Видео

we don't have an economy if we can't grow food. There's a lot more issues that get ignored - the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf is one. The 500 zettajoules of extra heat in the oceans is another one. even the doomosphere is missing some big issues - like the 30 million people starving right now around Sudan and 310 million people needing food assistance this year. WION, as Sandy says, is a good source - they have a "Climate Tracker" playlist - out of India. So they don't have a U.S. bias or eurocentric bias. I check up on Nature Bats Last - Guy McPherson - and arctic-news blogspot - also Counterpunch publishes a great journalist - let's see if he has a new one. July 26, 2024, China’s Lightning-Fast Renewable Triumphs, by Robert Hunziker. Yeah I actually was just thinking about that article yesterday. The Aerosol Masking Effect is twice as bad as previously though - so a 40% reduction of burning coal with sulfur pollution actually heats up Earth another 1 degree C. oops.

Climate change impact can be seen by the melting of ice sheets at Earth’s poles.

It seems like your videos have great potential but are facing challenges in reaching a wider audience. Here are some possible reasons: 1. SEO Optimization 2. Target Audience Reach 3. Effective Use of Hash tags 4. Social Media sharing By addressing these areas, you can enhance your video's visibility and attract more viewers. I can help with that. My info is on this very channel I'm using to comment.

"A lot of this green agenda is being pushed because someone somewhere is making a lot of money from it. Just like in COVID, when of course there was a great redistribution of wealth to the most richest people in the world and the biggest corporations. As well as power being taken away from the likes of you and I." ~Robert Oulds

The number and length of heatwaves has increased globally (1951-2017) as you would expect in a slowly warming world, but there is no trend for average intensity (Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Lewis, 2020, also ref. by IPCC). Heat waves have not been increasing in intensity or frequency in the United States, which has by far the best meteorological data both spatially and temporally. Data from NOAA's Climate Reference Network shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since 2005 when that network began. In recent decades in the United States, heat waves have been far less severe than they were in the 1930s. At that time Heatwaves were more than 6 times worse with greater frequency and covering a larger area than the last decade (EPA). The most severe heatwave year was 1936, and was about 13 times worse than current. In 2023 only 4 US states have achieved higher temperatures than 1936. Many states in 1936 achieved temperatures 15° hotter than the present. The all-time high temperature records set in most states occurred in the first half of the twentieth century. The percentage of US Historical Climatology Network Stations reaching or exceeding 95°F (35°C) was at a record low (1895-2023) of 51% in 2023. The record high was 1931 at 93%. The trend has been consistently downwards since the thirties. The climate crisis was 90 years ago. You missed it.

"As regards disease, the Lancet's Countdown on Health and Climate Change (2019) shows Climate-related deaths are a small proportion of all-cause fatalities (1990-2017). That is based on data per IHME (2019), and between 1990 and 2017, the cumulative age-standardized death rate (ASDRs) from climate-sensitive diseases and events (CSDEs) dropped from 8.1% of the all-cause ASDR to 5.5%, while the age-standardized burden of disease, measured by disability-adjusted life years lost (DALYs) declined from 12.0% to 8.0% of all-cause age-standardized DALYs. Thus, the burdens of death and disease from CSDEs are small, and getting smaller. However, the declines in death and disease rates from CSDEs since 1990 are only a small proportion of longer-term declines across the globe. In the USA, one of the few places with good long-term data, death rates from dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal diseases, and malaria - all water-related diseases and therefore, almost by definition, climate-sensitive declined 99-100% between 1900 and 1970. We are solving our problems with CSDEs faster than we are solving our other health problems." Indur M. Goklany

"Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioural changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change." IPCC

