You don't know what you got till its gone.

Humans are only smart enough to create technology, not smart enough to know what it's impact will be. Goodbye climate change, hello AI!

Better yet, get the snip-snip.

or we could build a big umbrella and park it out in space to block some of the suns heat?

Hee hee , & say HI while you there for us ok !

sadly I've been thinking much the same

Probably ….but only China owns most of the farmland in the United States.

nah,the planet will be here - it will take over again and all thats left will me human rubble

@@votpavel Nope, not exactly, there will be humans still, just possibly not our civilization. Wait a couple of thousand years, it could happen, if anyone cares about our future we can prevent it.

Well, may be the octopoi can start where we left

@@friedrichjunzt Get off your lazy ass and help fix this.

Last I checked Venus is still going strong, albeit not a pleasant environment for life though.

Its all about money :(

The real world is trying to slow it down. You lot give up every thing that uses fossil fuels for energy or products and see what a life you have. A least you won't be hypocrites, using the benefits of oil/gas whilst demanding everyone else give it up.

The transition is unacceptable to most countries and most humans.

Buy an EV. You deserve one!

I'm an elder. The system was here long before my parents were born. And BTW, where were the young people at climate protests and marches over the decades? Most were grayheads from what I saw.

Obviously you don't produce any garbage, don't use fossil fuels and don't overconsume more than any generation ever did before. Well done

Crispy

The first piece of artificial intelligence ever on this planet anywhere is neo classical economics which is coupled up with neo conservative politics and the old protestant work ethic thrown in for good measure. See if you can evade its power by doing anything it doesn't want you to do. Life automatically gets harder, and you become socially ostracized. It's not OUR fault. But this AI program will cause our extinction and many non-human species as well.

Maybe, but we have to do what we can to mitigate the pending crisis. Are we Capt. Sullenbergers or are we J. Bruce Ismays?

So sad

Yes, but there's plenty of blame to go around. After all, Obama fracked us and brought the US to record levels of fossil fuel production.

Since 1984, all population growth has been from immigration and the children and grandchildren of recent immigrants. It's not American's that are responsible for such emissions, it's select political groups that keep on mass importing people from other countries that are causing half of all US emissions. Meanwhile you seem to have forgotten that China is over double the US's emissions. Do your part, stop buying cheap products built in China where they don't have environmental regulations like we do.

Where does the number 50% come from? It doesn't sound too credible

@@jajajaja2606 We were the first and most industrialized country, and even now Americans use 10 times the energy of the per capita average of the rest of the world.

We already totally rely on robbing stored energy and fertility , and that bank is nearly outa funds even with no catastrophic climate change .

All bs.

Mars? Really? Good luck with that B.S., you get it that lil' elon is a sociopath right?

But the Saudi's and oligarchs need more gold. So shut up.

The only thing I would disagree with is stopping all fossil fuel usage today. I would say stop as soon as humanly possible. We need to really accelerate the usage of renewable energies and energy conservation ASAP. Good luck to you,

Yeah, we are efft. People dont understand exponential growth.

They melt from Summer forest fire and ice comes back every winter stop the delusions.

@@woodchipgardens9084 You don't know the difference between a Glacier and a Snowpack, so your the ignorant one.

@@venturefanatic9262 their both ice, stop the brainwashing.

@@woodchipgardens9084 Done with you since your just a Troll.

@@venturefanatic9262 Keep in mind that Heat is always Temporary.

Do not worry because Oceans are upto 10km deep , they are at a constant temperature and marine life is flourishing.

Probably because we know science and you don't?

Unfortunately, ocean temperatures are taken at many depths all over the world, and the data shows extreme temperature rise at all levels. Please do some research before you mis- inform others.

​@@francismarion6400 And you think you know science? How much pollution do you expect to dump into the environment 24hrs a day worldwide before it has serious consequences on our planet's ecosystem? Thinking human beings aren't messing things up on a grand scale is just complete ignorance.

@@bobdooly3706 WTF! It's like you took absolutely no notice of what the video was saying. But just to make it clear to you. Marine life is not flourishing. The corals are bleaching, fish stocks are falling drastically. The ice caps are shrinking and so plankton, the foodstuff at the base of the food chain in the ocean, is declining rapidly. Plus the AMOC is going to come to a virtual halt in the coming 10-20 years which will stop Oxygen from being circulated through the ocean. That in itself is a climate catastrophe bc if there is no O2 feeding the sea floor then anaerobic bacteria take over and the ocean starts pumping out Hydrogen Sulphide. Get your facts straight before pretending to know it all.

