Block Blue Ocean Event Make ice thick with open ended capped pipes, ait temperature is cheap and we layer nice down to the ocean floor....thermo couple by Alaska...Make deep ice there? Cools ocean depth? Lower sea level. Does this stabilize jet streams. How people do we need!

“Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” - Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth report. Speaking in 2010: 2hiwrx1aljcd3ryc7x1vkkah.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ottmar.png

Conrad Steffen RIP

RIP Conrad Steffen

Dave Carlson It’s taken this Florida girl awhile to appreciate the differences between snow and ice, especially how much tougher ice is to melt! 🥶

Block Blue Ocean Event stabilize the jet streams? Make ice this year and thicken the ice cao...Just Have a Think!

@@christinearmington lower sea level, Block Blue Ocean Event. What does Florida do with more land?

Compared to what?

Yes, it appears that each of these climate channels has their unique interest. I have 4 favorites, now that I've added Just Have a THINK.

@@kirstinstrand6292 Thanks for your reply. I like Black bear news and paul beck withs channels; two of my favorite places to get environmental news. Alex Smith's podcast called 'radio ecoshock' is another great source of news and interviews. Many of the worlds top climate scientists and activists were interviewed over the years. Its really informative if you are interested in the nitty gritty details.

how about hundreds of thousands of Wolly Mammoths inside the artice circle grazing on tons of green stuff every day. We can adapt.

sure, if you like to absorb and believe incomplete presentation of data and facts that climate change propagandists love to spew.

@@yousurf374 You're on your own pal.

@@mikeharrington5593 YouSurf is at least not with sheeple

@@mikeharrington5593 which is perfect and MOST reasonable.... I do not "hang with lemmings as with the "man made climate change" crowd"

bs

this is the most noticeable change I have seen since I was a in my 20's. Winds have changed direction on the east coast of canada and we are having longer wind events and many more days over 50kph winds just in the past 5 years. I lived in the western end of Canada for 8 years, but was blocked in my mountains so the weather was relatively stable from the first time in went out west until a I left. Upon returning home the weather on the east coast was much different and more erratic than I had remembered. Winter with little snow then winter with 18 feet of snow ( a record). I see the jet stream slowing and oscillating to the north more and carrying warm air into the ice zones. This happened in the mid west US years ago. That event had people leaving once rich farm lands and former oasis' drying up and becoming environmental disasters (this is still a problem with air quality in the region today) This change was brought on by Jet stream changes. No one wants to consider this because there is no correlation with increased CO2 and jet stream change. Also humans dont know shit about this planet anyways so why do we listen to government agencies and paid propaganda campaigns forcing us to pay for a natural non man made problem.

Rovert Robert Jennifer Francis from Rutgers University has predicted for the last decade that increasing temperatures in the arctic will cause deep waves or amplitude in the jet stream. This is caused by the decrease in temperature difference between the equator and the North Pole. The lower gradient in temperature causes the jet stream to slow down so that not only are the troughs and ridges deeper (that amplitude), but they linger longer , keeping weather patterns in place longer. Since CO2 raises temperatures, there’s the connection to the jet stream.

Thanks Theo. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

You're almost on it

Its natural ice decrease caused by global warming since last iceage.

@@andersmatte The earth has been cooling for 6000 years before starting to warm 120 years ago.

exactly! I Would hope @Anders Mattson wouldn't deny the basics of chemistry and math?

where exactly do you believe the chemical biproducts of co2 and methane from burning 88 million barrels of oil every day go?

Make Block Blue Ocean Event Make ice this year before is to late and dump heat to space!

@Donald McCarthyNo evidence and in your religion insults are science?

I presume you mean Al Gore? A non-scientist politician (mis)quoting or being (mis)quoted about what a few scientists may have said isn't very interesting. I'd recommending sticking with actual quotes of what the scientists said, in context, rather than regurgitations from ignorance.

Because he does not have any facts just assumptions.

@@ArchaeanDragon Al is the same person that came up with the 90ish consensus. What a bunch of morons.

@Donald McCarthyWhen you have no evidence insult but I remember writing that it must have jogged on.

Hi Magna Mentis. Thank you for your feedback. I very much appreciate your kind words. I hope you continue to enjoy the programmes. All the best. Dave

Google it, Wikipedia etc

Hi Marcia. Thanks, as always, for your very kind comments. It really does make it all worth while to hear that the videos are helpful or informative in some way or another. Have great week. Dave

Meaningless. The long-term trend is down, down, down. Same with ice volume.

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble of totalitarian, communist excitement.

@@damienpol5215 Here's a short tutorial and reality check for you on where the icecaps are now in terms of melting: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ntKGi7J0m8eXfXk.html landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/antarctica-losing-six-times-more-ice-mass-annually-now-than-40-years-ago/ www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7556 www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/08/glaciers-melting-ice-melts-due-global-warming-sea-levels-rise/3405569002/

“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources. If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.” thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html

@@Nhoj737 Real Science; #1 It is not as warm in this 50,000 year inter-glacial period as some in the past before humans. #2 The Co2 is only about 410 PPM and at it's known height max was 4,000 PPM. 10 times higher than nowadays. #3 Most of the earths inter-glacial periods melted all earth ice in the oceans during summers. #4 The last two 50,000 Year Warming Peaks were warmer than this current one. #5 Earth Temperature Records have been recorded in the ice core samples taken by humans. This means the human records go back millions and millions of years. It is dishonest to imply humans only have started taking records in recent history. If humans take ice cores from millions of years ago, then records have been made for millions of years. #6 The 50,000 year warming cycle ended around 1998 to 2000 and the current energy is bleeding off for thousands of years and it is possible for the ice to melt off naturally(as it did many times in the past before humans were on earth). Though a 50,000 year glacial period is already started because the earth has passed the closest point it gets to the sun and as you read this, it is moving away from the sun. #6 If anyone looks at all the scientific data from the last several billions of years, they will see the planet is overall cooling. This is why the 50,000 year warming peaks will get progressively weaker. #7 NEVER in the past has the Co2 stopped the earth from cooling back into an ice age over the 50,000 year glacial period cycles. Not even when the Co2 was 1,000 PPM and it is only a measly 410+ PPM. #8 If you take the top 4,000 PPM and estimate an average from the known low of 250 PPM during World War II, the current 400+ PPM of Co2 is considered low for earth. LOW, not HIGH. Recap; A. The Co2 is low, not high for 400+ PPM B. This warming is weaker than in the past 50,000 year warming cycles. C. Co2 does not stop the 50,000 year glacial cycles. D. The warming over the last 250 years is part of the 50,000 year inter-glacial cycle. E. No, it is not a threat, it is 100% natural and remember it is weaker. F. Satellite Data does not show the billions of years of KNOWN data on climate cycles. G. The 50,000 year warming cycle ended about 20 year ago. H. A 50,000 year glacial cycle is starting and this is why the earth is experiencing the shifts. I. There could be up to 8,000 years of energy built up in the earth that needs to bleed off. J. The Oceans will not rise from sea ice melting because it is already in the ocean. That glass could be filled with ice and then top it off with water and if all that ice melts, the water will not rise. That is known scientific fact. K. The current climate conditions are not out of the ordinary for a 50,000 year inter-glacial period, at the peak of a warming period, for earth. There have been millions and millions of them that were warmer than this and the Co2 was higher than this. L. The ice sheet was over a mile thick and covered most of Canada and some of the North East states of the USA, back 45,000 years ago. Where is it now? It has been warming for the last 50,000 years,not just 250 as the Science Deniers claim. This is how Real Science is Presented. I am a retired Science and History teacher. The speaker in the video is the Science Denier. Satellite Data does not show the true millions and millions of years of known data on earth climate cycles. This means his presentation is Cult Preaching form a Cult Religion based on fake SKYence. Yes, all those agencies have it wrong because they are all going off from the same original Cult Religion SKYence data that denies real Science. That is how it snowballs. Go back over my post to refresh the real science into your brain. You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Free from what? SKYence Lies of their Cult Religion that Denies Real Science. By the way, the 413 PPM Co2 is an average. It is not 413 PPM all over the earth. Some places it is higher and some places it is lower. Co2 moves around in pockets and then there is the overall average. It must stay above 149 PPM or all live on earth will start to die because the trees, grass and plants need it to be above that or they start to die. Then everyone and all the animals start to die because the trees, grass and plants converts Co2 into Oxygen. Skyence is fake and Denies Real Science.