Everything we do releases carbon dioxide, so the Carbon Cult want to control everything. There will be global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades will be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Getting to Net Zero by 2050 would cost $9.2 trillion a year globally (McKinsey). That's not going to be good value for money. That's nearly one-tenth of global GDP. That money would be better spent on a myriad of things including educating the fifth of humanity who are illiterate and represent a 7% annual loss to the world's economy. Any country that attempts it will be indebted or impoverished. Example: For the UK to reach net zero by electrification of its transport fleet and heating system, it will require a tripling (as a minimum) of its current electrical generation capacity among other things. It will mean increasing wind power generation from 75TWh (in 2020) to 665TWh (in 2050 - these are UK National Grid figures). That's around 100,000 giant wind turbines. And by the time you get to 2050, the 4,000 wind turbines you needed to install in 2025 would have reached the end of their working lives and will need to be buried in landfill, and replaced with another 4,000. It's all impossible and absurd. The cabling and additional structures to connect all this together will essentially require the UK consuming huge amounts of copper and other rare metals for the next 25 years. 1.5 billion tonnes of concrete 42 million tonnes of steel (which is going to need 27 million tonnes of coking coal) 1.9 million tonnes of copper 1.3 million tonnes of zinc 184,000 tonnes of manganese 122,000 tonnes of chromium 56,000 tonnes of nickel 54,000 tonnes of other critical minerals. No doubt all of these materials will be ethically sourced using low carbon processes. Nuclear power would require less than ½ of these resources and Coal power around ¹/10th. The cost will be unaffordable and the skilled manpower levels unattainable. And that is just to eliminate the 1% of the global CO2 emissions that the UK is responsible for. So times that by 100 for the Earth. 10,000 child slaves in the cobalt mines of the Congo not enough for you? Make it a million. Imagine all the human suffering and environmental damage done from all that resource extraction! It's pointless anyway. In just 8 years (prior to 2021) China emitted more CO2 than Britain did since the start of Industrial Revolution that began over 220 years ago! And China plans to vastly increase its coal fired generating capacity. An electric vehicle requires 6 times the mineral input compared to a conventional one, and the carbon cost is greater until you reach 80,000 miles. Production of all of these minerals has been mastered by China: a totalitarian communist regime that thinks nothing of the mass murder of its own citizens, imagine how much it cares about the rest of us. And why are we embarking on this great net zero crusade? For what? So someone can virtue signal by driving around in a Tesla. Maddeningly, there is no climate crisis. The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past.

The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Increased Flooding: not detected, no attribution. Increased Meteorological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hydrological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Tropical Cyclones: not detected, no attribution. Increased Winter Storms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Thunderstorms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hail: not detected, no attribution. increased lightning: not detected, no attribution. Increased Extreme Winds: not detected, no attribution. There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising! There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6? "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions." "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions." "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)." There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.

Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. Despite that humanity has flourished. Life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 to 73 years. Literacy has quadrupled from 21% to 86%. Humans are seven times more productive ($2,241 to $15,212 GDP per capita, per annum). People are better fed, having ⅓ more calories every day (2,192kcal to 2,928kcal). Global extreme poverty rates have tumbled from 70% to less than 10% (<$1 a day). And death from weather events have collapsed by a factor 50 from 241 million down to 5 million even while the global population has increased by a factor of 5. There is no climate crisis. There is no evidence of a climate crisis. Even if there is radical climate change (and that is a very, very big 'if') with the manifestation of numerous tipping points (including permafrost thaw, ocean hydrates dissociation, Arctic sea ice loss, rainforest dieback, polar ice sheet loss, AMOC slowdown, and Indian monsoon variability) the disruption to economic growth and well-being will be minimal. The world's economy will continue to grow making everyone much richer. By 2050 world mean consumption per capita should be $29,100 with tipping points or $29,300 without tipping points. Barely noticeable. Apart from it being approximately double what it is now. By 2100 world mean consumption per capita should be $71,000 with or without tipping points (Dietz et al, 2021). This is the most fortunate time to be alive in the whole of history.

Weather events are not climate. The severity of individual weather events cannot be attributed to factors implicated in man-made climate change. One cannot prove that changes in the climate are man-made, but here it is presented as a fact. To provide proof of this one would need to observe another Earth-like planet to which no GHGs are added. This is obviously impossible. It is untestable. It is unverifiable. It is not a fact. It is not Science.

Well funded propaganda.

