocean, which there are 3800 argo floats all over the world in every one of them including above the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle. An educated person up to speed knows that when NASA, GISS and the Hadley Center characterize a source of bias and correct the raw data for it, the "conservative news" and "climate skeptic" bloggers hoot and jeer. They call it "fudging" and “manipulation." All gathered data from the environment and that the surrounding conditions need to be quantified objectively through a rigorous open process that is very reliable. This process is never explained by crack pot outfits for a reason; they are all about misinforming and never explain how raw data used in climate science can never made up “made up numbers” in order to “prove” a predetermined end result. Instead they call those adjustments “falsifying”, ”fudging”, and “manipulation”, which is mendacious. Nor do they explain if there are any errors and bias that make it into peer reviews, most scientists plus leading working scientists will pounce on the culprits be it an honest error or not; competition is way too fierce in this field. The great thing about peer review, is it exposes bought scientists being called out by honest competitors, which there is no lack of.

Yup. 90% are on parking lots at airports. The Dust Bowl was FAR warmer.

@@GordoGambler Wrong. The thousands of stations south of the Arctic circle and north of the Antarctic circle is more than sufficient to get a picture of the current rate of global warming not to mention most of the surface of the world is covered in seas and ocean, which there are 3800 argo floats all over the world in every one of them including above the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle. And bringing up the Dust Bowl is irrelevant. Listening to Tony Heller lately? The 1930s was warmer then today is a lie, as we know Tony Heller fooled many by swapping in a chart of temperatures over less than 2% of Earth's surface and told us it was the whole globe; such stuff comes from professional liars.

That's because it is.

@@EmeraldView Prove it

@@DnBclassictunes Yeah everyone is lying to you. It's a grand global conspiracy. 🙄 You'll understand soon enough.

@@DnBclassictunes It's easy when you just remove all the data that proves you wrong, er, I mean, "normalize the data".

And that was volcanic activity over a very long period of time that makes a couple of eruptions cited in the video entirely inconsequential.

Magnetic field has very little to do with it.

@@rogerphelps9939 with the weakening of the magnetic field more radiation seeps in and thus temperatures rise, and the weakening happens every time there is a magnetic shift or magnetic pole shift(more severe) and we're in one of those 2 right now, in fact have been for the past 170 years, right after the industrial revolution by pure coincidence, which is why CO2 from industry gets the blame despite the lack of science to back that up and not the magnetic shift that barely gets any attention since THAT one "is out of our hands" and people in power would rather not think about what they can't control

Maybe the weakening magnetic field is warming the planet and then when the pole shifts the magnetic field goes back to full power blocking rays making the planet cooler?

our magnetic field stops dangerous levels of radiation from entering our atmosphere, it has plenty to do with it, increased sun activity as it cycles up to a max in 2025 and a slightly weaker magnetic field means more radiation is getting into our upper atmosphere, thusly creating warming.....@@rogerphelps9939

@@rogerphelps9939 magnetic strength is vital. water and air will gone, and face sun’s damaging radiation. it is a slow process but until u notice it, u r doomed

Weather and Climate are not the same thing.

I'm surprised John Kerry hasn't had this removed.

@@THE-X-Force Try tell John Kerry that...

I think most people that live in Melbourne already know that the weather changes a lot in one day.

Thank you for your comment. It's true that carbon dioxide can have some positive effects, like increasing plant growth. However, the overall impact of CO2 on the climate is complex. While plants may benefit, the negative effects on the climate, like extreme weather and rising sea levels, are significant and need to be considered too.

India and China account for most of the global greening reported by NASA; they have huge tree planting programs. The planet is greening, as predicted by climate science. Increased CO2 causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of only certain crops, but less increase in nutritional value. Current rate of global warming brings a loss of global biodiversity and favours weeds over crops. When food is grown in fields at elevated CO2 in the atmosphere, it becomes less nutritious and lose significant amounts of zinc and iron plus grains lose protein. Because of this you need more fields to produce more volumes to make this up and more greenhouses, as you decrease the amount of nutrition you can produce per acre. Nutrients are already added to top soil in outdoor large scale agriculture and it doesn’t mitigate how higher concentrations in the atmosphere affects crops from accumulating more carbohydrates than minerals. There are solutions to tackle nutrient depletion, but are not that effective at the current rate of warming, as the top soil process changes in organic carbon transformations and nutrient cycling through altered moisture and temperature regimes in the soil. Soils have actually lost 50 to 70 percent of the carbon they once held. A big concern is topsoil is used to grow over 90 percent our food, and it is disappearing ten times faster than it is being replaced. The increase of forests is irrelevant, as trees are not simply vacuuming CO2 out of the air and making it magically disappear. One has to take into account the trees that have reached their equilibrium - trees full grown, the tiny amount they grow is offset by decay. Plus carbon exits older forests about as quickly as it comes in; forests are not an infinite carbon sink plus trees don’t last forever and when they die and decay, chopped down and burned for fuel, or burn in a wildfire, they release all the CO2 they’ve been hiding away. This is why it is so important to protect new forests permanently. It would take 4 times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water.