Gee, Tim, if you took 5 minutes of your own time, you should be able to locate that information all by yourself, instead of asking about it here. Do you require assistance with the search?

@@myra7273 Tim is being sarcastic. He knows it was warm because the Jet Stream went south as it does from time to time. During the last great ice age, the same area was warm, while there was a 1+ mile thick ice sheet covering most of Canada and the North East USA. The Jet Stream goes south and eventually north again and it does that no matter what the Co2 is doing. Droughts are worst during an ice age and flooding is worst in an ice age and freezing long term unending winters are worst in an ice age and they are in specific locations on earth all at the same time. The ocean is about 400 foot lower than it is now and sometimes the Co2 is higher than it is now. The Co2 is about 410 PPM and has been up to 4,000 PPM in the past. The Co2 has never in history prevented the 50,000 year glacial period from starting. No matter how high is has been. 400+ PPM Co2 is not high, it is low for the earths history of Co2. Co2 in the 1930's was about 300 PPM, yet the North ice was melting and the USA thought an Ice Age was starting. You can read it in the 1930's papers of the time. The most EF-4 and EF-5 Tornadoes in American history in the 1930's also and the most expensive hurricane to hit the USA was in the 1930's also(Miami, Florida). The most bridges lost to flooding and storm surges damaging cities and killing people in the 1930's. All in the papers of the 1930's. In 1926 the volcanic activity in Hawaii were erupting just like it had been for the last few years. These eruptions in 2017 and 2018 were considered worst than the 19026 eruptions. So we might guess the next ten years or in 6 to 7 years the same cycle would hit, though it could have started a couple years ago because these cycles are not exact. They can vary by ten to twelve years either direction.

@@enerzise3161 Thank you for your response. I see nothing to indicate that Tim is being sarcastic. Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

I'm so glad to read something by someone that actually thinks..... As a society we are corrupt, even when we are confident we are correct we generally find out we are wrong. That being said, many of us know this is true-may as well cash in on our corruption. There is no way to know weather or climate

Luckely you mentioned EXACTLY what I was thinking through this biased video.

Guess, some people need to wait till their kids have nothing to eat to actually believe the science. You ignorant people don't have any clue about this, do you? If you had any idea about the gravity of the situation, you would start running now. Once the arctic sea ice is gone, it would take as little as ONE year for the crops to fail by more than 50% globally, to reach the point of no return. All those idiotic movies you watch about zombies, viruses, nuclear wars and alien invasions are nothing compared to how bad the reality will turn in just a few years. And no, it's not just gonna affect some far away 3rd world countries (which happen to produce most of the stuff you consume), it's gonna hit you right here. All the past recessions, hunger and wars can't compare to the scale of impact we are in for. Our economy is not built to deal with an accelerating crop loss as well as exponential intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. It's not a temporary event that can be waited out and gonna fix itself somehow. This is real, big, and happening now. The 6th mass extinction, accelerated 10-fold by homo sapiens. And no, it won't take thousands or hundreds of years to unfold. A decade at best, but I wouldn't count of the second part of this decade as livable anywhere on this planet. Once we start losing crops, we will start losing people, and once we lose 20-30% of the population, we will start losing the nuclear and chemical plants around the world. We have over a thousand nuclear facilities that need 24/7 maintenance and monitoring. To safely decommission even a single one takes millions to billions of US dollars! I will live it to your imagination from this point...

@@huitzilopochtli4655 Buddy, get a clue. The famine shit has been already predicted - most of us were supposed to starve by 2000. Arctic ice isn't going anywhere. NASA said 2016 to 2018 was the greatest global temperature drop on record at 0.56 Deg Celsius.How's that for global warming?

@ Huitzilo Pochtli.... Hmmmm nice rant and no facts. Please visit today " Trading Economics" Commodities section and check out the agricultural section which shows how prices are moving and check out history of grain price movements as climate has changed. You will find during cooling episodes (Dark Age) grain prices soared and empires imploded and during warm periods (Medieval Warm Period) grain prices declined and humanity thrived along with empires. Please review history of humanity. We should be celebrating the warm times we now experience and the incredible advancement of humanity in the last 200 years because these times will not last. The next cooling event is with us now and will become more apparent in the next twenty to thirty years. Please do some proper climate research over at least the last 100,000 years and study the long term cycles instead of what has happened in the last 170 years. A good place to start would be with reviewing some you tube video's of the late professor Bob Carter formerly of James Cook University and look into the East Anglia climate email scandal and the infamous Michael Mann hockey stick scandal. Nobody doubts that there has been warming since The Little Ice Age ended and humanity has via CO2 emissions made a small contribution to warming but it has not been proven to be dangerous global warming. You should be skeptical of the IPCC which is an instrument of governments and who can trust governments these days. Unfortunately governments have their global warming narrative now tarted up as "climate change" so they can tax the air we breathe and big business can profit from green energy. The climate scientists rely on government grants so they can eat too and their skewed findings are further manufactured to fit the narrative when compiling the IPCC reports. It should be noted that I am personally against emissions of actual particulate pollutants, and agree fossil fuels should be left in the ground. Unfortunately, there is too much money to be made in the fossil fuel industry and alternative sources of free energy are being suppressed. Good luck with your research. Cheers from OD

Back then according to Al Gore, at a population of 35000 polar bears were all going to face extinction by drowning and starvation without sea ice. The polar bear population is now above 50000.