Sorry but “every little bit helps” is garbage… I still try to do it because it’s the right thing to do… but corporate pollution is the problem, systemic pollution… I pick up litter everywhere I go, and that’s good but even if I dedicate my life to it, that won’t stop others from doing it, no amount of effort I put in can offset the litter that others dump. It all adds up, sure, but their pile will always outpace mine. “Every little bit matters” but only when we all do a little bit Change your diet all you want, if you’re buying food then you contribute to the problem even if you try to fix it, what food could be bought that’s not contributing to the problem. It’s all grown on land that’s been cleared of natural life, treated with chems, mechanically processed, wrapped in plastic and shipped cross country by truck. That’s how the system was designed to work, it’s easy, has long shelf life and brings in the money! When the profit motive is the only motive it’s hard to expect different results.

Over 80% of emissions is from under 20 companies. Even if everyone did reduce emissions it would not matter unless you force the companies to do so.

You lot do it then. But you won't, you expect everyone else to take the hit for your delusions that you have been gaslit into. If you really believe in this stuff you should be stopping all fossil fuel related consumption, products as well as energy. But you would rather use pointless energy up on here rather than get off the electrical internet and give up everything you fear. Until you do it , you cannot expect anyone else to take you seriously. You just look hypocritical. That goes for the lot of you. Put your money where your mouths are.

Stop the delusions.

The American government spent $24 billion on NASA last year. It gave Big Oil $5 trillion in subsidies, 200 times as much.

Co2 dissolves much more readily in cold water. As the water warms the co2 comes out of dissolution. So more co2 in the atmosphere as the seas warm, less weak carbonic acid in the water.

@@user-it7lf7kk8m But enough less to stop coral bleaching?

@@toughenupfluffy7294 sea water never becomes actually acid so probably nothing to do with coral bleaching. Research has pointed to several other factors that might be responsible for bleaching. One might be heavy rain water run off from inland bringing a lot of sediment with it which obscures the water , and stops the algae in the coral from getting sufficient sunlight. There are several lines of enquiry but the acidification thing is just activists not understanding the subject yet again.

It is not warmer, you keep getting scammed on this fact.

It is not warmer, you keep getting scammed on this fact.

@@woodchipgardens9084 : SEE: -“MET Office UK, Causes of climate change” -"Columbia Climate School, How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?" -“MIT, How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere? -NASA: Vital Signs, Global Temperature

​@@woodchipgardens9084Sure, source: Cause, I said it's not warmer :D. You climate change deniers are shameless assholes.

Thinking the same thing - could be an atomic positive feedback loop coming up when the ice is gone, even for a short period, because of what you said.

