Pass on the link to others.

I see reporting of it in the media every day.

@@jitteryjet7525 Mainstream media is not, no. And when global warming is mentioned, the narrative is controlled by the capitalist class using it as a market scheme for EV companies in North America, which are tyrannically overpriced. An audacious scheme to gouge us all while the ruling class and the institutions responsible continue status quo and pass the cost and burden on the workers. China basically produced enough solar panels and EV to save the world and our decaying and vile imperialist government is putting tariffs on affordable solar panel and EV imports for the sake of domination over the American consumer and to prevent competition, meaning we spend more time of our life exploited in our undemocratic workplace to afford them as wage workers forced on a quest of self interest. Without a class consciousness uniting us against the ruling class (a consciousness unfortunately fought against by Liberals and Conservatives alike), our capitalist ghouls will continue to protect our illogical mode of transportation, production and distribution on a global scale. Ofc Let's attack China instead 'because communism' makes a ghoul cry tyranny, and I'm told it means starvation and 'dictatorship'. We're letting whiny Liberals stab us in the throat and destroy the world in unison with fascists against the left's more fundamental changes in the system aka the solution to our rat infestation that's keeping us atomized.

@@jitteryjet7525 what I have seen on Medias when they say the average high temperature are the average temperature and it's usually above the record high fairy disingenuous

Nope, it’s all too very general. There’s no talk about the dangers of wetbulb temperature. There’s no talk about the causes of global warming in the first place, such as fossil fuels and animal agriculture.

There’s a lot of blame that goes on the media for not telling it like it is and this is why there are so many people unaware of how bad it actually is that scientists are so frustrated.

Its never too late

That's what I said to myself 13 years ago! :)

1) How much does the solar maximum affect temperature? - no measurable effect. Looking at the global temperatures over the last 175 years - do you see a distinct 11-year periodicity? Nope. 2) What is your estimate when we hit the tipping point? Which tipping point? There are several. The two that concern me are (A) the melting of the permafrost and the accompanying rapid release of CH4. That seems to have started already. and (B) the retreat of glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic plus on-land glaciers throughout our mountainous regions. That seems to be starting but may take 100 years or more the problem is that once it is underway very little can stop it. There are others but these keep me awake some nights.

On the third point the jury is out. If things get bad enough .... perhaps.

@@drkstrong Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm very concerned about affects on the ocean, coral, sea life, plastics, temps. Short term economic gains for long term destruction.

@@Redplanetfilms1 Unfortunately, stock values trump all those concerns. Most industries work on quarterly goals for determining the bonuses for their upper management - this distorts the market and eliminates long-term strategies.

@@drkstrong Agreed. I still wonder if a new concept that favors long term sustainability, and long term survival of the human race could be accepted if properly presented. I have seen it work on a small scale, I just wonder how you get; China, Russia and the Middle East on board. Now that seems impossible! So much pollution coming from unregulated, uncooperative countries that only see the world as a geopolitical game of chess.

This is the monthly climate report for May. I generally do the solar report at the end o fthe month but I was holding off for this activity burst to settle down so the report is complete.

@drkstrong super scary X7 flare. Thank you Dr.K.

@@joeybox0rox649 An X7 flare or larger is not scary or even super scary. We have had much larger that have caused no problems, we have had much smaller flares that have caused major problems. The geoeffectiveness of a flare depends on a number of factors: 1) Where it occurred on the Sun. Generally, the western hemisphere is the most effective but it has to be in a location well connected to the Earth's magnetic field. 2) How energetic it was. Larger flares have more energy but not all of them emit streams of relativistic particles (protons) that hit Earth. 3) The magnetic polarity of the event - a south facing field can produce big geomagnetic storms - north will have little or no effect. This is very difficult to predict until the storm actually happens. 4) The speed, size, and direction of the CME 5) If there were other events immediately before the CME comes to Earth, that can enhance its effectiveness - the Carrington event was a prime example of this. All of these factors must align perfectly to make a single event "scary".

