Yes in the end she is really politely holding back, and calls herself out of the CO2 discussion altogether. Which is a smart move. Great and very useful presentation, in her usual gentle but determined way
Plants need Co2 & she deflects well at the end & states she is not an expert in this field - Maybe one day Greta will get an education & make her 'own' comment ?
@@trumanburbank6899 Commercial Greenhouses use gas cylinders of Co2 to take concentrations from 400ppm to 1,000ppm for optimum plant health. Air bubbles trapped in 'Amber' contain 1,000ppm Co2 at dates when the Earth's plant life peaked - those plants broken down over millions of years formed into our hydrocarbons of today - current Oil & Gas. Inconvenient truths !
People hear snippets of news and get emotionally excited without knowing the facts behind what's going on or what is taking place in other parts of the world. I remember specifically about the solar minimum that it plays havoc with the global jet stream. That is why last winter we had snow as low as Texas which paralyzed many cities and took out the power. That is also why extreme heat is coming to places that don't usually see it this summer, as well as extreme cold happening in unexpected areas. Remember that the big push for green policies is driven by profit and power. Wake up and think for yourself while you still can.
The push for green policies is profit and power? WTF man. I’m sorry but who are the rich oil tycoons and CEOS of Shell and BP oil, or the ultra rich Arab sheiks that have over a trillion dollars, or the politicians that are all in the pocket of big oil?!?!? I swear the mental gymnastics that you climate deniers go through to keep using energy created by 235 million year old stored carbon that is clearly warming the planet instead of clean energy from wind or sun is absolutely astounding. Bravo 👏 👏 👏 keep your head in the Sand. Ignorance is bliss.
@gnorweb How do RUclips sensor my comment? You obviously read it. I just reread it and I didn’t use any profanities. So your claim that oil is driven by greed and stupidity and green energy is Driven by greed and stupidity… I suppose in a way it could be true. I mean everything that people do is driven by greed and stupidity. One main point that you’re missing perhaps is that by using fossil fuels we are pumping billions of tons of garbage in the atmosphere. Green energy on the other hand, despite people making money off of it, it’s not adding billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere. So… You do understand how one is better than the other right?
Liberals so stupid they don't understand air is made of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and 1% Hydrogen with 0.05% CO2. To top that off, 99.999999999% of 0.05% of CO2 comes from microorganisms. Every square inch of Earth is microorganisms. Why do you put food inside freezers? Cold temperatures prevent bacterial growth. Same thing with Earth. Temperatures go down, bacterial growth goes down than CO2 goes down and vice versa. Look at any global temperature graph of Earth in billions of years. Temperature always had cyclical change. Always!!. Liberals soo stupid they don't understand what the sun is, which is a fusion reaction of two different isotopes of hydrogen tritium and deuterium overcoming nuclear bonds with gravity, which is extremely inefficient and causes temperature to change.
You can't tax the sun. . It would destroy the climate change money machine. . shows just how deep the machine goes.. . Weather Channel says 2020 election is about your protection and safety. "2020 Race to Save the Planet" in otherwords Vote democratic or die. They are part of the agenda as well unfortunately :(
@KelMaster Construction - This year...once again is the WARMEST on record...stay tuned until next year when we say exactly the same thing. Of coarse there has been NO warming since 1998...which is a worry because coming out of a Little Ice Age...we should have been warming...at least a little over the last 20 years. So we are probably entering another little ice age.
@@AboveandBeyond44 Vote Democratic and starve..when you loose your job due to the renewal of Obama's EPA regulations or AOC's Green Raw Deal. How about taking some of the cash we don't spend on the Paris Climate Accord and figure a solution to the problem... We have already reduced our carbon emissions in the USA...What about the rest of the World ?
@Andy Theber the 1930's was way hotter than any temperature for the past twenty years. They are lying about Global Warming! They know that there will be others who can smell the B.S., and not believe them. However, they know that very few of them will do the research, and figure out that the opposite is actually happening. Not very many people are preparing for an ice age let alone a food crisis.
@Andy Theber the only people who are going to survive are those who can work with each other. Only the Military Units in SA, TX who are aware of what is going on. People in general here don't work well in groups. They only think of themselves. Not always the strong. It's attitude, and not stressing out. People have been divided, and become neurotic after learning the severity of their situation. They will be scared, and looking for answers. The answer is only given, and received by those who care, and earn the giver's respect. Most will likely never give, nor receive any answers. My question is what is my Government going to do.
Thank you so much for this. I think she did a great job of explaining the basics. I first learned something about the GSM only a year ago. Of course the MSM doesn't cover it - too much invested in their politicised point of view.
She is great with the physics but fails on grasping the interaction with biology (such as the lag time for oceanic involvement in heat retention or the biological necessity of CO2 for plant growth). Dr. Zharkova is still a worthy source to be included on any deep dive for further information on electro-magnetic information
Certainly feeling it in Alberta. Hardly any summer and the snow started in Sept. Now Now lots of snow and very low extreme temp for Nov. I noticed the previous summer plants going to seed very early in my garden same this summer. So much for global warming.
@Andy Theber On that view, nothing is ever climate. It's all weather. Climate - in the sense being used here - is just an averaging of weather over an arbitrarily long period. Actual climate is present all the time, as the flora and fauna of each region will testify.
Fred Neecher what Andy Thebes correctly points out is that a single observation can’t be called a (General) “climatic observation” it is a weather (variation) observation. In Greece, for example, as they get a lot of snow even from September, we had a very warm autumn (and you were able to swim in the sea up until the middle of November - even if you weren’t a winter swimmer - as you’d do during the early September, which is what normally happens). This variation in local phenomena AGAIN isn’t climate but a weather variation. In other words I don’t expect it to happen many times in the future (as it didn’t happen in previous autumns).
@Andy Theber Earth has only warmed 1 degree in the past 100 years which is explained by the cycles of the Sun in relation to the tilt of the planet and our orbit around the Sun. If you are worried we are now in a solar maximun. According to solar scientists they have not seen the sun this quiet for over 100 years. These scientists don't like to make unfounded prediction. They do however compare past cycles and think this minimum will be like the Dalton and possibly further into the century much more extreme temp like were scene in the maunder minimum .
Kieth : Correct & this will tell you why : the "Polar Vortex" effect.. the Arctic Ocean at the N.pole is much warmer than N.american land mass . so it pushes cold weather south. our rainy summer & super cold -30°C for 5-6 weeks straight thru last winter (Feb) were a direct result of it. True Story. look it up.
Store food for 1 yr., super insulate your home, have a reliable back up heating system, e.g., wood stove/firewood. Learn how to garden, plant fruit trees, buy -30 below clothing/boots and a small tent for inside your home should you lose all heating. Get protection for your family.
@@mkmason2002 yes and what do you plant that doesn't require 300 PPM Co2 and this minimum will last over 100years and if we are lucky the equatorial Co2 levels won't drop below 200PPM!
Always enjoy Valentina. The subtitles are inaccurate however unfortunately. Lucky me that I'm understanding her a lot better these days - even through that glorious accent. Thank You.
they don't "like" anything, except you relinquishing your hard earned cash for their personal enrichment. Besides, we know that it is the ants moving through the rainforests that cause the Earth to spin, even if it is flat....
this is why climate alarmists like to say the mini ice age was caused by 4 massive volcanic eruptions that 'blocked out the sun' and led to global cooling all the while ignoring the fact that Maunder minimum (1645-1710) our sun entered into one of these phases and it lasted about 70 years
@@HO-jp1by increased year on year? Really? Lmao. It’s probably why I’m sat here freezing my nuts off in the middle of summer then, with the coldest period I can remember as a pensioner.
Precisely. Ever watch her presentation the last year at the Global Warming Policy Foundation? You can find it on RUclips. The man introducing her flat out tells her she grew up in Soviet time and knows what she can say and what she cant and they blur our slides in her presentation and audio because she she had to say was so dire.