Plant Trees!! August 12, 2022 The more trees who die, the less oxygen you will have, and the hotter the temperatures will be because there will not be leaf coverage to cover over the height of human habitation to reduce temperatures. You must remember that unlike trees, man-made objects, like metal boxes to cars to buildings, absorb solar energy and release it as heat into the air. It is not just the gases from combustion and the heat from hot motors (petroleum and HVAC motors), but ALSO the heat-radiating characteristic of man-made object surfaces that raise the temperature of the air. A great example of this are cars and trucks standing outside in the sunlight. How hot is the body surface? What about leaves and branches of a tree - are they hot to the touch?? Whatever solar energy man-made objects absorb, they will radiate it. That includes solar panels. THAT is what is happening right now. You will probably have to disassemble and destroy a lot of heat radiating technologies such as cars, trucks, buildings, AND the blacktop/sidewalk surfaces by deconstituting the elements and returning them to mine sites and reburying them, and put trees back in those places in order to bring temperatures down (and bring in rainfall). It is getting to where trees are treated as ornaments of beauty instead of living beings who provide numerous critical functions while alive - cooling the air at human height by providing shade, providing oxygen, and making rainfall more likely to happen through transpiration of water vapor during photosynthesis. Trees brings rainfall activity, while deserts take it away because there is NOTHING to contribute to the formation of rain clouds, bringing rain. Also, the presence of moisture and trees will narrow down the range of temperature fluctuations that happen over a 24-hour period. Essentially, entire cities act as small deserts, since there is relatively little vegetation/tree coverage. Cities are even worse than deserts in this regard ALSO because of man-made objects' heat-radiating characteristic. I must also add here from more recent research on my part that ocean plants and organisms are also perhaps even more important as far as oxygen generation is concerned, as they produce about half to maybe even 80% of the world's oxygen. Preservation of the ocean is important for our oxygen supply, and preservation of our forests is important as explained in the previous paragraph. That means keeping in mind the effects of drilling, harvesting, and mining disasters in the oceans that end up killing life in the immediate surrounding area. You can end up cutting your supply of oxygen even faster this way than with clearing forests, while through clearing forests, you are raising the affected area's temperature through removal of tree coverage. What can we do in the meantime? Can we grow trees to cover narrow roads and grow vines that grow leaves during spring to cover the roads overhead ahead of the summer months? Can we build vine structures over the majority of buildings for a similar reason? We have to have a way of bringing temperatures down by removing as many man-made objects from contact with the sun as possible in any way we can. It is ridiculous to see 120+ degree F temperatures. Kuwait is starting to become unliveable because of these temperatures. You'll see the Ethiopian Desert normally hit 122 degrees, and it has hit 140 degrees. Even worse is the Lut Desert in Iran, which see temperatures of nearly 160 degrees! American Meteorological Society claims a reading of about 177 degrees. There, electronics stop working very quickly, and you can only be out of the car for two minutes maximum. ACs in many cars quit working. Shoes melt. Assuming that we have started to take apart the technologies such as cars, vehicles, etc. and started planting trees and covering up buildings and roads to shield them from the sun, how then would we deal with the nature of "green energy?" The fact is, if we carry out these actions, then solar energy could become unreliable for substantial power generation because the vegetation, including trees, would then bring on more periods of rain, which would in turn impact the number of days of availability of full sunshine. It remains to be seen what would be the impact on winds by such vegetation, even if the windmills are built with propellers far above the tree tops because of the potential for the moderation of the Earth's temperature across its surface relative to today's present scenario. We may have to examine what wind conditions were like thousands of years ago through descriptions of such in ancient writings in areas that were not yet deforested. I recognize that this might not resemble the scenario in which we regreen as much of today's deforested areas as possible. This may also have an unseen impact on wind energy as a reliable source of energy. I believe the key is reducing the level of technology we have, which can reduce the impact of mining, drilling, and harvesting on the Earth, as well as remove sources of heat generation as described earlier.

​@@stephanieellison7834 a bit long , but interesting nonetheless and I would agree to an extent. It is puzzling that official organisations seem to go completely the opposite direction , chopping down trees at any opportunity and building concrete and glass over huge swathes of good arable land. It is almost as if governments local and central don't actually believe in the conservation rhetoric that they spout.

Have fun with all of that denial. Keep your head firmly in the sand until it's too late.

You should show them all the recent heat and rainfall records that have been broken this year and in the past few years. 2023 is the warmest year ever, along with 2016 and 2020. China has had record rainfall, USA deadliest wildfire on record, the EU has had their largest fire in 2023 and the record breaking SSTs.

Ha! Good luck… I been trying for 30 years and people still treat me like chicken little… I’ve not tried to CONVINCE anyone in years. I simply speak as if it’s an accepted fact and if they dispute it then I save my breath

Show them Exxon’s own studies from the 1970’s on the effects of climate change. Not going to change many people’s minds, but can show how real this is, and how real it’ll get for everyone eventually

Then show them all of the record temperatures etc from many decades ago, then realise it's all pretty much normal, give up panicking and go and have a good time with your mates. There is more than enough crap in the world without worrying about stuff that is largely made up.

@@user-it7lf7kk8m record uk temperature up to 1970: 36.7°C - record uk temperature up to 2003: 38.5°C - record uk temperature up to 2024: 40.3°C - 2023 hottest June and September on record, February 2024 mildest February on record for eng - wales and the wettest on record as well. Every 1°C of warming in the atmosphere gives 7% more rainfall and oh! Coincidentally, how are we breaking rainfall records? USA 2021 and 2022 extreme floods, 2023 rounded 47°C in Spain, record temp in Europe is in 2021.