"Climate Change" has been going on since DAY 1 of this planet. Climate is not static........it changes. Climate is measured ( and understood ) over decades/centuries/millennia, not week by week or month by month. THAT'S WEATHER !!!! Some people need to go back and start again.

.THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE! WE HAVE TO SLOW NOTHING, PAL

Great discussion! I couldn't watch it live, so I'm glad you put it online. It gave me a lot to think about in planning and writing stories about climate. Thanks!

97% of scientists, according to two fraudulent studies ...

this is why we cannot let rump become president again- he knows and cares nothing about it- we can't what 4 years to get going seriously to slow Climate Change- and this also effects positively the 6th great extinction.

Dr. Jennifer Marlon needs to be honest with the public. I've listened to people talk about this for fifty years and also watched fossil fuel and pollution increase exponentially during that time. I'm a realist, she's not.

How many people think climate change is real and that we're doomed?

The Aztecs used to rip people's hearts out to control the weather. We are much more civilized. We rip people's walkets out. Planetary Air Conditioner. Better performance per dollar than every climate model on the market. You're welcome.

*IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES* , can mankind be , _and for several independent reasons_ , the cause of any climatic variations. . Claude Sponem, professor of physics. *And, quickly,* . 1 ) To begin with I will say that the responsibility of Man in the few climatic variations, essentially local, observed *is not in question* because in fact, even if CO2 could intrinsically create a *significant* greenhouse effect (which is false) , the order of magnitude of the anthropogenic flux of CO2 is *very very much less than 1%* of the order of magnitude of the natural fluxes of the carbon cycle and such a minor disturbance would therefore be easily absorbed by the regulatory mechanisms of physical, chemical and biological phenomena participating in this cycle (Laws of Le Châtelier extended). . The demonstration of this fact can be understood, and even established, by a high school student with scientific training; *if you wish, I can give you the principle* . 2) There are several kinds of infrared just as there are several visible lights (of different wavelengths causing different sensations called “colors”). However, CO2 absorbs very little infrared among all these types of IR. (In physicist language we say that CO2 only absorbs infrared on two small, relatively narrow lines); in comparison, water vapor absorbs much more, over wide bands... and the glass plate of a greenhouse much more, not to mention that, moreover, it reflects them. However, at its current concentration (0.04%), CO2 already almost completely absorbs the energy that the earth's soil emits on these two small lines... and, of course, it cannot absorb more than the soil does. emits on these two lines*. His concentration would increase even more so it would hardly change anything! A planet and a greenhouse have *absolutely nothing to do with each other*, they are two incredibly different physical systems between which we can make *no analogy*! *Comparison is not reason*, and between two “objects” so different any analogy can only be stupidity ! . Behind the greenhouse there is *a planet* (with the added bonus of a core which releases a flow of heat), a greenhouse whose soil can locally be considered as a source of heat (constant temperature of around 298 K) in the sense of thermodynamics... Behind the planet there is the vacuum of space and the planet (facing into the night) exchanges energy, particularly infrared, with "the bottom of the Universe" at 3 Kelvin... Not to mention all the bio-geo-chemical phenomena which occur on the surface of a planet and its *rotation* by which the earth's soil and the bio-sphere describe *a thermodynamic cycle* between the Hot Source (the Sun) and the Cold Source (“background” of the Universe at 3 K). The greenhouse is a "passive" thermal system on which we can make a simple assessment of energy flows.. 3) CO2 is not a polluting molecule since it is chemically not very aggressive, it is even an essential factor in the life of plants for which it constitutes a nutrient. This molecule participates in a very important cycle for Life on Earth: the carbon cycle. When trees appeared in the Devonian, 400 million years ago, the CO2 concentration was more than fifteen times higher than at present. But the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has never stopped decreasing, because animals (zooplankton, herbivores, carnivores, etc.), volcanoes and other geochemical phenomena have never managed to return as much CO2 to the atmosphere as plants would not take any from him. Among other things, because plankton, fish, animals, and plants at the end of their life were partly trapped in the earth's crust to provide natural gas, limestone, oil, coal, etc. The cycle was never balanced and as carbon atoms became trapped in the earth's crust, the concentration of CO2 decreased in the atmosphere. Today, plants, even if they have adapted, are stressed by lack of CO2 and this is so true that in certain greenhouses, CO2 is injected in order to promote the growth of plantations (the only real greenhouse effect of CO2 !). Moreover, since the slight increase in atmospheric CO2, tree growth has been boosted, the global (and French!) surface area of ​​forests is increasing and we are seeing an increase in agricultural yields! What more could you want? Today the concentration of CO2 is only 0.04%, if it decreased the plants would have more and more difficulty surviving, at 0% they can only disappear, herbivores too, carnivores too: The Life goes out. . 4) A *much more plausible* hypothesis as a cause (one of the causes) of climate variations (having nothing dramatic) is *the weakening of the earth's magnetic field*. Since the 1870s the magnetic field has weakened by several tens of percent, the magnetic poles are changing position and moving faster and faster (their speed has increased fivefold and the North Pole reaches a speed greater than 50 Km/year). Physicists are even considering a possible pole reversal. This (earth's magnetic field) protects us from cosmic rays coming from both the Sun and the galaxy! However, these favor, all other causes (temperature, pressure, etc.) being equal, the formation of clouds (fine drops of water or fine ice crystals) ***. Which already modifies the probability of precipitation, the local albedo of the planet (important during the day), and at night these cloud formations do better than absorb the Infrared since they reflect it (all farmers and people from the countryside know well that clear nights are colder than nights with warmer cloud "cover"). Aggravating fact, it is at night that these cloud formations tend to form (drop in temperature) and above all it is the phase during which the Earth sheds its "heat", through its nocturnal half surface, by radiating from Infrared towards the "bottom of the Universe" at three Kelvin. . See the videos of *Nir Shavkiv* on RUclips who will explain this phenomenon linked to the nuclear reactions induced by these cosmic rays causing the appearance of electric charges which are all condensation centers for water molecules. *** See the videos of *Nir Shaviv* on RUclips who will explain this phenomenon linked to the nuclear reactions induced by these cosmic rays causing the appearance of electric charges which are all condensation centers for water molecules. . . . Claude Sponem, French , physics professor . ..