Thanks for this. I had read about Valentina and the prediction that we will experience a cooling period from 2031-2042 or even later, but had not heard that they are seeing it as beginning in 2020 and extending out for 33 years. That is something which we should be focused on.
Someone I know worked with a scientist for about 6 years drilling the earth and glaciers etc...I was told we are overdue for an ice age but when it suppose to happen is unknown.what they do know is there is always a warming period before an ice age.there have been many.they can also tell how far the glaciers went and when they started to recede.i was told that you need to go south
With each interview, particularly by different interviewers, I have been able to understand more and more of the complexity and genius of the work that this scientist and her collaborators have been doing with honesty and integrity. How are we to stop journalists and politicians spreading the fake news that we are going to have runaway global heating and crisis rising of ocean levels? The adjustment away from fossil fuels is TOTALLY the wrong direction if we are about to have a moderate cooling - we need all the coal and oil and gas we can get and should use a lot of it to manufacture numerous nuclear power plants all over the first world where there is political stability with generous sharing of alternative generating technology to populations unable to sustain complex nuclear technology.
That was great. I've tried to listen to her without subtitles, and found her too difficult to follow. I could tell that she is exceptionally knowledgeable however, and I learned much today. Thanks...
@@nicocba2007Given the current situation, I suspect they will reduce carbon by destroying the economy and then when the temperature drops because of the sun cycle, they will claim success.
They are purposely lying to everyone about "Global Warming" and scam people's money on a Carbon tax knowingly having no conscious solution because the said cause is a lie.
they predict the weather while out at the beach villa, soaking up those rays, then a power boat ride around the harbour, lol where its nice and hot all the time, hahaha
One does not "predict" the past, you numpty. Also, can you tell exactly what the models got wrong? Not what someone in a video on YT told you, but actual evidence? And before you make a fool of yourself think what I am asking for.
probably doesnt want to panic the masses...needs to talk about the volcanic activity increase that can make a big difference to the temperature if we have a big one go off
Wow I love it when scientists are allowed to speak about their field of expertise - no politics, no alarmism, no reading from a script, no buy-lines. Just their hidden truths based on measurements and mathematics! My favorite quote, 'Nature knows ...!'
Temperature is just one part of the climate, the problem with the grand solar minimum is mostly the erratic weather that follows, joint with increased volcanic activity, earth quakes and incrised cloud cover. This combination makes food production very difficult anywhere on earth, as we see in the history books. We already observe difficulties in food production all over the planet with 30% to 50% of the crops lost in many places, due to erratic and out of season weather. If we now are in the beginning of the grand solar minimum and the crop losses are at this size, then what are we to expect later? Another side of this problem is that Europa alone losses 1000 farms a day, will this also have one effect on future food production? Anyone see where this is going?
Agree and the public is brain washed with polar bears dying..ruclips.net/video/z6bcCTFnGZ0/видео.html and walruses falling to their deaths caused by a drone flying over head causing panic in the herd. See the lying news is so great now everything has to be researched and who can you trust ? the govt? the oil companies, or the Elites.. Maybe brain dead Greta.. See the plan all along was to woo the people to sleep let the grand solar min do the rest and bingo you have now just did what the Georgia stones said woud happen a decrease in human population. By STARVATION
@Magee Mathisen What evidence do you have for a solar minimum causing earthquakes and volcanoes? The physics of the sun/earth relationship do not support such a theory. Since we have not even seen a GSM for over 300 years that sounds like quite a stretch to make that claim.
BASICALLY, when the Sun is being "naughty," we feel the effects more when WE are being naughty. So if we stop being naughty, we won't feel the "naughtiness" of the Sun so much. But that DOESN'T rule out the fact that sometimes the Sun can be VERY "naughty" with it's output, and there is nothing you can do, no matter HOW many Teslas you drive.
But what we have to take along is that the 1° warming since the preindustrial age was the natural walk out from the little ice age and not the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.
@@sinjin6219 Whatelse do these Wackos expect if you recover from a Little ice age. You can argue that 90% warming are natural and 10% due to CO2 increase. But then one has to answer the question, why did Michael Mann make the Little Ice Age disappear in his fudged hockeystick diagram? There are historic recordings, even pictures of a frozen Themse. The only reason can be that with the existance of a Little Ice Age, their 1 degree CO2 warming theory breaks down.
An authority on what? Applied Mathematics, Astronomy, Astrophysics with a certificate in project management. Nothing to do with meteorology or climate science. Example "On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles," Fuck all to do with AGW & ACC.
@@davidphillips8180 😂😅. Just take a look at Congress in this session and the last one. Democrats have been focused on passing legislation that can actually help Americans. Infrastructure bill, climate change bill which passed, but in a weaker form because of Manchin and Sinema who are democrats in name only. Republicans on the other hand are acting like bratty children. If you want to see what histrionics looks like then MTG or Lauren Boebart who use grandstanding on a regular basis because like most shallow people they have nothing to offer. As for the Paris Accords that is far from perfect attempt to address climate change, but human beings are far from perfect. The science of climate change is not in doubt except by a few on the fringe of the matter who oppose climate change just like they oppose science. People like even you perhaps often ridicule that which they don't understand.
On November 15, 2019 nine inches of snow fell in southern Michigan. Many trees here still have green leaves on them though they are quite withered looking. The trees are confused between the hours of sunlight and lower temperatures, not knowing if they should drop their leaves yet. Some have, but most had not. Most turned fall colors, but a significant portion of them kept their greenness until this early snow. She's quite right, the vegetation knows that something is up with the weather here on planet Earth. Something a little unusual, not the normal cycles. Should we not pollute? Of course we shouldn't! Should we recycle? If we don't, nature will. We've already seen evidence of this with rocks showing up with amalgamations of plastics in them as if a new crystalized mineral has been catalyzed by Earth's geosphere. Scriptures tell us that "even these rocks will testify" and they most certainly do just that. I believe mathematics in general and her math specifically that the patterns in global climate are in fact modulated primarily by our sun, and secondarily by the orbital (and electrical) characteristics of the planets in our solar system. Carbon dioxide levels ebb and wane following a natural cycle. Mankind gives themselves outsized credit for influencing this natural carbon cycle. That is however, not a carte blanche license to pollute!
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. ruclips.net/video/rRuAmhTCNTw/видео.html As CO2 levels have increased, US temperatures have DECREASED. How have the global warming crowd survived? They have altered the historical data. Look at Tony Heller's videos to see the data.
Please don’t mix religious myths with science. The Bible and the Quran are full of scientific and historical myths they can never be said or inspired by the creator of this universe. It’s doesn’t matter if you interpret the verses you like the way you like, because you and others are not aware of , read and interpret or read and hide all the other mythical verses and stories that someone’s contradict even each other.
"Scriptures tell us " Nothing. "the patterns in global climate are in fact modulated primarily by our sun" It dosn't due to all co². The Sun activity has temporary decreased the latest 4 decades but will soon increase again and making the global warming go crazy.
Shes speaking to radiance decreases but isn't mentioning the possible addition of solar-ray cooling via an increase in cloud cover , so theres also that
Many in the farming community know this. Maybe not on a granular level but high tunnels are big business now. Davos knows this too. Hence the control over a dwindling food production. We should all be growing what we can. We are gonna need to help each other as much as possible. Instead of honesty we get denial.
Since there was a mini ice prediction spawned & promoted by the PR departments of the Fossil Fuel Multi-Millionaires back in the 70s, twice in the 80s, again in the 90s ...then they sat on their hands a claimed global warming would end by 2000 then there would be a new ice age in the 2007-2009 Solar Minimum, Then again a mini ice age 2015/2016 ...that was postponed to 2020... the reality is if the much-ballyhooed Grand Solar Minumum shows up... there is so much Global Warming Energy stored in our atmosphere and oceans ... the Grand Solar will be a mere whimper unheard by the world at large. -----------------------------------------
@@rakooi It does seem like a continual scare campaign for each new generation. You never know... David Ikes theory of Reptilians living on fear might have some merit.... after all Quantum theory is out there !