The ocean is constantly in motion via currents, upwelling, downwelling, etc. That extra heat is constantly being mixed throughout the ocean.

And you're obviously an oceanographic climate scientist, right? You know all the answers, don't you? Thanks for helping us all out of this horrible situation with your deep insights.

​@@toughenupfluffy7294 It's basic common science, anyone who looks it up can see for themselfes that the sun stands for the majority of heat going into the oceans, blaming it on infrared light that bounces back from the CO2 rich atmosphere is ridiculous since it's not energetic enough to heat our oceans that much. Think about this have you ever actually gotten heated up from the ground when you are outside on a walk during sunny weather? The answer is no because it's not energetic enough for infrared rising from the ground to heat the skin surface, only the sun manages that.

I know! I love how the little sun shining on my stove heats up my coffee.

So what’s happening to the sun?

Hmmm, I haven't considered the possibility of the oil acting as a heat insulation layer. Thank you for this perspective.

Sorry, the long term trend is totally legitimate and data supported. Wish you were right. You can take away, El Niño, and other temporary effects in a long-term trends are still pointed up.

@@solarwind907 I meant that general global warming cannot be responsible for the JUMP in temperature in 2023.

Hong Tonga actually increased stratospheric warming. H2O is a GHG.

While volcanoes generally produce a temporary cooling from soot, Honga Tonga ejected a great deal of water vapor into the upper atmosphere which is causing a slight but not insignificant warming for several years. Something like .03ºc.

@@lrvogt1257 I think you’re splitting hairs. For me, just knowing that we’re putting more greenhouse gases in the air every day is all that matters. Watching the glaciers melt, and the sea ice extent Shrink, Permafrost melt etc., I know what’s coming. Do your best to take care of yourself and your loved ones. When it really hits the fan, you will have less regrets.

yes - it causes "arctic amplification" with the jet stream bigger and slower since the equator and arctic temperature difference is less.

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 I would say it’s the magnetic excursion taking place as well as influences from solar plasma emissions from the solar storms.

@@micklaws5520 Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) ----------- Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr". Time to grow up people - industrial CO2 induced abrupt global warming was first analyzed in detail in 1890 by Svante Arrhenius! Current CO2 levels are already well above anything in the past 3 million years! There's already over 400 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans accumulated since 1995. The Arctic will soon be ice-free with 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption" - just a 50 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth. no. I'm happy to answer questions, though you should keep in mind that my 26-year-old Greenland work has been superseded by more-recent studies, especially for the Holocene (the last 11,000 years), and in particular by the studies that combine records from a half-dozen ice cores in central and northern Greenland. These studies were lead by the Copenhagen glaciology group, and you can find them on Google Scholar. Bo Vinther was one of the main authors. I read quickly through the "carbonbrief" article to which you linked, and it seems accurate to me. If you read that carefully, it should answer the main questions you have. Having said that, my direct responses RE my study published in 1997 (and its predecessor in 1995): 1. Those studies were primarily designed to examine the glacial to Holocene transition (20--10 kyr ago), and they are *not* the best way to address the issue of recent warming and its millennial context. They captured the start of the current warming but were not designed or capable of resolving it well. And even if they did, it's just for one location in central Greenland. Using one location is a valid approach if examining very long-timescale changes (e.g., the 20--10 kyr transition) but not at all a good idea for decadal-scale changes. The noise at the short timescale requires that you average a group of sites spanning a region. "Noise" means both failures of the proxy record to record climatic temperature accurately, and real climatological / meteorological variability that arises strongly from atmospheric dynamical patterns. 2. In the context of (1), the questions you raise about how accumulation and isotope calibrations are treated in different studies is irrelevant to your concern. Those are minor issues. 3. The entire approach of comparing recent observed warming to past variability *for the purpose of inferring mechanism* is fundamentally a weak argument because the timescale is too short to reconstruct past variability well or, more importantly, to reconstruct the climate forcings well. This argument will become stronger as warming proceeds. 4. Following from (3), the reason we know the recent warming is due to changes of the atmospheric greenhouse is that we can measure the effects on the radiative balance of the planet and compare it to uptake of energy by the planet (primarily manifest as ocean warming) and to other forcings such as solar intensity. Here's an analogy: you are sitting in your house on a cold evening. You pull a thick blanket over yourself and start to feel warmer. Why do you feel warmer? Was it the blanket trapping heat (yes, at least in part, it must be)? Was it your furnace working harder? Was it a sunbeam coming through a window? There are only a limited number of options, and you can know about the role of all of them. In this case, greenhouse gases are the blanket. The sun is your furnace, etc. 5. Following from (4), the evidence is overwhelming that most of the warming of Earth since 1980 has been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the feedbacks associated with warming. The warming from 1850 to 1950, however, contains a "natural variability" signal in addition to an anthropogenic signal, and this natural component can be regarded as the "end of the Little Ice Age," and it was partly solar and partly volcanic. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to give a confident and fairly precise statement about how much of this earlier warming was anthropogenic vs. natural (most of the warming occurred between 1910 and 1950, as I recall), but there are strong arguments that it was at least half anthropogenic. The problem is we will never be able to head backward in time and launch some satellites to get the measurements needed. Best wishes, Kurt Cuffey................................................................................................................... Kurt M. Cuffey Professor, Department of Geography, University of California