@Vince if you google "Canada polar bear hunting quota" you will find out that Canada allows the killing of SIX HUNDRED polar bears per year, out of a population of about 20,000. And this is not new in any way.

Island Aerial: Al Gore is NOT a scientist. His Nobel prize was the Peace prize. I know of no peer-reviewed journal nor climatologist that cite Al Gore as an authority. Why not cite Dr. Peter Wadhams' book A Farewell to Ice. He has conducted more than 50 expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic, most in nuclear submarines to measure Arctic sea ice thickness and aerial extent. Only a few of the posts on this thread are by qualified people. old geologist

@@brooksanderson2599 Duh. The purpose of the video is education. Or, indoctrination if you are a catastrophe proponent. Of which I am not.

@@islandaerial3414 We already are in the, documented, Sixth Extinction. Since you, obviously, are not a scientist of any kind, you are not qualified to judge the matter of climate change. Also, I am much worse than indoctrinated, I am an advocate for attempting to cope, probably unsuccessfully, with climate change. Ref. my website: www.ciclicoahuila.com here in Mexico.

too bad it leaves out most relevant facts that global warming propagandists have ignored to make their "MODELS" show a conclusion (false) that THEY want to portray.

YouSurf - Dude ur just an idiot

@@biggav7434 That shows your intelligence. Insults are worth ZERO

@@biggav7434 actually, DUDE... I am in very superior range of IQ.... YOU, I am sure are not. Typical idiot liberal I bet...

Do you believe the greenhouse effect exists ?

Thank you sir. Much appreciated :-)

You must be joking?? Emotive language, subjective tone and biased language from an amateur who has already decided the outcome. Why is he just looking at the Arctic? Whats happening in the Antarctic at the same time?

@@mhappy01 Because the Antarctic has different characteristics. It is largely land. It would require its own video.

@@mhappy01 You must be a denier. Right?

Wrong.

Well, my friend... I guess you dont know what 7.5 billion ppl are all about. And I guess, you dont know how human psychopathy works. Good for you. Naive idiot..

@@joskojansa1235 You are correct in as much as I don't know how human psychopathy works but I do know it is a human personality disorder which you appear to be suffering from. Get well soon.

@therealnightwriter So I assume you believe that the whole of the qualified scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to fool me and others. Have you any idea how impossible it would be to maintain that lie with the literally tens of thousands of individuals that would have to be involved (and for what purpose) ? If you expect to live for another decade the odds are you will live to see the end of ice in the Arctic, at least in September, followed by year round blue water within the following decade so that should be a clue. If that fails to happen we will both be really pleased.

Real Science; #1 It is not as warm in this 50,000 year inter-glacial period as some in the past before humans. #2 The Co2 is only about 410 PPM and it at it's known height was 4,000 PPM. 100 times higher. #3 Most of the earths inter-glacial periods melted all earth ice in the oceans during summers. #4 The last two 50,000 Year Warming Peaks were warmer than this current one. #5 Earth Temperature Records have been recorded in the ice core samples taken by humans. This means the human records go back millions and millions of years. It is dishonest to imply humans only have started taking records in recent history. If humans take ice cores from millions of years ago, then records have been made for millions of years. #6 The 50,000 year warming cycle ended around 1998 to 2000 and the current energy is bleeding off for thousands of years and it is possible for the ice to melt off naturally(as it did many times in the past before humans were on earth). Though a 50,000 year glacial period is already started because the earth has passed the closest point it gets to the sun and as you read this, it is moving away from the sun. #6 If anyone looks at all the scientific data from the last several billions of years, they will see the planet is overall cooling. This is why the 50,000 year warming peaks will get progressively weaker. #7 NEVER in the past has the Co2 stopped the earth from cooling back into an ice age over the 50,000 year glacial period cycles. Not even when the Co2 was 1,000 PPM and it is only a measly 410 PPM. #8 If you take the top 4,000 PPM and estimate an average from the known low of 250 PPM during World War II, the current 400+ PPM of Co2 is considered low for earth. LOW, not HIGH. Recap; A. The Co2 is low, not high for 400+ PPM B. This warming is weaker than in the past 50,000 year warming cycles. C. Co2 does not stop the 50,000 year glacial cycles. D. The warming over the last 250 years is part of the 50,000 year inter-glacial cycle. E. No, it is not a threat, it is 100% natural and remember it is weaker. F. Satellite Data does not show the billions of years of KNOWN data on climate cycles. G. The 50,000 year warming cycle ended about 20 year ago. H. A 50,000 year glacial cycle is starting and this is why the earth is experiencing the shifts. I. There could be up to 8,000 years of energy built up in the earth that needs to bleed off. J. The Oceans will not rise from sea ice melting because it is already in the ocean. That glass could be filled with ice and then top it off with water and if all that ice melts, the water will not rise. That is known scientific fact. K. The current climate conditions are not out of the ordinary for a 50,000 year inter-glacial period, at the peak of a warming period, for earth. There have been millions and millions of them that were warmer than this and the Co2 was higher than this. L. The ice sheet was over a mile thick and covered most of Canada and some of the North East states of the USA, back 45,000 years ago. Where is it now? It has been warming for the last 50,000 years,not just 250 as the Science Deniers claim. This is how Real Science is Presented.

@@enerzise3161 I've yet to see anybody deny the validity of ice cores for telling us the CO2 content of the air all the way back to 2.7 million years, a thousand times longer than humans have been around but not very far when it comes to the age of the earth. I've yet to see anybody claim the melting of sea ice will raise sea level. There are 3 rising sea level arguments (1), the melting of land supported ice e.g. Greenland ice, Antarctic land ice (2) thermal expansion of sea water (3) the rising of land that has been relieved of the weight of ice it once supported. We have entered into what would be a cooling phase of our present Milankovitch Cycle and indeed temperatures were slowly falling prior to the industrial revolution that got underway around 1750, they have been steadily rising since and at ten times the rate they were falling. Too much other stuff to comment on other than to say temperatures are rising at a rate evolution cannot cope with and that is before you factor in the methane bomb (which may not happen but probably will) from shallow Arctic seas and thawing Tundra (methane already counts for a third of the warming with CO2 and some trace gases accounting for the rest).

Can you please site where he uses only "uses data from a specific point in 2018"? From what I can see he presented data of both sea ice extent and thickness/volume at winter maximum and summer minimums for a range of years dating back to the beginning of accurate measurements. If you would like to make your own video showing the same data but for all 12-months of the year - or indeed all 365 days of the year then your are most welcome - I for one will all certainly watch with interest. Please post a link here when you do. But I suppose that you will not do this because you know as well as I do that the trend will be the same regardless of the "specific points" in a year that you choose.

if he showed the graph of the annual fluctuation of the ice volume through the years it would have been better. the mins happen in September at it seems to be pretty consistent, always melting down to about 5000km^3.