Ohh really, explain why this had not happened already. Glaciers have advanced and receded in the past, obviously we have been warmer and yet here we are.

Can you refute with data that eleven separate studies that confirm the scientific consensus on climate change?

No. If "climate change" is in the video description, you'll get that context box. Try it. Post a video about puppies playing the yard and add the line, "These puppies don't care about climate change." You'll get the context box.

the only problem with climate is governments trying to play God and intentionally interfering with weather

we're headed to an Ice age termination event thats why the earths warming up, the ice caps are retracting releasing CO2 and Methane which has been locked in the ice for thousands of years. The IPPC 6TH ASSESSMENT REPORT estimates that the Co2 and Methane released from the permafrost could amount to 14-175 billion tonnes and would raise earths temperature by up to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. So the Ice age could be coming to an end

"In fact we are in the middle of an Ice age which started some 2.75m years ago. Within this ice age there have been between 30 and 50 cycles of alternating glacial periods and interglacial periods, depending on how you define them." Contradictions. Check out Suspicious Observers. We have detected and expect the galactic current sheet to hit within the next 30 years. We are living through the change to the next Ice Age.

It's true. An Ice Age is defined as a period when at least some parts of the land are permanenty covered with ice, which is exactly what is going on right now in this planet.

Thanks for info --sounds solid--Just a couple of years. a Couple of Volcanoes with enough Ash could flip things sooner than later---As a MONK I say OUCH--massive and shocking

For greenhouse gases to be a climate driver, the earth in your backyard has to be radiating a thermal energy gain enough to heat up the ten miles of air above it. While not affecting 95% of those atmospheric molecules. I have a totally unscientific, undereducated opinion that my back yard is not radiating the energy equivalent to the BTUs REQUIRED to heat that much air. But the factual, basic real life science means it unquestionably has to work like that in order to perform as advertised.

How will the earth’s population be 1BN by the end of the century? 🤔

I have worked outdoors for the past 25 yrs. I, along with others that have been doing the same, would strongly disagree with you. It’s not the temperature being so much more, it’s the suns rays finding it easier to penetrate our atmosphere. Like literally being cooked.

Worked outside for 40 years building houses and I've been saying the same thing. Most people are just spoiled by AC & soft..lol

Read a thermometer. It is hotter. It's not cause of AC . Lol

because that’s what is happening! we are being cooked due to the holes in the atmosphere, and i’d honestly argue that it also has to do with how many lights we have on, constantly heating us as well. (i know less about the heat from light pollution, than the light itself)

@@mikelarocque8013 i do read the thermometer, every day. im in construction and i start my morning either wishing it was warmer or cooler. 25 years have gone by doing that, around here the summers have stayed the same if anything LESS extreme, for the last few years november has been warmer an we have had less snow through the winter...but im not ready to sound red alert. the other odd thing, i live on a tidal river next to the house i grew up in. when i was a kid (abt 45 years ago) there was a rock that was always almost submerged at high tide, and today the water level at high tide is the same. i guess i should be happy that the 'rising sea levels' have decided to somehow bypass were i live.

ExxonMobil's own scientists predicted rising global temperature along with CO2 levels, back in 1982 and their forecasts remain virtually perfect. Even so, for decades the fossil fuel industry spread disinformation for short-sighted profits, much like the tobacco industry did during the 50's & 60's.

Long term mind reading?

Reading minds is easier, we have more complete data on how thought works.

That's an ignorant statement at best Ice core samples tell us the history of the weather system on this planet going back thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years 👎 this was a lack of information on your part

​@anonymous_shooter our 10-day weather forecast accuracy is 50% lol