CLIMATE CULT Timeline to Apocalypse 1970s - Global cooling will kill us all. 1980s - Correction, looks like Global warming will kill us all. 1990s - Global warming will definitely kill us all. 2000s - Global warming stopped. UN memo (original). Let’s call it Climate Change because the temperature keeps fluctuating up and down leading to a 14 year temperature pause while CO2 continued to rise unabated. 2010s - Everyone realises climate change is normal. UN memo (1). Let’s call it a Climate Emergency. 2010s - There was no climate Emergency. UN memo (2). Let’s corrupt the science with unlimited funding to government controlled institutions who are willing to falsify temperature data, then call it a Climate Crisis. 2020s - The Climate Crisis failed to eventuate. UN memo (3). Let’s find a useful idiot and name her Greta. She will be our climate cult Goddess. Australian climate cult members were busy exploiting the dry summer starting many fires leading to many arrests for arson. 2021 - Greta failed to change the climate and just yelled at everyone. 2023 - UN memo (4). We will wait for El Nino to arrive and we shall call it Global Boiling. To ensure success the cult got busy with arson attacks throughout Europe starting in Greece when 79 arsonists were arrested. Arson arrests are made in Canada after a big season of wildfires. 2024 - Everyone realises El Niño is a natural event that has always occurred for as long as the Pacific Ocean has been in existence. 2025 - UN memo (5). We shall declare CO2 a toxic hazard that will kill us all. 2025 - UN memo (5) is immediately cancelled when a 9 year old pointed out that CO2 is the trace gas of life without which we and all carbon based life forms do not exist. All that carbon came from CO2. It is called a trace gas because there are traces of it measured at an incredibly low 420ppmv or 0.042%. Barely enough to raise the temperature in a room full of climate cult members releasing methane in a desperate attempt to raise the temperature. 2030 - The climate cult is exhausted from its endless lies but manages to double down for another decade of stupidity with fresh funding from corrupt governments and corporations making lots of money from intermittent renewable energy that never works when the wind stops and the sun sets. 2040 - The climate cools while CO2 continues to rise and everyone realises temperature and CO2 have decoupled and that CO2 is a very minor green house gas that has little to no effect on the planets temperature. UN admits defeat and commences the biggest compensation payout in human history. Now we can add permafrost Methane release as the latest fake disaster according to COP 28. Every single climate cult doomsday prediction date has come and gone with nothing to show. How many more decades do we tolerate the climate cult clowns that destroy everything they touch. Fortunately the greatest grift of all time will collapse under the weight of its many lies.