@@waynebow-gu7wr THIS LECTURE is the Continuing SCARE CAMPAIGN ! ! ANOTHER MINI ICE AGE....and who sells heat...the Fossil Fuel Industrialists! Thousands of PRESS RELEASES Warned of a MINI ICE AGE...using the outdated work of 3-4 scientists all through the 70s....by the end of the decade, the industry was jumping for joy at selling a record 1 million Oil Furnaces. FOLLOW THE MONEY! They Repeated the Myth in the 80s, the 90s, then they changed to a Warming Pause and then a Warming Hiatus, then a Cooling (defying every weather TV/RADIO STATION on the planet.... . -----------> documented by Barton Paul Levenson, I quoted Barton as follows below: "Global Warming Science & Climate Models have successfully predicted steadily increasing WARMING for over 60 YEARS! See the 1958 & 1965 AAAS (( the American Association for the Advancement of Science & Presidential Science Advisory Councils Research Reports & Warnings on Global Warming which causes threatening Climate Changes.)) These projections would start to be seen 50 years from 1965. 1. That the globe would warm. ((directly counter to the Mini ICE Age myth perpetuated by the Skeptic/Fossil Fuel Industrialists DEEP STATE. ---a mini ice age PREDICTED in the '70s, & again in the '80s, '90s, 2007-2009, 2015 and now in 2020, . we will be up to our assets in that mini ice age in 2020)) & 2. about how fast it would warm, & 3. about how much it would warm. . science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469 . 4. That the troposphere would warm & 5. The stratosphere would cool. . (( hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png )) . (( not one SKEPTIC has offered ANY FULL Scientific Based Explanation for this GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE PROOF )) . 6. That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures. ----->Nighttime Lows Warming Faster Than Daytime Highs - Does ... praedictix.com/nighttime-lows-warming-faster-than-daytime-highs-does-hot-weather-make-us-d… . (( www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/climate-change-rule-thumb-cold-things-warming-faster-warm-things )) . 7. That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures. . (( After all of the SUB ZERO temps this year, Wisconsin meteorologists pooled their data and found nite time winter cold temps have WARMED 10 degrees of the last 40 years)) . 8. Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles). . Arctic amplification | National Snow and Ice Data Center . (( nsidc.org/about/monthlyhighlights/2009/09/arctic-amplification )) . 9. That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic. . Arctic melt versus Antarctic freeze: Is Antarctica warming ... nsidc.org/.../11/arctic-melt-versus-antarctic-freeze-antarctica-warming-or-not . 10. The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. . 11. They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right. . 12. They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data. . 13. The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO. . 14. The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole. . 15. The expansion of the Hadley cells. . 16. The poleward movement of storm tracks. . 17. The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude. . 18. The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics. . 19. The near constancy of relative humidity on a global average. . 20. That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase. . -----------> Broecker is probably best known for popularizing the term “global warming” through his 1975 paper . “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
@@stevewilson4321 "regardless of the reason" is the simplistic part of your question. TODAY'S Dramatic rise in CO2 and an equally Dramatic Rise in temperatures is a Human DEFEAT-of-Earth's Most Powerful-NATURAL cycles ...the Milankovitch Cycles. 7,000 to 8,000 years of cyclical FALLING temperatures (in spits and spurts...like the Medieval & Roman Warmings) ... 1. Earth's Orbit is still pulling us away from our primary source of heat.....the sun. 2. Earth's Axial Tilt is still pulling us away from our source of heat...............the sun. 3. Earth's Wobble is similarly favorable to our Planet to COOL! and now, 4. We Are in a 40+ year Solar Decline In Energy Output....which means we should be cooling! Cooling Dramatically! ....and yet, temperatures are rising since the 1700s. ----> "Solar Energy Output has Decreased (a kind of solar minimum) over the recent decades, but Global Warming has Increased. Translation: It Is Not The Sun Causing ALL of this rapid Warming." static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png . Thomas Jefferson and John Adams discussed CLIMATE CHANGE from about 1799 thru 1804. Alexander von Humboldt studied & lectured about what he defined/labeled as "CLIMATE CHANGE", precisely as it is used today. .
@@rakooi If U actually understood what Milankovitch Cycles actually R then U would have known that it has nothing to do with CO2 rising and causing GW. 2nd U would then also know Milankovitch Cycles do not acct for GW occurring over decades as we have ALREADY SEEN... Maybe U should actually learn about the cycle 1st and what it is actually used for (its actually used to explain ice ages occurring over 10s of thousands of yrs) b4 assuming its an instant ans 4 GW. Then maybe U can understand how grn house gases actually CAUSE atmospheric temp rise...
@@stevewilson4321 What a ridiculous misstatement of my recitation of Mainstream Science. A PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION ON YOUR PART! CO2 has followed the natural cycles (google: Milankovitch Cycles) . "... Natural global warming, and cooling, is initiated by Milankovitch cycles. These orbital and axial variations influence the initiation of climate change in long-term natural cycles of 'ice ages' and 'warm periods' known as 'glacial' and 'interglacial' periods. Our current climate forcing shows we are outside of that natural cycle forcing range. \ Milankovitch Cycles Where are we currently in the natural Milankovitch cycle? Pre-industrial forcing estimated around 0.0 to -0.1W/m2 . The natural cycle that people refer to regarding large scale climate change is the time between ice ages and warm periods. The long cycle time is about 100,000 years. . We can spend around 20% of the cycle in an interglacial and around 80% in an ice age, depending on where we are in these cycle influences. . What causes this is the natural cycles that influence earth climate - the Milankovitch Cycles? The Milankovich cycles are caused by changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun, the tilt of the Earth's rotation axis, and the wobble of our axis. The mass and movement of the other planets in our solar system actually affect the Earth orbit just as our planetary mass similarly affects their orbits. As the Earth's orbit changes so too do the amount of sunlight that falls on different latitudes and in seasons. The amount of sunlight received in the summer at high northern latitudes appears to be especially important to determine whether the Earth is in an ice age or not. When the northern summer sun is strong, the Earth tends to be in a warm period. When it is weak we tend to be in an ice age. As we come out of an ice age, the sea level rises about 400 feet, and we enjoy a warm period 'like' the one we are in now. That is the natural cycle, brief warm periods followed by an ice age about every 100 thousand years. There are three general factors that determine the forcing changes in the Milankovitch cycles. Eccentricity (the elliptical changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun) Obliquity (the tilt of Earth's axis toward and away from the sun) Precession (the wobble of Earth's axis toward and away from the sun) . The two terms you want to be familiar with in the Milankovitch cycles are perihelion and aphelion. These terms pertain to proximity to, and/or climate forcing from solar energy. Perihelion is when Earth spends more time in close proximity to the sun, or in the case of the tilt and wobble cycles when the northern hemisphere landmass facing the sun is closest to the sun, causing warming. Aphelion is the opposite, when the Earth spends more time during the year away from the sun, or in the case of the tilt and wobble cycles when the northern hemisphere landmass facing the sun is further from the sun, causing cooling. The Eccentricity Cycle (Elliptical Cycle) . This is the longer cycle. About every 100k years. When the Earth orbit is elliptical we spend less time close to the sun in the span of a single year. This means we get less solar energy on an annual basis and tend to cool the Earth. . According to Ralph Keeling, Director of the CO2 program at Scripps Institute of Oceanography: “The ice sheets melt when the ice sheet is exposed to more summer sunlight. This happens when the northern summer aligns with the point of the closest approach between the earth and the sun. The point of closest approach is known as perihelion. The earth/sun perihelion depends on how elliptical the orbit is. The more elliptical, the closer the approach.” . The