The reason why 1980 is chosen as a year is because of satellite records. They didn't exist before 1979.

Yes I know, but this doesn't make the use of the median any more appropriate. @@Lorne.Mccuaig

Thanks Wilfried. i will indeed. All the best. Dave

The correlation is to the massive heat rising up from seafloor volcanoes. Fake experts fail to notice the true correlation because they're programmed to point the blame on CO2 www.google.com/search?q=gakkel+ridge+volcanoes+heat+temperatures&rlz=1CAPPDO_enUS819&oq=gakke&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59j0l3.2708j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Nope. Ice melt is correlated to the steaming hot bullshit expounded by @@WhirledPublishing.

Everything. Two years is rarely a correlation. The ice has been melting for DECADES. Human emitted CO2 has been increasing for DECADES. Back to statistics class for you Steve.

​@@alexjackson1863 Let's see if I'm understanding you: You haven't been monitoring glacial melt for nearly 20 years - like I have, you haven't tracked it back over 600 years using historic documents, translated from over a dozen languages - like I have, you haven't studied chemistry and physics for decades - like I have, you haven't studied geological formations, cataclysms and wave propagation for decades - like I have... You're unaware of the 8,000 glacial lakes that suddenly appeared on the West Antarctic ice sheet, and you don't know why the thousands of glacial lakes appeared, you haven't tracked the activity of the Antarctic eruptions, going back over 300 years like I have, you haven't compiled dozens and dozens of reports on the glacial melt - like I have, you haven't compiled numerous videos that verify the rapid melting - like I have, you're not a Doctoral Scholar like I am, you haven't served as an expert witness for the court judges like I have, you're not a member of an international research group like I am - but your one great accomplishment in life is deluding yourself into imagining that you're in a position to launch an attempt at an insult in my direction - have I got that right or did I leave something out? Yes, of course, I left out the part where I've studied the reports on the Antarctic ice in the captain's logs going back hundreds of years, I've studied the reports on the early Antarctic expeditions going back over 100 years ago, I've studied the reports on the Magellan Strait, Drake Passage, the Eltanin cataclysm, etc. Those that believe the lies and lunacy from the fake experts that are propped up by the billionaires to intentionally mislead the public are the ones blowing hot air - the public is lied to about the timeline for the Antarctic mountains, the Antarctic glaciers, the Antarctic ice shelves and the eruptions of the Antarctic volcanoes - those that are satisfied with their "lab results" and their idiotic theories are free to go back to what you were doing - you can forget I mentioned it.

@@WhirledPublishing , I took your comment as a joke. So let me get your assertion correct. You assert that the current warming on Earth is due to undersea volcanoes? And you are trying to assert this based on your time "studying" and your "credentials"? Just take a moment from your unbelievable arrogance and think about the tens of thousands of real scientists who are much more qualified than you, with much more experience than you with hard scientific evidence that have a different theory to you (not an hypothesis like yours - you would understand the difference - sarcasm). If you have got repeatable, reliable scientific evidence to support your hypothesis then write a scientific paper, get it reviewed and get it published in a scientific journal. Then you can reference it when trolling on YT. Oh, and for the record, the dribble you have on your channel is NOT scientific evidence. As the saying goes, 'either put up, or shut up". Also, for the record I am 55 and have been studying human affects on Earth since I was 23. That calculates to 32 years. I also have a postgraduate education. Furthermore, if you think the current billionaires want to promote climate change and therefore have to change their current business models which are currently earning them billions of dollars, then Sir, you are clueless about humanity.

Michael Sanchez these fact you site are exactly why I started doubting AGW.i learned what you state form a program on tv about a new replacement facility being built at the South Pole. This didn’t seem to correlate with what I was hearing and reading from the media.about polar ice disappearing. That’s when I starting researching this matter and the research brought me to conclude there’s really nothing serious or dire going on here. Sure the models predicts their should be, but the actual temperature data doesn’t indicate that. Unless of course you believe the last El Niño being 0.01 degrees centigrade higher than the 1997 El Niño means we’re all going to burn to death soon.

yea its the solar cycles seem to be control our climate more than any other factor

@@roberthogue4888 Not burn, starve.

Robert Hogue It hasn’t happened yet. It will happen though but my suffering will not be as bad as the constant lecturing. Hopefully 600 meters of water will knock out the internet first.

The station has recently been moved because the Brunt ice shelf is cracking off.

Paul is a liar he even makes up words that not science thats fear mongering sad for you ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php nothing wrong with the Arctic nothing wrong with Greenland polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ these are facts based in facts no fear or blame on anyone sad antihumans

Hi Richard. Thanks for your feedback. Very much appreciated. I will keep going with programmes each week, which I hope will be informative and useful. All the best. Dave

michael beck Paul Beckwith is not a liar, he is a very fine educator. Baseless slander mongering. Satellite images reveal the steady decrease in sea ice.

Maybe. Is easy enough to check from the nsidc.org data. Even if it was, though, it wouldn't be massively out of the norm, and it wouldn't mean anything to the long-term trend of decline. That signal is clear, impressive, and hugely significant.

Emperor - you may be thinking about the land based ice sheet? That's coming up in this Sunday's programme.

Did you not watch the video the old ice is gone which is the thickest

There is new ice growth but it is worthless because it is thinner and just melts

Not from what I've seen. woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n It looks like it grew 1.7 million square km in January . I see a lot of months when over 2 million square km.

If you make your starting date 1979 a record cold year in Iceland then your graph will show rapid warming.

@@skydivekrazy76 Do you know nothing about Arctic Amplification? It's been changing dramatically on a scale of years since the late 80's/early 90's; not thousands of years lol. Save the ad hominem attacks for when ur actually right about something ya dingus.

It sure looks like a blue ocean event is gonna happen this decade.

his upbeat demeanour causes you to believe this is clear, consise and "FACTUAL" like all the facts are presented... Man propaganda is so easily pushed onto the masses via social media and lazy recipients. MY God... this is sad.

What facts in the video did you have a problem with and why ?

@@biggav7434 ....actual IMPORTANT factors/facts/influential items he FAILS to mention... all being natural in the universe, that truly affect out globe/environment to a high degree but where idiots make believe it is man made issues. For instance, I posted a link here in this thread to a video that does explain more/most but still not all. You can find the link in a post of mine in this thread as a reply to an idiot or two.

Louix, the world IS ending, it's already underway. Checkout the floods in Idaho, Nebraska. In Australia we have 2 powerful cyclones hitting the coast this weekend. The true retards are those that can't see the obvious.

@@skydivekrazy76 You state: "Is the climate changing? Yes, just as it has for 4 BILLION years." WOW - that's amazing. None the climate scientist would know that the climate has changed before would they! No, no no, they would have no idea that the climate has changed before. Do you really believe that the worlds climate scientists don't now that the climate has changed before. Really??? Just maybe they have studied previous climate changes. Maybe the have more understanding of the natural drivers than you! Maybe they know that right now, the natural drivers should be COOLING the planet slowly!!! But we are warming fast! But if you know more than them, then please publish your evidence that this warming is natural. Make sure you show what natural driver is causing the upper atmosphere to cool whilst the lower warms - hint: it is a signature of the enhanced greenhouse effect! BTW - Its role not roll.