This is a situation I'm very unclear about. If the AMOC were to slow enough or stop it would prevent warm water from getting to Europe but the warm water would build up at the equator. This could cause much greater extremes of hot and cold at mid latitude which, I would think would result in much more extreme weather.

​@@lrvogt1257hurricanes are a natural occurance and your absolutly delusional if you think hurricane generated by greenhouse theories.

Northern Europe will no longer be able to sustain its crop production, just like in the Little Ice Age, when famine in Europe was widespread, leading to social strife and multiple wars. Along with this, temperature gradients between the North Pole and the equator will be dramatically increased, leading to many more, stronger storms, from the equator to the Pole. This is just the local effect of shutting down the AMOC. Global effects will occur also, as the equator heats up planet wide.

Forest fires and specifically Honga Tonga (most volcanoes tend to cool the atmosphere from soot) do have some warming effect but this is in addition to warming from Industrial CO2. The warming from CO2 is making forest fires worse.

​@@lrvogt12572023 Canadian wildfires From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Beginning in March 2023, and with increased intensity starting in June, Canada was affected by a record-setting series of wildfires. All 13 provinces and territories were affected, with large fires in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. The 2023 wildfire season had the most area burned in Canada's recorded history, surpassing the 1989, 1995, and 2014 fire seasons, as well as in recorded North American history, surpassing the 2020 Western US wildfire season.

@@woodchipgardens9084 : That is certainly consistent with global warming increasing drought.

@@lrvogt1257 you understand nothing about droughts, im sorry but i dont have time for your education.

It is true that burning fuel with fewer aerosols is reducing global masking. The aerosols, like soot, tend to block light and cool the atmosphere.

HORSESHIT. All of that is YOU, YOUR local WEATHER.

exactly.

Climate change causes both droughts and flooding at different locations at different the same time. The Panama Canal relies on locks to be filled from inland waterways to rise shipping over higher elevations than sea level. The inland waterways are currently experiencing drought conditions which slow the time it takes to fill the locks of the canal.

why not research the issues yourself with an open mind instead of asking dumb "gotcha" questions?

Probably for similar reasons to why the Sahara desert is a jungle in hothouse earth...

Because the Panama canal is not filled with ocean water😂

Local, the global average, the "anomaly" temperature of the oceans continues to rise. What's your point? You could have fucking Googled this.

Stop the delusions.

@@woodchipgardens9084 go and check all the heat records that have been broken in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and even 2024. UK first ever 40C (40.3°C) in 2022 (record was 37.1°C back in 1990, 38.5°C 2003, 38.7°C 2019) and oh yeah, rounded 20°C in January in the Scottish highlands… The ever warming is right here and right now.

@@woodchipgardens9084 and yes, the years 2016, 2020 and 2023 are the top 3 warmest years globally, on record. 48.8°C in Sicily in 2021, 46.8°C Valencia, Spain in 2023. 2020 is Europe’s warmest year ever and 2023 is the second. South America, North America and Asia for example, all experiencing record heat. If you want to keep denying climate change before it’s too late, then so be it.