Obliquity Cycle (Axial Tilt) The Axial Tilt, or obliquity, varies to the plane of the Earth's orbit. This tilt, typically around 23 1/2 degrees can vary between 22 and 24 1/2 degrees. That means it can change up to 2.5 degrees over a period of 41,000 years. Increased obliquity can cause summers to be warmer and winters to be colder. So when our orbit is elliptical and our northern hemisphere, which is mostly landmass is tilted toward the sun, we can melt our way out of an ice age pretty fast, in fact, it only takes a few thousand years. As we attain a more circular orbit and the combined effects of the tilt and wobble work together in their natural cycles the Earth has a chance to cool again and we go back into an ice age. . Inversely, decreased obliquity can cause cooler summers that in combination with other factors can help push the climate system into ice ages when this cycle is favorable for that condition. ********* We are currently in a decreasing phase, which under normal circumstances, without the excess GHG’s, would cool the climate system. . The Precession Cycle (Wobble) Next is precession, or wobble. This cycle occurs every 26,000 years. This gyroscopic wobble of the earth axis is driven by tidal forces which are influenced by our sun and moon. The Earth is actually not perfectly round so the gravitational pull tugs the axis over time creating the wobble cycle. . Now there's a technical term for you. . This wobble can cause a difference in the types of seasons one polar hemisphere will experience over the other. The hemisphere at perihelion (closest to the sun) will enjoy an increase in summer solar radiation but a cooler winter, while the opposite hemisphere will have a warmer winter and a cooler summer. Currently, the southern hemisphere is at perihelion, so they are enjoying warmer summers, but cooler winters, which likely contributes to snowfall in the hemisphere. . Natural Cycle Departure The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle. . Natural vs. Modern Forcing Climate Forcing & Temperature Natural vs. Modern Climate Path Mheel Attribution Chart . This departure is so dramatic that it has instigated a new era. . According to research studies, there is enough evidence to state that we have departed the Holocene and entered the Anthropocene. * ******* Simply put, based on the evidence, mankind has forced the Earth climate system to depart from it's MOST POWERFUL natural cycle ------- GLACIATION ! . Links NASA Earth Observatory - Milutin Milankovitch IPCC/UCAR - What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era? NASA/NCDC/NOAA Astronomical Theory of Climate Change AGU - "Concrete" Testimony to Shifting Latitude of the Tropics Open University Netherlands - Solar radiation and Milankovich Univ. of Rhode island - Milankovitch Cycles in Paleoclimate NASA Earth Observatory - Earth is Cooling…No It’s Warming . nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/gov-rick-scott-bans-term-climate-change-in-florida
New sub. Great interviewer, humble & asking the right questions. Exactly right I feel, the climate will obviously change regardless of what we humans do but we urgently need to get our act together to stop polluting whilst learning to live with nature rather than fighting against.
@@talisikid1618 Nobody, anywhere, ever said we want to eliminate the pollution. But wee do need to minimize the impact of our warming climate which is definitely attributed to increasing CO2 and CH4.The evidence for this is quite overwhelming.
I love his first sentence claiming the Sun is going through a Maunder Minimum. It's January 2022 and we aren't in anything resembling a Maunder Minimum. The sun is alive and kicking, plenty of sunspots to count, plenty of flares. This dude needs to make a retraction video.
@@sponger7642 we will see. If co2 is really a potent Greenhouse Gas, it would be rather good in my opinion, because we could act with it against little or bigger ice ages. If the world freezes again, we would have much more problems than with a little Bit of warming...
@@sponger7642 yes true but look back 11,000 years since the last ice age ended. We went thru 8000 years of much much warmer temps than we have now and you'll also see the last 3000 years we are on a steep decline of temperatures with just this "normal blip of slightly warmer temps. Heading now into a grand solar minimum. This is ALL caused by the sun. Co2 cannot cause temperatures to increase in our atmosphere. The only anthropogenic climate changes humans can cause is raising temps in large cities with lots of concrete and few trees. Co2 is a very minor trace gas that increases after temps increase and that takes around 100 years.
Make your investment. I prefere a place where vegetation don't get flooded , don't get out of water, don't burn or don't blow away. Right now 30 millions Africans have to move since it's too hot for anything to grow.
ytbabbler no you nutcase, 30 million Africans are on the move because lots of them have now a smartphone and internet access and they can see how the average westerner lives and they are after the same quality of life. I am from Greece and even the poorest of immigrants that are entering the country illegally have latest model smartphones. There’s no proof whatsoever that droughts, floods, hurricanes or any other local phenomena are increasing in number or intensity. You have been paying too much attention to the wrong sources.
Excellent interview on solar activity. Many climate models ignore the effects of solar activity and water vapor. Climate model “scientists” got into trouble trying to demonstrate the change in temperature was based mainly on CO2 emissions, especially when CO2 emissions increased and the temperature did not increase.
No! Climate scientists study things like changes in solar output, changes in the Earth’s orbit, multidecadal natural variability in the Atlantic and Pacific, water vapor and other factors that impact climate change. They find that natural factors alone would have resulted in a modest cooling over the past 50 years or so, compared to the dramatic warming that we’ve experienced.
@@hosnimubarak8869 I stand corrected, I had read that they didn’t in some articles; however, a search on solar activity and climate change I did had determined that it is being considered and has been for a while.
"Yet our temps keep going up ?" Yes they certainly do. It's 0.18 / decade at the surface and it's pushed by 413,000 gigawatts. I'm sending you my address under separate cover so's you can forward my large cash prize in a plain brown envelope.
CO2 has about a 20% influence according to IPCC but man only contributes a very small amount of the CO2. Here is where the IPCC has to make a leap of faith - all the EXTRA CO2 due to man is causing all sorts of problems, and they get about a 10x too high sensitivity to CO2 as well, such that the small warming due to CO2 causes more water vapor, which is a major greenhouse effect. So it's just an assumption to suit their needs. They don't address the cosmic rays and clouds effect either, or they again assume it is negligible.
"Our climate is driven by the SUN" Aha, so the Moon has the same temperature as the earth? Maybe scientists know more than you do even if it's very hard for you to accept that.
@@rkcannon "man only contributes a very small amount of the CO2" You have been fooled, humans ADD 4% co² to a carbon flux that is in balance. The planet has even absorbed half of our co² but that will soon end since the planet get warmer. People lie to you, please check facts. Carbon flux explained and anti science fraud exposed: ruclips.net/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/видео.html
There have been many grand solar minimums. Maunder minimum was only one of them. We have also had Dalton, Wolf, Spörer minimum - the one we're hitting now has been named the Eddy minimum after John A Eddy. Maunder min. was the Little Ice Age.
The Maunder minimum was not, in fact, the cause of the so-called Little Ice Age. It merely happened *during* a portion of the Little Ice Age. The assertions of a causal link are simple false. The Maunder minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715. The Little Ice Age began centuries earlier, around 1300, and lasted into the early 19th century. The primary cause of the Little Ice Age seems to have been increased volcanic activity, not the fact that for a brief period there was a reduction in solar output (particularly given that even at the height of a grand solar minimum, there isn't actually all that much reduction in the amount of heat Earth receives from the Sun).
@@RedXlVFor my understanding. I have been told that CME is the main cause for eartquackes and vulcanic eruptions. Because it moves the earthcrust. And that this is more stronger during a Solar Maximum. But the moral of this story is the opposite. That their will be more vulcanic eruptions during a Solar Minimum ? Could you make me see the correct picture please ?
thanks for uploading this. Some things are not public knowledge for a reason. Knowing these things is kept because people can make a ton of cash from it all.
