Record lows and higher rainful in Adelaide.

arctic ice is going fast and then the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane has an "abrupt eruption" in the world's largest ocean shelf - into the atmosphere.

This is the answer i believe you are looking for-take 1 gram of 🧊 at 32 degrees and introduce 334 joules of energy to it and presto you have 32 degree water. now take that same 1 gram of water and introduce another 334 joules of energy and wala 174 degree water. its Physics.

He talks about nuclear waste but has he ever mined uranium? "we can't expect" hahah. Does he have a Two-Headed depleted uranium baby? Must be nice to "wax nostalgic" about nuclear waste.

Did you actually read the story? It's explained

@@TELEVISIONARCHIVES it’s the TITLE I have issue with!

@@CutandShoot5x5 Again, It's Explained how they got that number if you read it.

Lies lies lies that's all they no how to do they call it brainwashing!!!

They get $$$$$$ for lying to people. Shouod be audits of the producers' accounts to see who paid them to spew out these complete lies.

You mean Joseph Fourier made kool-aid in 1824? Because that's when industrial caused global warming was first published. haha. You're just two hundred years behind on the science - so who has been drinking the kool-aid?

Yep, Jeff climate change Berardelli is lecturing us.

You'd only get about 100 watts in an hour. haha. "a small optional solar panel embedded in the vehicle’s rear spoiler. In this case, the array was only designed to keep the vehicle’s 12-volt battery topped up without needing to draw from the big traction battery that runs the hybrid system." Yeah I have a bicycle hooked up to a treadmill DC motor as a generator - it's about the same power. A few amps at most. "The Hyundai Ioniq 5 is another vehicle that comes with an available solar charging option, which the manufacturer says can add 3 miles (5 km) of free range each day. This may not sound significant, but it can add up to nearly 1,240 miles (2,000 km) over the course of one year."

I've always dreamt of solar efficiency getting to that point but it's far far off. If you absolutely covered the hood, roof, and trunk of a standard sedan with high efficiency solar panels, you'd probably get around 700-1k advertised watts, which isn't the real output, so let's pretend 500 watts of charge an hour. The average EV battery is 40kwh (40000 watt hours), so I suppose a full charge from zero would (through my very basic math) take 80 hours, and you only get about 6 hours of full blown sunlight a day on average, so it would take just about 2 weeks to charge your EV. I have about 200w of solar panels on my kayak, and it charges my big lifepo4 battery quite well, and I can zoom around all day with a trolling motor, with the charge I get in about a day, but that's a different story.

Close enough though like sundials. Also there are other ways to assess temperature like tree rings and insect reproduction rates.

@@woodliceworm4565tree rings won’t do much when we know just as much as gorillas know what the weather was before Noah’s flood or as the heathens call it the ice age 😂❤