Your post makes no sense. Do you want to try again in English?

1930s was hotter than average only in the USA. During the same time it was colder than ave here in Australia. The global temperature in the 1930s were significantly lower than today. 1970s was colder because of all the sulphate and nitrate aerosol pollution from burning coal. these aerosols reflect solar radiation back out into space but also dissolve in water to create acid rain. by late 70s governments around the world mandated coal fired power stations remove the aerosols. this is why the 80s saw a huge spike in global temperatures because the cooling effects of the aerosols were no longer there.

sigh only the USA has had for most of last century had good amount of temperature stations most countries had none or little, there is simply little to no data to back up your claim, and the 1970s dip was causes by the sun spots being the lowest they had been in that century aka it was the sun that caused it, everytime there has been low or no solar sunspots its has been cold on Earth.

Look around, there is Not only USA and Australia! In Europe It was also signifikantly warmer in the 30s. And today we have probably more coal burning Even without Filter if you think of China and india.

yea seems like weather this year and last its opposite usa/euro cold aust warm >_>

@@walther7147 1930 were not significantly warmer in Australia. Infact it was colder than the 1910s & 1920s. www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a004-sep-2012-aug-2013-temperature.shtml

Real Science; #1 It is not as warm in this 50,000 year inter-glacial period as some in the past before humans. #2 The Co2 is only about 410 PPM and it at it's known height was 4,000 PPM. 100 times higher. #3 Most of the earths inter-glacial periods melted all earth ice in the oceans during summers. #4 The last two 50,000 Year Warming Peaks were warmer than this current one. #5 Earth Temperature Records have been recorded in the ice core samples taken by humans. This means the human records go back millions and millions of years. It is dishonest to imply humans only have started taking records in recent history. If humans take ice cores from millions of years ago, then records have been made for millions of years. #6 The 50,000 year warming cycle ended around 1998 to 2000 and the current energy is bleeding off for thousands of years and it is possible for the ice to melt off naturally(as it did many times in the past before humans were on earth). Though a 50,000 year glacial period is already started because the earth has passed the closest point it gets to the sun and as you read this, it is moving away from the sun. #6 If anyone looks at all the scientific data from the last several billions of years, they will see the planet is overall cooling. This is why the 50,000 year warming peaks will get progressively weaker. #7 NEVER in the past has the Co2 stopped the earth from cooling back into an ice age over the 50,000 year glacial period cycles. Not even when the Co2 was 1,000 PPM and it is only a measly 410 PPM. #8 If you take the top 4,000 PPM and estimate an average from the known low of 250 PPM during World War II, the current 400+ PPM of Co2 is considered low for earth. LOW, not HIGH. Recap; A. The Co2 is low, not high for 400+ PPM B. This warming is weaker than in the past 50,000 year warming cycles. C. Co2 does not stop the 50,000 year glacial cycles. D. The warming over the last 250 years is part of the 50,000 year inter-glacial cycle. E. No, it is not a threat, it is 100% natural and remember it is weaker. F. Satellite Data does not show the billions of years of KNOWN data on climate cycles. G. The 50,000 year warming cycle ended about 20 year ago. H. A 50,000 year glacial cycle is starting and this is why the earth is experiencing the shifts. I. There could be up to 8,000 years of energy built up in the earth that needs to bleed off. J. The Oceans will not rise from sea ice melting because it is already in the ocean. That glass could be filled with ice and then top it off with water and if all that ice melts, the water will not rise. That is known scientific fact. K. The current climate conditions are not out of the ordinary for a 50,000 year inter-glacial period, at the peak of a warming period, for earth. There have been millions and millions of them that were warmer than this and the Co2 was higher than this. L. The ice sheet was over a mile thick and covered most of Canada and some of the North East states of the USA, back 45,000 years ago. Where is it now? It has been warming for the last 50,000 years,not just 250 as the Science Deniers claim. This is how Real Science is Presented. The video is Cult Religion SKYence teaching. Science Deniers are dishonest and disgusting. Their followers are sad people set up for disappointment.

you mean propagandizes like he does? You are so gullible to think this is correct and all facts? OMG.

@@enerzise3161 Stop making so much sense.. the CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING Chicken Little Sky is Falling fear mongering types may cry from your posts. Millennial types and brainwashed youth cannot take such facts due to their MAL-education and chronic brainwashing of fake science and pure adulteration of science and facts and REASONING ability over the past 30 yrs concerning this POLITICAL POWER GRAB matter. No telling them otherwise, otherwise they will call you a Fox News Watching Liar... LOL. Stop trying to cure their purely emotional knee jerk sponge brain reactions as this is THEIR religion.. Pure evil intent pushing it through their little brains. Oh, for #6, do not forget the Canada to Siberia crust temperature rise and massive magma flow toward Siberia which causes the degree Celsius dense water buffer layer (stable) to become heated/destabilized, and with currents/upward warm water flow causing ice cap melt being more extensive in summer in Arctic. It does have a massive causative effect.

Hi Michael. Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. The footage is from a BBC documentary that you can watch on You Tube at this link kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rqt2aZl4t8vHgZs.html

I presume you're an avid reader of realclimatescience/Tony Heller. He clearly and obviously cherry-picks and distorts the data. It is so obvious, it is laughable. If anyone is "making stuff up to fit a narrative", it's Tony. The actual data (all of it, not a couple of cherry-picked examples) definitely does not show what you claim. At all.

web.archive.org/web/20100707124649/www.globalcoral.org/LONG%20TERM%20ARCTIC%20ICE%20TRENDS%20AND%20GLOBAL%20WARMING.1.pdf

coleorum yes...the good old 70's, when scientists was expecting a new ice age and concidered to spray ash on the arctic ice to try and slow the ice growth? You cannot use this data for prooving anyting, climatic cycles are slow and span over thousands of years. So your link only proves my point to some degree.

@@tanfoglio1 In the 1970's science was 6:1 warming:cooling. The MSM got it really wrong. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

@@jacdale BS, 1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970) 1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970) 1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970) 1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970) 1970 - Pollution’s 2-way ‘Freeze’ On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970) 1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970) 1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970) 1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970) 1970 - Dirt Will .Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970) 1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, February 17, 1971 1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971) 1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971) 1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It’s Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971) 1971 - Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971) 1971 - Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971) 1972 - Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972) 1972 - Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972) 1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972) 1972 - British expert on Climate Change says Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972) 1972 - Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ‎September 11, 1972‎) 1972 - New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972) 1972 - Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972) 1972 - Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ‎September 12, 1972‎) 1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972) 1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972) 1972 - Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972) 1973 - The Ice Age Cometh (The Saturday Review, March 24, 1973) 1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)

@@sumhavefun What aprt of "The MSM got it really wrong." do you not understand? The MSM got it really wrong.