Solar radiation is certainly the main source of our planetary warmth. Just as the general day to day state of the Earth is controlled by the state of the planets' magnetic field, so the day to day state of the Sun is also controlled by what appears to be an 11 year cycle magnetic reversal. Every 11 years the sun has a magnetic pole 180 degree reversal, so after a second 11 year period, the magnetic field returns to its starting point. During the reversal period, the quantity and location of sunspots, coronal holes, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, coronal loops, prominences, and reconnection events vary at different stages and locations of the 11 year reversal. According to recorded data, there also appears to have been variations in the overall effect and frequency of the aforementioned events at different stages of the suns history.. The breakdown in the north/south magnetic field during the suns' eleven year cycle has a particular effect on the geographical location, frequency and size of sunspots and coronal holes as multiple poles develop during the reversal. One important discovery, however, is that the variation in solar radiation is only in the order of 0.1% of the solar radiation constant. So sunspots and coronal holes may not have a great deal of influence on our planet's day to day climate. Another factor that alters the intensity of radiation from the sun is the current elliptical orbit of the Earth around the sun.
Basically, Valentina is telling us we are entering Grand Minimum. Heads up!!!! It doesn't happen over night---it's gradual with every season. Learn to grow your own food.
Scientist Ken Rice have been fighting her paper claiming that the distance between Sun and Earth remain constant during time spans where it appears she claims that terrestrial temperature would be affected by change in distance. I have not seen if that fight have played out in any Nature decisions regarding paper validity ?
In South Eastern Australia right now and it’s unseasonably cold and wet for this time of year... I have never been convinced re warming / climate emergency.
So influences will be felt between Solar Cycles 25-26 if I’m hearing her right. Late 2020’s. Now couple that with the AMO 70yr cycle. Another Maunder or a milder Dalton minimum? Let’s hope it’s the latter.
Seems that botanist Dr David Bellamy, who used to work for the BBC many years ago, before being replaced with David Attenborough, could have been right all along. He always claimed that the warming was due to the suns activity, and was ridiculed for his opinion.
The sun causes most of the heating of Earth? How revolutionary! Then, there are those who claim that Earth is cooling: Solar Minimum. More sunspot activity results in higher temps. Fewer sunspots, cooler temps. Earth was in a warm period from about 1800 to the present. Earth is now cooling off toward a possible mini ice age?
Where I live it's getting cooler and cooler every year. We never needed jackets for the evening in the summertime 30 years ago. Absolute low temperature records in small countries don't make to the news in big media I guess.
she did not actually say that. She said that the CO2 effect was there and that the solar minimum would reduce the impacts of increased CO2, then as we come out of it we will have CO2 heating AND solar activity. She absolutely said we need to deal with CO2. Amazing how this scholarly work is being used by CO2 deniers.
Claire Brereton she literally said that “we let the experts do their job” which means she refrains from making a diagnosis on the ordeal. Learn to read between the lines (and statements). You can look at many many prominent skeptic scientists that refute the proclaimed huge impact of CO2 (which is at minuscule levels - just 400 molecules for every 1 MILLION molecules of air or 400 parts per million/ per volume or 0.04% of the atmosphere) that is pushed by the fearmongering, climategate perpetrators of doomsday scenarios (of which we have seen none - and we aren’t going to).
Observer : We've noticed that the Sun disappeared. Researcher: We can't be sure what effect it has on the Planet. Earth : Flies off into stellar space, Earth turns into an solid ball of ice.
I encourage viewers to look into the peer review of her work. It seems there are some important areas where her work falls short. In June 2019 the journal Nature retracted her paper and issued the following statement. (There's more. I'm just quoting a piece, for brevity.) "The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented."
Patrick Lincoln were you always content to live in an echo chamber? Are you serious? You site skepticalscience/com of C(r)ook et al (97% bogus study) as a reliable source?
@Andy Theber 100% brother Ben 👍 i believe the sun is a reset every 12000yrs or so, wonder why the elites are building underground 🤔 I believe the sun is at the time or near the time for the RESET !! Doug Vogt speaks well on this topic RUclips him 👍 PEACE BE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ALLWAYS AND FOREVER BROTHER Andy🎅
Gotta love people who failed high school science thinking they know more science than the people who have been DOING science for many decades solely because political propaganda tells them to think that... How DOES it feel, knowing you are a tool?
A pity Mr.McNish could not leave aside mention of anthropogenic 'carbon' (carbon dioxide) which has no bearing on the subject of global mean temperature at all.
Dr. Patrick Moore's explanation on CO2 has more credibility. He says CO2 sustains all life, without it we'd all be dead. He also says heat always follows CO2 not the other way around. Check out his videos and learn the truth. Climate change is cyclical. Dr. Moore also said plants need at least 150 ppm and at one period of time it reached 180 ppm which was 30 ppm away from extinction - humans came along and made the change. He also said, plants optimum for growth is 1 - 2 thousand ppm, so their you go folks we need CO2 to exist.
@@sr.b8002 "No-one is disputing this." There is nothing that no-one dispute. Just look at the comments here, they dispute science and facts with claims that contradict each others. The world is crazy with this polarization of media, people believe what others say at a level of 0% or 100%, no gray scale and no fact check.
Climate is the complex physical, chemical mechanism by which the Earth system distributes the energy coming from the sun...and guess what? is always changing
Have you guys spoken to Suspicious observers, the thunderbolts project. Our model of the sun needs some serious rethinking. Sunspots show us temperature beneath the surface is cooler. The Safire project have replicated plasma double layers as predicted by the electric not fusion model of the Sun.
Umm you do know climate goes both ways yeah? Too cold bad news , too hot bad news. What she is saying is because of the level of warming we have caused already , this cold cycle wont be nearly as cold as it would otherwise be. Humans exist in a goldilocks zone, we are kinda fragile that way.
and the least accurate. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!? "Solar Energy Output has Decreased (solar minimum/low sunspots) over the recent decades, but Global Warming has Increased. Translation: It Is Not The Sun Causing ALL of this rapid Warming." static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png ------- vimeo.com/34099316
*** PART 3 OF 3 *** The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect". The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres ---> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called "downwelling LWR radiation at the surface" and I've explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface. That's the lower end of how the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" works. --------- Note 1: I haven't yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don't know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn't find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2. Note 2: I've read on the internet that spontaneous emission of a photon of LWR by a GHG molecule with MVE will typically occur after ~1.0 seconds with MVE but I'm not accepting that without some serious fact checking which I haven't done yet. One photon / second just seems way too minuscule to me. I also need that information to calculate whether mis-calibration method of the STAR MSU/AMSU instrument makes the RSS & UAH TLT temperature O2 proxy analyses analyse a significantly lower total of energy than thermometers measure, or whether the difference is negligible. It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above. Note 3: 80% of Earth's atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The "greenhouse effect" warming can only happen in Earth's troposphere, there's no effect in Earth's tropopause and the effect is "backwards" in Earth's stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that's how it's known with total certainty that it's increased "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there's no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you'll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That's the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it's a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there's only 0.4% of Earth's atmosphere's molecules above, negligible. Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the instrument on a satellite show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. From this atmospheric physicists have calculated the 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs.
Absolutely not, there's no way that the gigantic thermonuclear fusion reactor we see through the sky could possibly have any effect on global climate. To make suggestions that reality has any bearing on political reasons for raising taxes and decrease personal freedom is blasphemous. She must be Expelled from the Academy.
Solar maximum is caused by the gravitational pull of Jupiter, Venus, and Earth upon the sun. Every 11 years these three planets line up in their orbits together on the same side of the sun. Presumably, similar to the affect of the moons influence upon the ocean/ocean tides, the sun is more ‘active’ every 11 years because the inward pull of gravity within the sun is counteracted by an outward pull of gravity caused by the planets orbiting the Sun. This is settled, proven, and well-know science. Although this has only been proven recently, there is no reason for this information not to appear in the article.
MEXCAN FUN and it’s quite warmer here in Greece. That doesn’t prove a thing and I’m a very active skeptic of anthropogenic global warming (which I consider a political agenda of all things).