Oh repeating the Big Oil propaganda! haha. "I'm happy to answer questions, though you should keep in mind that my 26-year-old Greenland work has been superseded by more-recent studies, especially for the Holocene (the last 11,000 years), and in particular by the studies that combine records from a half-dozen ice cores in central and northern Greenland. These studies were lead by the Copenhagen glaciology group, and you can find them on Google Scholar. Bo Vinther was one of the main authors. I read quickly through the "carbonbrief" article to which you linked, and it seems accurate to me. If you read that carefully, it should answer the main questions you have. Having said that, my direct responses RE my study published in 1997 (and its predecessor in 1995): 1. Those studies were primarily designed to examine the glacial to Holocene transition (20--10 kyr ago), and they are *not* the best way to address the issue of recent warming and its millennial context. They captured the start of the current warming but were not designed or capable of resolving it well. And even if they did, it's just for one location in central Greenland. Using one location is a valid approach if examining very long-timescale changes (e.g., the 20--10 kyr transition) but not at all a good idea for decadal-scale changes. The noise at the short timescale requires that you average a group of sites spanning a region. "Noise" means both failures of the proxy record to record climatic temperature accurately, and real climatological / meteorological variability that arises strongly from atmospheric dynamical patterns. 2. In the context of (1), the questions you raise about how accumulation and isotope calibrations are treated in different studies is irrelevant to your concern. Those are minor issues. 3. The entire approach of comparing recent observed warming to past variability *for the purpose of inferring mechanism* is fundamentally a weak argument because the timescale is too short to reconstruct past variability well or, more importantly, to reconstruct the climate forcings well. This argument will become stronger as warming proceeds. 4. Following from (3), the reason we know the recent warming is due to changes of the atmospheric greenhouse is that we can measure the effects on the radiative balance of the planet and compare it to uptake of energy by the planet (primarily manifest as ocean warming) and to other forcings such as solar intensity. Here's an analogy: you are sitting in your house on a cold evening. You pull a thick blanket over yourself and start to feel warmer. Why do you feel warmer? Was it the blanket trapping heat (yes, at least in part, it must be)? Was it your furnace working harder? Was it a sunbeam coming through a window? There are only a limited number of options, and you can know about the role of all of them. In this case, greenhouse gases are the blanket. The sun is your furnace, etc. 5. Following from (4), the evidence is overwhelming that most of the warming of Earth since 1980 has been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the feedbacks associated with warming. The warming from 1850 to 1950, however, contains a "natural variability" signal in addition to an anthropogenic signal, and this natural component can be regarded as the "end of the Little Ice Age," and it was partly solar and partly volcanic. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to give a confident and fairly precise statement about how much of this earlier warming was anthropogenic vs. natural (most of the warming occurred between 1910 and 1950, as I recall), but there are strong arguments that it was at least half anthropogenic. The problem is we will never be able to head backward in time and launch some satellites to get the measurements needed. Best wishes, Kurt Cuffey ................................................................................................................... Kurt M. Cuffey Professor, Department of Geography, University of California Mail: 507 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720-4740

I hate to be the adult here, but scientists use various sophisticated techniques to measure Paleo Climate temperatures. Just Google it, read it, educate yourself, do yourself a favour. Facts matter.

yes tree rings are very useful as well as ice cores. And the measurement of these at different places around the world.

Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) ----------- Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr". Time to grow up people - industrial CO2 induced abrupt global warming was first analyzed in detail in 1890 by Svante Arrhenius! Current CO2 levels are already well above anything in the past 3 million years! There's already over 400 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans accumulated since 1995. The Arctic will soon be ice-free with 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption" - just a 5 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth. Well Joseph Fourier realized, two hundred years ago, that "increased industrial activity" would heat up Earth more - from "dark heat" - aka infraradiation. Yeah there was IceBall Earth probably a couple times - good point there! hahaha.

Ice age probably

@@benjaminreyes3624 Since we've been recording temps...is what they mean...for both the hottest and coldest average global day.

The idea is not to look at particular days, lol.

@@myoung48281 We just experienced Earth's hottest (average) day on record, then what was the coldest on record. While we might not look at particular days, the question still remains, and your lol...a bit premature. If there's a hottest day...then there's also a coldest day.

You're talkin' about yourself..."load of crap?

They have an agenda to push

Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years. Nah - the weatherman is correct! Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) ----------- Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr". Time to grow up people - industrial CO2 induced abrupt global warming was first analyzed in detail in 1890 by Svante Arrhenius! Current CO2 levels are already well above anything in the past 3 million years! There's already over 400 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans accumulated since 1995. The Arctic will soon be ice-free with 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption" - just a 5 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth.

excellent points@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

Hey, don't dare question Jeff climate change Berardelli. Buy an electric car or the earth will end in 6.5 years.

yes indeed!

Its better to be prepared for what might happen than not be prepared for what does happen. Stock up on 30 yr Freeze Dried food. Lack of food is what makes people go cra cra.

@@globalwarming382 Thanks for the info

@@globalwarming382 clean water is arguably just as important.

NO, the earth will still be here - humans won't.

yeah but he really likes to B.S. about how coal miners have no regrets. hahaha

Cheapest source of electricity is now solar and wind, look at Texas and California.

Only in warmer climates. @@myoung48281