You ever wonder how much energy is lost to space through reduced ice cover in winter ?

@@robertgallacher7214 Heat is transferring through the ice presently, it's so thin it conducts and unfortunately fresher water is at the surface so melts it from below, so, the water isn't getting cold enough to freeze saltwater at -2C/28.4F, melting is going on all year now, big change. On earth.nullschool.net ... the pale orange is thin ice, black is freezing, the thin extent is huge; earth.nullschool.net/#2018/11/13/0600Z/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-168.54,82.33,832

With respect to climate science, climate scientists *are* the "real" scientists. That said, there are plenty of "real" non-climate scientists who partially to fully agree with the climate science as presented by said climate scientists. Somehow, I don't think you're being very genuine in your arguments, but.. *shrug*

@@ArchaeanDragon Climate scientists are very good at data manipulation because their paycheck totally depends on keeping the lie alive.

@@johnrooney1425The exact opposite is true. Their paycheck depends on them being as intellectually honest, accurate, and thorough as they can be. Unless they work for conservative thinktanks or the petroleum industry (after working in the tobacco industry). Then their paycheck doesn't depend on anything other than rubberstamping thoroughly-debunked dogma.

@@ArchaeanDragon I believe you are being naive. How many "climate scientists" would receive grant funding studying solar forcing models which could go against the current CO2 climate forcing holy grail? NONE!! They all know this very simple fact so they don"t try because the game is rigged by IPCC and all the BIllions of research dollars. Can you honestly state that current research knows all the solar radiation effects on our planet thermal cycle? Realize that only 0.01 % increase or decrease in total solar radiation would invalidate any climate model. The sun's energy and ALL frequencies of energy transport to the earth is still not fully understood even though all the energy comes from the sun for heating/cooling "climate change". Yet, "climate scientists" state that CO2 is the ONLY reason for any "climate change". Any thinking person realizes this is total nonsense to ignore the lack of understanding of solar forcing for ALL frequencies (x-ray, gamma, etc etc) and then tell everyone to spend Trillions of dollars per year (which most proposals will ultimately cost) says only CO2 levels are to blame for climate change and the solar minimum/maximum have nothing to do with perceived global warming. UV solar forcing used by "climate scientists" is a total joke and shows just how biased the IPPC in ALL climate models. They do not even try to use ionospheric plasma coupling or many other methods of none UV solar radiation/earth energy coupling. A total joke of lazy stupid idiots telling the world how to run things.

@@johnrooney1425 >I believe you are being naive. Am I? Well, let's see.. >How many "climate scientists" would receive grant funding studying solar forcing models which could go against the current CO2 climate forcing holy grail? NONE!! The fact is, solar forcing models HAVE been studied, to death. Every climate model worth its salt is tested against all kinds of forcings, including solar. If there was any one which showed a significant correlation signal, we'd know about it. More importantly, those studying it would get all the funding they needed to do so. >They all know this very simple fact so they don"t try because the game is rigged by IPCC and all the BIllions of research dollars. The IPCC has no control over any funding whatsoever. That is controlled by national governments and both public and private institutions. You seem to have a misunderstanding as to how science works. People don't get grants and research dollars for rediscovering the same thing over and over again. They get money for things that upset the applecart of the norm. Yes, I know it doesn't always work out that way, but most of the time, human behavior and capacity for screwing up being what it is, the incidence of its effects in the pursuit of science shows it has the least effect overall. If someone comes along and publishes research which shows that current climate science has it all wrong, and their explanation of the evidence is provably better than what currently exists, they'd be lauded. Nobel Prize material. It may take years or even decades for it to be thoroughly reviewed and tested to the same degree as current theories, but that's what should and does happen. >Can you honestly state that current research knows all the solar radiation effects on our planet thermal cycle? ALL of it? No. Science never assumes it knows ALL of anything. That's what makes the scientific method so powerful. People (scientists) can go back to review things that were previously researched and find new evidence and postulate different or even better theories that fit ALL of the evidence better. They can also improve the methodologies as technology to do so advances, improving the quality and accuracy of the data. There are Nobel Prizes and grants a-plenty for ANY scientist who comes up with better research and explanations for how the world works. That said, the question then becomes "Do we know it well enough?". You (and others) argue that we don't. The thing is, radiation and its effects has been researched by thousands upon thousands of scientists for hundreds of years. I think that we know it well enough to make useful and accurate measurements and postulate theories about its effects upon the natural world, even on the grand scale of the entire planet's energy budget. Is it going to be accurate down to the 20 9s degree? No, but it doesn't have to be, because that level of accuracy isn't necessary to make useful models and predictions. >Realize that only 0.01 % increase or decrease in total solar radiation would invalidate any climate model. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The 11-year solar cycle causes TSI to vary by 0.1% by itself, and variations in Milankovich cycles can be up to 25% locally over long periods, though global averages are much smaller. Climate models are /specifically designed/ to take into account TSI and observed variations in it, but even the real data doesn't show a correlation signal for values less than what the solar cycle causes for its length. TSI has been measured for decades now, and there is no evidence that it is increasing sufficiently to be a significant contributor to climate change. However, if you have some evidence to the contrary (that you actually understand which is relevant, and not cherry-picked garbage from denier blogs), please do share it. >The sun's energy and ALL frequencies of energy transport to the earth is still not fully understood even though all the energy comes from the sun for heating/cooling "climate change". Nothing is ever "fully" (read: absolutely, 100%) understood. The question is whether or not it is understood "well enough". The research is showing, after many decades now, that is indeed the case. >Yet, "climate scientists" state that CO2 is the ONLY reason for any "climate change". No they don't. They say that GHG (not just CO2, btw) emissions from human activity are the *most likely* cause of the current shift to warmer temperatures. Literally thousands of lines of evidence seem to back it up. No other explanation that has been tested has shown anywhere near as strong a correlation as CO2 and other GHGs. You can't just hand-wave it all away, unless you have some SERIOUS evidence or testable hypothesis to back it up, and you don't. >Any thinking person realizes this is total nonsense to ignore the lack of understanding of solar forcing for ALL frequencies (x-ray, gamma, etc etc) Yet, they *HAVE* been studied, REPEATEDLY. Their effects are understood well enough to know what their effect is on a warming atmosphere. The vast majority of the Earth's heat budget comes from a very small part of the EM spectrum, specifically in the UV and infrared regions. They absolutely dwarf other sources by many orders of magnitude. Variances in those other sources are far too small to contribute significantly to the observed warming. It's a simple matter of physics. >and then tell everyone to spend Trillions of dollars per year (which most proposals will ultimately cost) says only CO2 levels are to blame for climate change Again, NO ONE says CO2 is the "only" source of global warming. It *IS* the most significant contributor, and GHG increases contribute to the vast majority of it. It is the single most effective one we can address, too. Sure, it will cost a lot, but it will also create jobs, contribute to the economy, and we're going to have to do it eventually anyway, because fossil fuels WILL be used up at some point. Might as well get started now, EVEN IF climate change from global warming is all a hoax, as you and other deniers claim, we'll have created a better world for "nothing". >and the solar minimum/maximum have nothing to do with perceived global warming. Solar output has been in minima for quite a number of years now, and solar cycles have been measured for decades. Highs and lows. Yet, the signal shows a consistent and increasing rise in temperature. Variance in solar activity isn't the primary driver of climate change. Period. >UV solar forcing used by "climate scientists" is a total joke and shows just how biased the IPPC in ALL climate models. They do not even try to use ionospheric plasma coupling or many other methods of UV solar radiation/earth energy coupling. Looks pretty well-researched to me: www.hindawi.com/journals/ijge/2011/971302/ - Electrodynamical Coupling of Earth's Atmosphere and Ionosphere: An Overview citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.501.8452&rep=rep1&type=pdf - Coupling from below as a sourceof ionospheric variability: a review agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JA018018 - The global thermospheric and ionospheric response to the 2008 minor sudden stratospheric warming event agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JA022971 - Ionospheric ion temperature climate and upper atmospheric long-term cooling www.researchgate.net/publication/252326619_Coupling_of_a_Global_Ionosphere-Plasmasphere_Module_to_an_Extended_Global_Atmosphere_Model - Coupling of a Global Ionosphere-Plasmasphere Module to an Extended Global Atmosphere Model ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/RoR_WWW/workshops/2002/presentations/Burns.pdf - Coupling between the thermosphere and the ionosphere and with other regions There's plenty more where those came from, too. I severely doubt you have enough experience or knowledge of the subject on your own for your comments to be a real critique, so I imagine you creatively "borrowed" your opinion from some denier blog, yes? >A total joke of lazy stupid idiots telling the world how to run things. No scientist is "telling the world how to run things". Scientists are telling the world what is going on and why, and what will likely come to pass on our current course. They might make suggestions about what to do about it when asked, but they certainly aren't "telling" us how to run things. That's the government and corporations. You know, the ones with power and money.. and plenty of corruption to go along with it. If scientists had the power you ascribe to them, we'd already be well on the path to a future with minimal impact from climate change. Sounds great to me; maybe we should put them in charge!