To simple to note that the centre of the sun is normally more or lesst the same as the barycentre of the solar system, but when the Jovian planets align as they are now, that the sun actuallyt orbits the barycentre. For earth, following the orbit leads to an increase in seismic activity.
Yes others have noted that. She explains it here by saying they had not figured in the warming effects of development when they made their initial report. Most of us know she is referring to concrete jungles and pollution ...not CO2 which actually cools the earth by greening up the temperate zone
First " Maunder Minimum" refers to a specific event(1645 to 1715); (2) The number of sunspots has been decreasing since around 1953-55; (3) I saw a report that said Cycle 26 has begun.(sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot)
It's quite amazing that the global warming crowd can't wrap their head around the hottest brightest object near us has nothing to do with global warming.
Looking at the data online, Earth's temp correlated well with Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) up until around 1980, when it diverged. So although it looks like the Sun was driving our temp, something happened quite suddenly in addition, and took over. If this was/is CO2, why would it act in this way - rather suddenly? I fully agree that temp has gone up, and continues around 0.13 deg C per decade (though there has been no acceleration in warming for the past 10 years, and no acceleration in Arctic sea ice loss since 2007!), but it surely (to this engineer) points to something that isn't CO2?
@@milankovitch8697 If you didn't know this, then it shows that you're not aware of what's happening about climate change, and that you're too lazy to research it, so why should I go to the trouble? If you just go to the HadCrut and global cryosphere watch sites, you'd see it. Go look for yourself.
@@feistyphysicist You're crazy. Do you deny that globally, the years 2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2021, 2018, 2014, 2010 2013, are the hottest on record in modern history?
@@milankovitch8697 I always find comments like yours so odd. Do you not read what someone else has written? "...there has been no acceleration in warming for the past 10 years..." Go see for yourself. As the world warms at 0.13 degrees C per decade, we will have warmer years which are the latest years. BUT, there has been no acceleration for 10 years, at least. The warming will probably resume, but we can't be sure of it...and this is why it isn't CO2. The 'method' of warming is odd. I'm an engineer with a degree in geophysics. There's something not quite right about the warming.
@@feistyphysicist Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are over 30% higher than they were about 150 years ago at the dawn of the industrial revolution and in the same time span the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
It makes so much sense that the sun's interaction with the earth is perhaps a stronger influence on climate than CO2 levels. There are two worries I have with the United Nations push to address CO2. If CO2 is reduced sufficiently, plants will die and I suppose we will have to grow our food indoors with an artificially raised CO2 level. The second is this proposed carbon tax. It would seem this is another way to raise money for the UN and fund the vision of a global world government. Our various levels of government in the USA have foolishly bought into this idea, perhaps not realizing it could kill our economy as energy usage (which drives our economy) is mandated through taxation to be lowered. Glad I had a chance to listen to Zharkova's comments.
No matter how much sense you think it makes, it's still not true. CO2 *is* the largest driver of climate. Far more so than the minor variations in solar output.
" It makes so much sense that the sun's interaction with the earth is perhaps a stronger influence on climate than CO2 levels." That is totally wrong. The greenhouse gases CH4, CO2, N2O, and O3, raise global temperatures by 33F compared to the moon which is the same distance from the Sun. s we increase these greenhouse gases, we reflect more infrared photons back toward the Earth. This increase in infrared photons increases evaporation. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, that additional evaporation has raised global humidity by 8% and global drought by 29%. "If CO2 is reduced sufficiently, plants will die and I suppose we will have to grow our food indoors with an artificially raised CO2 level." Where do you people get such crazy ideas? Plant life has been doing quite well when CO2 concentrations were running between 280 ppm during interglacial periods, and 180ppm during glacial periods. At 420ppm plant life has been decreasing their stomas. Plants require only so much CO2 to function. "The second is this proposed carbon tax." Which would put dollars in every American's pocketbook by increasing efficiency by decreasing fossil fuel usage. On the other hand, solar is the cheapest energy source ever followed closely by wind energy. "Glad I had a chance to listen to Zharkova's comments." Clearly, you only heard your own preconceived notions.
In the U.K. the magnetic field started moving east about 11 years back and I noticed the the season shift. As it takes 120 years to go from zero to 27 degrees and back, it could be 50 years before we are 27 degree east, last time we were there, it was 240 years ago I’m sure it was bloody cold then. Mid 17th century.
But that's entirely due to Natural Hot Air from "Stuart McNish" so just another Natural Cycle and not anything to do with global warming or burning carbon or anything that relates to wealth in the slightest. So bottom line, nothing to see here so move on and if you do get fried just look on the bright side, at least you didn't freeze.
@@grindupBaker how do you explain that solar intensity is waning but global temperatures are rising? Can't wait for your explanation. Please provide supporting evidence or don't bother responding at all. Your opinion is not fact.
@@grindupBaker ok, right. As you know so many ludicrous comments here are written in a serious manner therefore it is not always to distinguish the sarcastic from the idiotic. Cheers.
@@apumasterp No scientist was calling for an ice age, that was fake news in the daily mail. There was a short cooling period due to heavy pollution but as scientists predicted, the warming effect from co² should win and it did. What I'm talking about is that you believe in bullshit, the global warming that for a fact exist is caused by co² from fossil fuel, nothing else.
@@ytbabbler , what you spouted were not facts. There was a lot of talk in the 70's about a possible ice age. Co2 is innocent, it has never had a measurable effect on the earth's temperature. When the earth's oceans heat up they release more co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is nothing but plant food and the plants love it.
It is said that carbon dioxide stands for 14-25 percent of the greenhouse effect. I strongly doubt that it is that much for several reasons (it also defies logic that the 0.04% CO2 would cause as much as 14-25% of the greenhouse effect). This means that out of the raise of 0.8-1 degree Celsius since preindustrial times the burning of fossile fuels results in at the most 0.2 degrees Celsius. I'm however pretty sure - for several reasons - that the burning of fossile fuels has resulted in substantially less than a 0.2 degrees Celsius increase of the global temperature during the last 150 years. And when you add the fact that the burning of fossile fuels only has added 3-4% (maybe less) of the 0,04% CO2 in the atmosphere, then the burning of coal, oil and gas of - at the very most - the 0.2 degrees becomes much less. SOURCE: G. A. Schmidt, R. A. Ruedy, R. L. Miller and A. A. Lacis (2010). ”Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect”. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106.
Out of all greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, human CO2 emissions amount to merely 0.12% ! Just how much of an extra warming effect does this have ?
Yeah but CO2 has gone up 1.5 hundredths of 1 percent of the overall atmosphere over the last couple decades so we're all doomed now. That's equivalent to this 1 youtube video compared to the last 6,667 youtube videos you've watched so it isn't nothing. We can be sure that they measured it at an average location with no other changes, where weather is constant and using the same CO2 meter the whole time.
It's really remarkable. At that second link for example, he mocks people for pointing out that 4 parts per million (ppm) or 0.04% of our atmosphere is "tiny", and that the increase over time is even smaller of course. Instead of discussing why tiny can matter so much, or I suppose that must happen somewhere else, eventually, he plays the song `Feelings`, which is, naturally, the scientific thing to do right? Both sides like to accuse the other of operating on feelings, myself included, to wit ... I suspect his viewers enjoy hearing the song of his voice lulling them into a hypnotic state of trust, which is quite the high perhaps. I wouldn't know, I follow actual data, not personalities. I was ready to be convinced and spent hours listening to that youtuber called potholer54 before, holding out hope that he would break out of the smug sing-song cadence and pause his performance long enough to zero in on one point in a convincing way, thoroughly. The pump-valve illustration in the first link didn't make sense to me. I worked at Microsoft and in high energy research and I write stock market algorithms so I have to think logically. I agree he does make a few sound points here and there, both sides have some truth, but I think what's missing all across the board by either side is a discussion of the methods of measurement, that's missing and replaced instead by a blind trust, so if anyone runs across a seriously detailed examination of measuring methods and the data, I'd appreciate a link. The reason I'm asking is that I've done my share of measuring things so I know there are always holes. For example, in 133 satellite projects by various countries since 1962 (OSO), I would be curious to know why infrared is not included, if it isn't. I'm not saying there is some grand conspiracy in that, I just want to understand. It is the case for NASA's latest also, LISIRD, which says on their About page it only goes to near infrared. Why would infrared (absorbed by CO2) be not measured or why would it be excluded in presenting the data? Again, there might be a reasonable answer to that, the question is not an indictment, it is a humble question. Well, ok, maybe not humble, but about the best I can do in that department. :)
@@garyha2650 Strangely you didn't seem to get it at all. Do you under after watching the video, that making the argument "a substance is only in a very small amount, therefore it can only have a very small effect", is a very retarded argument to make? It couldn't have been any clearer.