@@drkstrong I really appreciate your attention to detail, Dr.K. 👍

Why? Its the same mechanism that heats the rest of the planet. Escaping IR (heat) radiation is intercepted by the GHGs and scattered in all directions. So about half of it is sent back the way it came. Much of that will end up hitting the oceans and heating them (oceans cover nearly 70% of the planet).

How deep does ir back radiation penetrate seawater? is it realistic to claim heating by this mechanism?

@@TheDalaiLamaCon Depends on the wavelength - generally a few mm if I remember correctly. The additional heat thus absorbed is transported to lower depths by convection, wave action, and conduction. Is it realistic, obviously as we see it happening. If not that then by what mechanism are the oceans heating up?

Not really on topic but ... The temperatures were dropping from about 4 Mya to about the end of the last glaciation so were CO2 levels. What is wrong with that correlation?

Co2 temp correlation is only synced since the Tethys sea closed over about 3.5million years ago and the equatorial current was impeded. Ocean current dynamics changed with ocean heating in mass being more pronounced: polar waters which were poorly heated by equatorial waters were now being directly impinged upon by more direct polar bound currents. In fact the Asian plate close up 60million yrs ago and started the first major heat fluctuations witnessed. Prior to this there is absolutely no correlation between co2 and temperature.. Thus it can be seen that the cessation of the equatorial flows changed the ocean dynamic and we started to see finger print of thermal pulses within the earth system. Co2 is not causing the warming.. it’s a by product of a change in solubility with respect to temperature..

@@ivanhunter3907 You specified the Paleolithic Period - that started at the earliest about 3.3 Mya (Brittanica) and ended about 12,000 years ago. So why are you talking about 60 Mya? Quit moving the goal posts.

@@drkstrong palaeoclimatology. Now move on!

@@ivanhunter3907 Getting technical terms confused once more - not very convincing. Moving the goal posts again - fail!

URW! :)

No it's not.

Silly comment. You wish it were meaningless, but that does make it so. You say it is meaningless, but that does not make it so. The thing about science is finding out what is happening through careful measurement and analysis. I suspect that you have not even bothered to read the papers written by these groups about the data and the analysis techniques and doubt that you would understand them if you did.

@@jitteryjet7525 Yes it is! There, I win!

@@drkstrong No! It is meaningless. The data is not data, but assumptions to fit an agenda. The majority of surface data is assumed, not measured. This is particularly true for all the historic data. We have very little meaningful temperature data from the oceans for most of the last 175 years. As the video says, the oceans dominate, but almost all of that data is assumed or extrapolated from next to nothing. All of the assumptions and extrapolations magically fit the agenda! That is not science. Most of the land data is either or assumed or extrapolated as well, and again, it all fits the the climate crisis narrative. The motto for climate seems to be "When in doubt, make the past colder and the present warmer! This will get you funding!" The coverage of the NOAA data implies that we are moving towards a climate crisis because of increasing CO2, but it ignores the vast majority of the worlds climate history, which has been warmer with lower CO2 and colder with higher CO2. You are using made up data to promote a narrative that was disproven by climate history the minute it was uttered! You may wish to ignore that history and the manipulation of the data, but this meteorologist can not!

Any millenium now, just you wait and see.

Ice Age was 1.3 ° C cooler over a period of 10,000 years we are 1.7 degrees warmer so if there is an ice age and bring us back to average🤔

The upmost importance that we respect our home and reduce waste but some natural climatic cycles are out of our control. The world has previously cooled into ice age conditions in less than a thousand years. All needs is one summer that not melt winter snow either caused by huge volcanic eruption or natural cycle and the ice spreads exponentially as more sunlight reflected. We are a small and unimportant cog in a very large machine and at the end of the day the planet wins.We are just along for the ride.

@@BobSmith-ew5oi Yawn. If you are going to make stuff up on a Science channel that is unrelated the video, at least make it entertaining. How about a funny story about your puppy or something like that?

@@jitteryjet7525 will even share tons of our high grade australian export coal to help keep you warm when need to prevent the ice.time will prove who right or wrong and the sooner you escape your green rabbit hole better as the planet has more chance of not being destroyed by resource hungry ev rubbish and toxic land fills of the new electronic green waste.

Stop typing nonsense and show me the data (from a reputable source)

Trolls are boring.