@@COVID_Is_Not_Over_Yet Debate anything false, Heat is always temporary, Night time is always cooling, Winter is always Freezing and Forest fire smoke melts Glaciers, debate anything false.

@@COVID_Is_Not_Over_Yet 2023 Canadian wildfires From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Beginning in March 2023, and with increased intensity starting in June, Canada was affected by a record-setting series of wildfires. All 13 provinces and territories were affected, with large fires in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. The 2023 wildfire season had the most area burned in Canada's recorded history, surpassing the 1989, 1995, and 2014 fire seasons, as well as in recorded North American history, surpassing the 2020 Western US wildfire season.

You're a Richard

You are an idi ot. 😂

One of the good environmental actions occurring is the project trying to clean up the Pacific garbage patch and some south American rivers

There’s no fixing this now

What matters are yearly global averages, not temporary local events. Even in Texas, if you look at temperature trends, the averages are going consistently up. There will be fluctuations and strange events. But overall, your temperatures are rising.

The Atlantic is not cooling … it’s hot and above average.

One of many reasons why the climate is changing. Our exploitation of planet earth will decrease only because the sustainability of our actions will get snuffed out as ecosystems implode. Not because we will do the right things to live in balance. The political cost is too high.

The oceans are far more the earth's lungs.

The ocean, all water is like blood

Name ONE, just ONE transport of products from one port to another port in the US.

Sure is, and do you have the brains to realize that is the fucking WEATHER and why even the question is nonsensical?

Greenland sea ice does not agree with you. No vulcanoes near Greenland, and the sea is hotter than ever before in human history.

There has been no change in average volcanic activity that can be causing this warming. This has been taken into account. Honga Tonga is an exception because, unlike most volcanoes, it ejected a great deal of water vapor into the upper atmosphere but that is relatively small and very recent addition of warming. This episode of warming is due to Industry increasing CO2 to 150% it's natural high level. Industrial CO2 is a different isotope so this can be measured.

​@@oneshothunter9877iceland Volcano has been in the News constantly.

​@@lrvogt1257Debate anything false, Heat is always temporary, Night time is always cooling, Winter is always Freezing and Forest fire smoke melts Glaciers, debate anything false.

@@woodchipgardens9084 Yes, that's right. But by any means not near Greenland. That aside, natural Co2 emissions is nothing compared to human caused emissions. Our presence is the cause of rising temps, both on land, air and sea. This is easily accessible facts.

Get off your lazy asshole and help fix this.

Its not just the U.S. its the whole world!

YOU couldn't figure out and trace WHY "animal agriculture" affects this planet even if the answer was shoved up your ass.

that's the fucking WEATHER.

@@mrunning10 You sound upset about something.

@@patrick247two Human mindlessness. Even those agreeing with manmade climate change talking about the weather and they don't even have the caring or intelligence to get off their fucking lazy asses and LEARN. How's that?

Ok, true, get off your lazy conspiracy arsehole and help fucking fix this please.

It is natural and we are causing the rapid change. We can take a look at ice cores from Greenland to figure out the amount of emissions.

There are buoys filled with scientific measuring equipment all over the planet. If you were actually interested it is probably an easy thing to learn about.

@@nsbd90now yea…ok…lolol. There is such a thing as cyclical weather patterns and equilibrium. I will. Go for that every time. By the way, how far back do those amazing ocean temperature records go again?

@@micklaws5520 You're such an intellectually curious fellow Mick! Perhaps you should go to school and become a climatologist! That is where you learn things like that... not on youtube comment threads.

I will add this. I am going out on a limb and going to say all this Globull Temp hysteria on land,in the sea and air is caused by CO2? Well, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere today is .04%. Sub Sahara is greening. But that aside CO2 drops to .02%..Plants die and we die and the earth dies. Now justify the catastrophic pollution that will be caused by this green energy scam.

Mick, based on your post you’re unaware of the data set and research being done by independent labs worldwide, research that ALL points to atmospheric and ocean temperatures rising worldwide. Don’t be lazy. Don’t badmouth people for telling you the truth. Don’t remain ignorant. Do some research and learn some things. It will help you understand what’s going on in your world, irregardless of what the news or someone else is telling you. Get educated.