CO2 cannot by any means be a greenhouse gas that can be blamed for climate change..it certainly did not that in the past Percentages are just too low , less than 1%. Water vapour, sun activity and the tilting of the earthaxis as well as her elliptical circling around our Sun, have the only proven or partial proven influence on our climate. Change thereof is a ever occurring event for millions of years and everchanging. Humans play part in pollution, but s neglectable part in climate change. Which phenomenon of course cannot be denied. Watch on RUclips the eye-opening British Documentary" The Great Global Warming Swindle" from 2007, still valid to counteract the pseudo- scientific statements and graphs in Al Gore's documentary" An Inconvenient Truth" ......
Everything can be related to this - The pool is full of water. The water is everywhere in the pool. Smack the surface at one end and a wave (Of water) moves but it's not moving it's just a perturbation. the energy is moving. The question is, was it felt at the other end of the pool at the moment of impact or creation of the wave? That would be called "Instant action at a distance" and it exists! Like scalar, we have multiple things going on, but moving particles are not the answer! Aether, Magnetism, electricity, light and the dielectric are at play here. If the Sun is under pressure then maybe we are witnessing high static discharge witch creates heat and light (Photons are torpedo's from a famous TV show only) Light is a coaxial circuit but like the wave it's not moving, it's the instant action at a distance and the pool is large, Galaxy large! We swim in gases but everything has an Aether like the sidewalk being created only with each step you take because the wave is the water! and we are getting close, we just need to let go and feel what's natural. Deep down we know what's not true a when we hear it it will seem so simple! Like everything else, how did I miss it? moments.
Great conversation, interesting caveat at the end off the interview. The comments at the end about CO2 , must be for the insurance of future funding! She is much to bright and professional not to be very well read.
Yes in the end she is really politely holding back, and calls herself out of the CO2 discussion altogether. Which is a smart move. Great and very useful presentation, in her usual gentle but determined way
Plants need Co2 & she deflects well at the end & states she is not an expert in this field - Maybe one day Greta will get an education & make her 'own' comment ?
I thought this as well. She's reciting lines she can't not say.
We don't need to plant trees - Create more CO2 and the plants will plant themselves.
@@trumanburbank6899 Commercial Greenhouses use gas cylinders of Co2 to take concentrations from 400ppm to 1,000ppm for optimum plant health. Air bubbles trapped in 'Amber' contain 1,000ppm Co2 at dates when the Earth's plant life peaked - those plants broken down over millions of years formed into our hydrocarbons of today - current Oil & Gas. Inconvenient truths !
@@trumanburbank6899 completely stupid statement.
I emailed the professor a few years ago, she kindly replied, fascinating work 👌🏻
People hear snippets of news and get emotionally excited without knowing the facts behind what's going on or what is taking place in other parts of the world. I remember specifically about the solar minimum that it plays havoc with the global jet stream. That is why last winter we had snow as low as Texas which paralyzed many cities and took out the power. That is also why extreme heat is coming to places that don't usually see it this summer, as well as extreme cold happening in unexpected areas. Remember that the big push for green policies is driven by profit and power. Wake up and think for yourself while you still can.
The push for green policies is profit and power? WTF man. I’m sorry but who are the rich oil tycoons and CEOS of Shell and BP oil, or the ultra rich Arab sheiks that have over a trillion dollars, or the politicians that are all in the pocket of big oil?!?!? I swear the mental gymnastics that you climate deniers go through to keep using energy created by 235 million year old stored carbon that is clearly warming the planet instead of clean energy from wind or sun is absolutely astounding. Bravo 👏 👏 👏 keep your head in the Sand. Ignorance is bliss.
@gnorweb How do RUclips sensor my comment? You obviously read it. I just reread it and I didn’t use any profanities.
So your claim that oil is driven by greed and stupidity and green energy is Driven by greed and stupidity… I suppose in a way it could be true. I mean everything that people do is driven by greed and stupidity.
One main point that you’re missing perhaps is that by using fossil fuels we are pumping billions of tons of garbage in the atmosphere.
Green energy on the other hand, despite people making money off of it, it’s not adding billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere.
So… You do understand how one is better than the other right?
Liberals so stupid they don't understand air is made of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and 1% Hydrogen with 0.05% CO2. To top that off, 99.999999999% of 0.05% of CO2 comes from microorganisms. Every square inch of Earth is microorganisms. Why do you put food inside freezers? Cold temperatures prevent bacterial growth. Same thing with Earth. Temperatures go down, bacterial growth goes down than CO2 goes down and vice versa. Look at any global temperature graph of Earth in billions of years. Temperature always had cyclical change. Always!!. Liberals soo stupid they don't understand what the sun is, which is a fusion reaction of two different isotopes of hydrogen tritium and deuterium overcoming nuclear bonds with gravity, which is extremely inefficient and causes temperature to change.
Couldn't have said it better!
See also, the "Milankovitch Effect"..re: variations of tilt and orbit of the Earth.
Thank you! I feel that I understand the situation better for having listened to Dr. Zharkova.
Does anyone else see the irony between this 'hidden' from general population this information and the popular theme, "Winter is Coming"?
You can't tax the sun. . It would destroy the climate change money machine. . shows just how deep the machine goes.. . Weather Channel says 2020 election is about your protection and safety. "2020 Race to Save the Planet" in otherwords Vote democratic or die. They are part of the agenda as well unfortunately :(
@KelMaster Construction - This year...once again is the WARMEST on record...stay tuned until next year when we say exactly the same thing.
Of coarse there has been NO warming since 1998...which is a worry because coming out of a Little Ice Age...we should have been warming...at least a little over the last 20 years. So we are probably entering another little ice age.
@@AboveandBeyond44 Vote Democratic and starve..when you loose your job due to the renewal of Obama's EPA regulations or AOC's Green Raw Deal.
How about taking some of the cash we don't spend on the Paris Climate Accord and figure a solution to the problem... We have already reduced our carbon emissions in the USA...What about the rest of the World ?
@Andy Theber the 1930's was way hotter than any temperature for the past twenty years. They are lying about Global Warming! They know that there will be others who can smell the B.S., and not believe them. However, they know that very few of them will do the research, and figure out that the opposite is actually happening. Not very many people are preparing for an ice age let alone a food crisis.
@Andy Theber the only people who are going to survive are those who can work with each other. Only the Military Units in SA, TX who are aware of what is going on. People in general here don't work well in groups. They only think of themselves. Not always the strong. It's attitude, and not stressing out. People have been divided, and become neurotic after learning the severity of their situation. They will be scared, and looking for answers. The answer is only given, and received by those who care, and earn the giver's respect. Most will likely never give, nor receive any answers.
My question is what is my Government going to do.
Thank you so much for this. I think she did a great job of explaining the basics. I first learned something about the GSM only a year ago. Of course the MSM doesn't cover it - too much invested in their politicised point of view.