OwlNation Legal m

Well Veronica as long as you've got a couple of cases of wine before it goes to $500 a bottle, you can keep the mood a little more cheerful at your place. Don't forget a couple of solar panels on the roof and a small air conditioning unit in the window can keep at least one room cool while it's 120 to 130 degrees Fahrenheit outside. You'll become the hit of the neighborhood with that rig. Add wine, and ice maker, perhaps a water filter, since that infrastructure will likely collapse also and you'll be a lot more than a party. It'll be like a damn hospital triage unit with booze. How cool is that?

Well I spent 20 years buying Beachside homes in Southern California, and finally threw it all away to move into a school bus and travel the coast, then made the transition to a sailboat at anchor where I make all my own power, as much water as I want, and I'm building my little garden onboard. It'll be enough food for me and I highly recommend everybody follows that pass. You can get a sailboat big enough for a family of 5 for a couple hundred bucks at any Marine Harbor lien sale auction. If you're on the west coast there's a magazine called Latitude 38, but anyone near a coastline can make a list of 20-50 Harbors, call each one and ask when their next lien sale will be. Go there with $500 in your pocket and someone who knows how to sail, walk away with a home that will last you for the rest of your life. Make sure it has good rigging and sales and a Rudder. You can always fix the engine and the electrical components later. Slap an outboard on the back and Away you go. Stock it with a year or two of food, build a water maker or two that works entirely off solar, then put the rest of your money into small solar panels and eventually larger ones and a small wind generator rig with some spare brushes and bearings. That will give you power for the next 10 to 20 years. And when temperatures go off the charts you can take your new home down to the southern hemisphere where you'll be close to the last ice on Earth that exist, and unlike your Northern Hemisphere Neighbors, you won't boil your brains out on a lazy summer day.

nut case.

I have yet to meet an American, rich or poor, in Congress or wishing to hang them all, who are NOT a "nut case", MOST of them tortured daily by the FACT a child moleater is in the White House. It even drives Republican politicians crazy they have to bow to that psychotic nut knowing if they blow him out 28% of Americans are so crazy they'll attack such a Republican for showing up with balls and brains. A man with ethics and balls would say "Ya know, we probably don't want a child molester President" but they don't exist and the Libtards lack nuts as well. The only people with balls are chasing AOC, who is the best/smartest bullwhip tongue in Congress and Americans are pouring their hope and prayer faith she can make a dent in that dysfunctional org.

and it is sea ice...floating. No big deal.

So as to fit his propaganda my friend.

Simple. Satellite observations became available. Before that it was best guess. However, you must also consider that it was the end of a bottom of a Cooling period going back to the mid 1930 period of high temperatures. So 1979 would have been peak ice from the cooling in the temperature decline from high of heat of the 1930's to the bottom of cold in the 1970's. But his record simply is from the bottom to the next peak in about 2010.

@@starleyshelton2245 can I ask what source says 1979 was peak-ice in the Arctic? The data I've found disagrees. nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

@@bigJovialJon I notice the graph before 1979 of samples of ice thickness is folded into satellite measurements. That is a no no. Before 1979 was a sample. After 1979 is complete of the entire region. That is like saying the Dow is the entire economy when it is really just a small sample of a few select companies. I am talking a peak of increasing ice reversing to a period of warming and decreasing ice. The Cycle appears to reach each apex of cold or warm about every 35 to 40 years. The warming since the late 1970's and accompanying decrease in sea ice seems not just natural but predictable. Your link appear to agree with me. Ice was at max around the 1970's. Measurements used after 1979 are satellites and pretty much complete and show decrease from the peak of the 1970's as cooling reversed to increased warming. Even the measurement before that of which are averages of samples and not of the entire arctic show increased freezing into the 1970's with decline after a low temperature period ended and heads into a natural warming.

@@starleyshelton2245 who says mixing data from different sources is a "no no"? Do you have any expertise in data analysis? As some who gets paid to work with data from non-homogeneous sources, it happens every day all over the world. It's complicated, and you need to document your assumptions and decisions, but it's an essential cornerstone of science. I disagree with your claim that 1970 (1969?) and 1979 are essentially the same when you are talking about 1930 to 1979. More importantly, you still haven't cited any evidence to back up you claim that Arctic ice levels in the 1930s we're similar to today. Here's more evidence that says otherwise media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v479/n7374/extref/nature10581-s1.pdf From this paper: www.nature.com/articles/nature10581 If you can cite some better sources, I would love to see them.