Dr. Jennifer Marlon views about climate changes are scientific and well accepted from all environmentalist scientist and from more polititians. No doughy that CO2 emission on Earth atmosphere and soil or water is increased and from fossil fuels, but on other side the economy development today is reached with the help of fossil fuels, and the economy today is possible to survive only using fossil fuels which on the present are big challenge, the demand increase can not be supported by more fossil fuels and the needs can not be supported using renewable intermittent energies, plus energy storage which have low efficiency and high cost and short life. Plus these intermittent renewable energies have additional environmental impact. So Dr. Jennifer Marlon news are only partly considering the science. The environment can be protected and using more fossil fuels and reproducing them by recycling. The science tell us that if CO2 pollute the environment, get it and produce methane or other molecules and reuse, so you will add Oxygen and get Methane on these recycling process. These is only one direction on science, other are the use of geothermal energy, use gravitational energy, use nuclear energy, and use these all with advanced, safe and secure technologies. For more debate let challenge each other, with Dr. Jennifer Marlon or other scientists.

The data shows that there has been global warming over the last 3 centuries so I’m surprised that there is only a 97% concensis. The real question is how much warming will be caused if we increase anthropogenic CO2 at the current rate The science shows a minimal increase of less than 1c degree by the end of the century. Wind and solar will not work for an on demand system. If people want to put solar panels on their roof to reduce their electric bill that’s fine but almost everyone that does that is still connected to a grid that is primarily driven by fossil fuel to give them continuous power when the sun’s not shining. Not sure about your statement on how we get clean water by using renewables. At least you didn’t have polar bears in your pictures.

Man made climate change bullshit. Drill baby Drill.

Climate shifts cyclical

Can you tell me how to get the slides from this presentation? It is my second request. Thank you

evil nonsense

Picked up the session through CCL. But are the associated slides accessible on the website?

It does nothing for inflation

I thought the Miranda was biased and the facilitator put words into the mouths of the panelists to make it sound like they were agreeing with her personal views. Talking about "reparations" to groups of people -- in the context of climate change -- is a sure way to disengage about 50% of the public. We need everyone on-board to take action on climate change, but the facilitator pushing her personal agenda for "civil rights" is a sure way to turn people off. If society wants to pay reparations, don't pay them to people, but rather pay them to the animals, birds, trees, waterways and nature that we have nearly destroyed with our over-expansion and greed. It is ironic that there was discussion of "6 Americas" but Miranda seems to not understand what it takes to engage everyone on the climate issues.

B.S

The Earth is cooler w the atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer. To perform as advertised the GHGs require "extra" energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules render that scenario impossible. No greenhouse effect, no GHG heating, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.

I am sitting in a room looking at the sleet outside. This is too cold for two months ago, this region is important to global food supply. The harvests this year will be severely impacted.

How do you address risks of climate change fraud and corruption? Here is the story of a wind farm from Sweden which Google, GE and Infravia claim is one of the best in the world. Sadly, it is anything but... the film is called Headwind"21 - ruclips.net/video/7RgyLDVlAg4/видео.html

Unfounded quackery 💩

Sign up for daily climate news from Yale Climate Connections - www.yaleclimateconnections.org/

We have more events and videos coming soon, so subscribe to our RUclips channel.

To submit questions for the panel, go to pollev.com/yaleclimate