He's just another propagandist to be debunked by Tony Heller.

@@damienpol5215 HOW TONY HELLER, CLIMATE SCAM ARTIST, FOOLS YOU: HIS JUNK SCIENCE: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aLB7dNOc3rKxgps.html ON ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE CAUSING WARMING kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jM2jkruqlcXGo3U.html IT WAS HOTTER IN THE 1930S kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kKuVgNKjmK_Og5s.html ON NASA AND NOAA FUDGING DATA climatefeedback.org/claimreview/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/ TEMP LEADS C02/MILANKOVITCH CYCLES kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jbKanq-B06-0gKs.html NASA TIME LAPSE VIDEO OF ARCTIC ICE kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p651Y9FmyJyRZps.html HOW HE MISREPRESENTS GRAPHS tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/#comments kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jJuWocahuM_Pp58.html

@@damienpol5215 MELTING ICE SHEETS kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ntKGi7J0m8eXfXk.html landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/antarctica-losing-six-times-more-ice-mass-annually-now-than-40-years-ago/ www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7556 www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/08/glaciers-melting-ice-melts-due-global-warming-sea-levels-rise/3405569002/

Loool

Probably true as the underlying ice would pull some heat away from surface ice.

When I look at the 30 year trend from DMI, it says we are well below average. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php If you are referring to their ice thickness model, it only goes back to 2004 (less than 30 years ago).

No. Solar output varies too little. Even in the deeepest maunder minimum, solar output varies by no more than 1/400th, or 0.025%.

Donald McCarthy Just asking. No need for abuse! Why don’t you go back to digging your doomsday bunker asshole!!

proudhon100 . Thanks for the reply mate 👍

Oh, it most definitely is the sun as the ultimate cause of warming, but I don't think that is what you are asking. Is there some variance in the sun that is a significant cause of the current warming? No. It's been studied for decades, and there is no correlation with solar output and the current situation of climate change due to global warming of any significance.

@@ArchaeanDragon Cheers mate. Looking at both sides of the argument before form an opinion.

Google "sub-rust magma movement" tell me that this is a likely candidate for the reason that Flat Earth is real. It's a free country and you are allowed to believe what you want to. However when it comes to LIFE or DEATH scenario's that are being played out right now, Your "honesty and Intelligence" are questionable. I will NOT comment further on your moral dilemma. Will full ignorance is a trait to be ignored at my own peril. Wake up and get ready

@@-LightningRod- Sorry I caused pain to your pea-brain... I typed so fast the "C" was left out....OK with you spellchecker idiot?...oh what will dupes like you do when you realize (or admit) to the false, incomplete and "directed" "Models" used by bogu$ climate change $cientists. Now go do some homework. And realize this MMGW shit and now MMCC shit is just long term globalist political types using this to fool the masses and cause control of them through subjugation. Money and research money with pre-set directives/goal are not only corrupt, but an evil errand. Paid-for scientists doing such are evil... and not scientific. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hL-fgsaS1qneqKM.html

@@yousurf374 What are you going on about ? It's pretty obvious to anyone of at least average intelligence that all the lying scientists and evil money are part of the fossil fuel industry. Let me guess, you're a christian and you love Trump ?

@@3rdrock no... THE LYING scientists leave out x-rays, sun effects are attributed to man and also leave out cosmic effects on the Earths Core and more. I have been telling fools all this shit for over a decade or two... now THE LINK I provided spells it out quite well for you idiots who LOVE fake MMGW junk-science and does it much better than I would waste time on your ilk... BUT he still does leave out two major aspects of natural long-cycle and short event causation. Too deep for sheeple like you. Now go subjugate yourself to God Obama... LOL

@World Coming Down 5778 do not worry... we shall survive... short of a massive asteroid strike.

Sorry, maybe you should try this yourself-not going to work like you say. Floating ice will not effect the water level in the glass. Only if tge ice is anchored to land and rises above the water level will sea level rise....guess what? Arctic is a floater. It could dissapear- water level. Will stay the same.

@@69yahwhatever L.O.L. S/he is talking about the change in temperature, not the level of the water!

@@Nhoj737 ice requires 340btu/lb to change state from ice to water.this is not news, self evident. I did miss the context ...but so did she. If its floating ice its irrelevant, its also irrelevant as noone knows what is normal in the Arctic. In the 1970's nasa thought we were going into an ice age because thr ice in the arctic eas too large(

@@69yahwhatever "In the 1970's nasa thought we were going into an ice age because thr ice in the arctic eas too large". You have a reference, not just an assertion?

@@Nhoj737 skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

There was an Italian cruise ship Costa Concordia that hit rocks not supposed to be there because they wanted romantic scenery for Italian crooning. It sank. Never rely on Italians. Norwegians I'm not sure.Scottish is best, if it's no Scottish it's crap.

Note: I shared this something ‘new to me’ with my middle aged daughter knew all about it already. She’d learned about latent heat of fusion during her freshman year in high school. She admitted, though, that she hadn’t thought about it in relation to climate change. Thus, she says that she appreciates your sensible approach to bringing scientific knowledge to bear on the subject of climate change.

Hi Sam. Yep. I think you nailed it. Thanks for your feedback, and I'm delighted to also hear feedback from your daughter too. The generation who are in school right now are the ones I worry about most though. They have a world of challenge ahead of them, and none of it is their fault. I don't blame them for being angry at us!

Hi Giancarlo. Thanks for your feedback. I haven't noticed the quarrelling to be honest. I don't actually bother to read the comments from the industry sponsored deniers. They are pointless, and I haven't got the time or the interest. I hope you continue to enjoy the videos anyway. All the best. Dave

@@JustHaveaThink , I thought it could help to warn people that are tempted by these useless arguments and then get "sucked" by them. It happened to me so many times ... until I learned (I hope). You bet I will enjoy all of your videos!! Keep up with your remarkable job.

ehh...going to sleep permanently very soon after...

When I look at the ice volume graph, the first thing that I notice is that it has been below average almost all of the several years, and the ice extent graph has been below two standard deviations almost all of the last several years. Neither of these are good. The latter is like your kid's teacher saying, "If they work *really hard* the could get get their grade up to a D." The DMI's trend graph makes it pretty clear that we are well below historical values. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

Hi Linda. Thanks for your feedback. Very much appreciated. Welcome to the channel and many thanks for subscribing. All the best. Dave

Hi Timmy. Your hands on experience chimes quite well with the conclusions in the report I looked at last week from the Institute of Public Policy Research here in the UK. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j7B3obxyz7ucf40.html Not a very optimistic picture for insects I'm afraid. And of course that has the inevitable knock-on effect for all species, including us.

Same here in North America. I’m surrounded by farm fields, but have not seen any butterflies. Just a few years ago I had to scrape dead bugs of my truck windows. Not any longer. Hate to think what it will be like in ten more years.

Yearly variation is not telling us much. The overall trend of the last 50 years is pretty clear.