She is great with the physics but fails on grasping the interaction with biology (such as the lag time for oceanic involvement in heat retention or the biological necessity of CO2 for plant growth). Dr. Zharkova is still a worthy source to be included on any deep dive for further information on electro-magnetic information
Certainly feeling it in Alberta. Hardly any summer and the snow started in Sept. Now Now lots of snow and very low extreme temp for Nov. I noticed the previous summer plants going to seed very early in my garden same this summer. So much for global warming.
@Andy Theber On that view, nothing is ever climate. It's all weather. Climate - in the sense being used here - is just an averaging of weather over an arbitrarily long period. Actual climate is present all the time, as the flora and fauna of each region will testify.
Fred Neecher what Andy Thebes correctly points out is that a single observation can’t be called a (General) “climatic observation” it is a weather (variation) observation. In Greece, for example, as they get a lot of snow even from September, we had a very warm autumn (and you were able to swim in the sea up until the middle of November - even if you weren’t a winter swimmer - as you’d do during the early September, which is what normally happens). This variation in local phenomena AGAIN isn’t climate but a weather variation. In other words I don’t expect it to happen many times in the future (as it didn’t happen in previous autumns).
@Andy Theber Earth has only warmed 1 degree in the past 100 years which is explained by the cycles of the Sun in relation to the tilt of the planet and our orbit around the Sun. If you are worried we are now in a solar maximun. According to solar scientists they have not seen the sun this quiet for over 100 years. These scientists don't like to make unfounded prediction. They do however compare past cycles and think this minimum will be like the Dalton and possibly further into the century much more extreme temp like were scene in the maunder minimum .
Kieth :
Correct & this will tell you why :
the "Polar Vortex" effect..
the Arctic Ocean at the N.pole is much warmer than N.american land mass .
so it pushes cold weather south.
our rainy summer & super cold -30°C for 5-6 weeks straight thru last winter (Feb) were a direct result of it.
True Story.
look it up.
Yes. Me Too. I plant 2-3 weeks earlier and am still picking cherry tomatoes a month later in the fall.
Can you tell, I like Cherry Tomatoes?
Store food for 1 yr., super insulate your home, have a reliable back up heating system, e.g., wood stove/firewood. Learn how to garden, plant fruit trees, buy -30 below clothing/boots and a small tent for inside your home should you lose all heating. Get protection for your family.
sounds like covid again
What good will one years worth of food do?
@@terenceiutzi4003 Um,...........you won't starve to death for a year while you plant your garden.
@@mkmason2002 yes and what do you plant that doesn't require 300 PPM Co2 and this minimum will last over 100years and if we are lucky the equatorial Co2 levels won't drop below 200PPM!
Fun to listen since we are used to this weather conditions in Russia 😁
Always enjoy Valentina. The subtitles are inaccurate however unfortunately. Lucky me that I'm understanding her a lot better these days - even through that glorious accent. Thank You.
I am very impressed. Keep up your good work!
Great work. Climate alarmists are not going to like this.
they don't "like" anything, except you relinquishing your hard earned cash for their personal enrichment.
Besides, we know that it is the ants moving through the rainforests that cause the Earth to spin, even if it is flat....
Yep.
this is why climate alarmists like to say the mini ice age was caused by 4 massive volcanic eruptions that 'blocked out the sun' and led to global cooling all the while ignoring the fact that Maunder minimum (1645-1710) our sun entered into one of these phases and it lasted about 70 years
Guess what? Temperatures have increased year after year since you proclaimed 'Great work'!
Doh!
@@HO-jp1by increased year on year? Really?
Lmao.
It’s probably why I’m sat here freezing my nuts off in the middle of summer then, with the coldest period I can remember as a pensioner.
Obvious she is being hesitant and careful not to step on any political toes.
Precisely. Ever watch her presentation the last year at the Global Warming Policy Foundation? You can find it on RUclips. The man introducing her flat out tells her she grew up in Soviet time and knows what she can say and what she cant and they blur our slides in her presentation and audio because she she had to say was so dire.
She is hesitant because she knows she's talking complete codswallop
Thanks for this. I had read about Valentina and the prediction that we will experience a cooling period from 2031-2042 or even later, but had not heard that they are seeing it as beginning in 2020 and extending out for 33 years. That is something which we should be focused on.
the effects are already being seen. go to Adapt 2030 and Ice Age Farmer. Let other folks know.
Someone I know worked with a scientist for about 6 years drilling the earth and glaciers etc...I was told we are overdue for an ice age but when it suppose to happen is unknown.what they do know is there is always a warming period before an ice age.there have been many.they can also tell how far the glaciers went and when they started to recede.i was told that you need to go south
That's why the climate alarmist must close down oil and gas and stop private car ownership before the public twig what's really going on.
@@chris-non-voter This is bizarre. We keep breaking high temperature records, year after year, and to you that means cooling?
@Jack Snow which glaciers? All of them? The ones I know have been retreating.
With each interview, particularly by different interviewers, I have been able to understand more and more of the complexity and genius of the work that this scientist and her collaborators have been doing with honesty and integrity.
How are we to stop journalists and politicians spreading the fake news that we are going to have runaway global heating and crisis rising of ocean levels?
The adjustment away from fossil fuels is TOTALLY the wrong direction if we are about to have a moderate cooling - we need all the coal and oil and gas we can get and should use a lot of it to manufacture numerous nuclear power plants all over the first world where there is political stability with generous sharing of alternative generating technology to populations unable to sustain complex nuclear technology.
Exactly and the politicians are plotting massive murder by doing this. Trying to get your consent and cooperation in your own death.
That was great. I've tried to listen to her without subtitles, and found her too difficult to follow. I could tell that she is exceptionally knowledgeable however, and I learned much today. Thanks...
I'm already preparing to laugh on IPCC talking heads' faces for the next 22 years.
Roger Dale so did I!
@@nicocba2007Given the current situation, I suspect they will reduce carbon by destroying the economy and then when the temperature drops because of the sun cycle, they will claim success.
The global warming alarmist's computer models can't even "predict" the past, let a lone the future.
This is termed "hind casting." Sounds a bit rude.
They are purposely lying to everyone about "Global Warming" and scam people's money on a Carbon tax knowingly having no conscious solution because the said cause is a lie.
they predict the weather while out at the beach villa, soaking up those rays, then a power boat ride around the harbour, lol where its nice and hot all the time, hahaha
One does not "predict" the past, you numpty.
Also, can you tell exactly what the models got wrong? Not what someone in a video on YT told you, but actual evidence?
And before you make a fool of yourself think what I am asking for.
@@boffeycn why should anyone do anything? It's your butt that is on the line. You do the research, get prepared, or become someone's Prey.
She’s holding back. She don’t want to step on the wrong toes and lose her funding?
Indeed
probably doesnt want to panic the masses...needs to talk about the volcanic activity increase that can make a big difference to the temperature if we have a big one go off
My thought excactly
There are some big sore toes she must not tread on.
@@steve-r-collier Co2 from volcanic activity include carbon 13 but that has decreased, so how do you explain that?
Wow I love it when scientists are allowed to speak about their field of expertise - no politics, no alarmism, no reading from a script, no buy-lines. Just their hidden truths based on measurements and mathematics! My favorite quote, 'Nature knows ...!'
Finally Dr. Willet’s meteorological solar predictions can restore the science associated with the weather.
She better do better than this then.
Temperature is just one part of the climate, the problem with the grand solar minimum is mostly the erratic weather that follows, joint with increased volcanic activity, earth quakes and incrised cloud cover.
This combination makes food production very difficult anywhere on earth, as we see in the history books.
We already observe difficulties in food production all over the planet with 30% to 50% of the crops lost in many places, due to erratic and out of season weather.
If we now are in the beginning of the grand solar minimum and the crop losses are at this size, then what are we to expect later?
Another side of this problem is that Europa alone losses 1000 farms a day, will this also have one effect on future food production?
Anyone see where this is going?
agree. check out Adapt 2020 and Ice Age Farmers. GSM is already affecting us.
Agree and the public is brain washed with polar bears dying..ruclips.net/video/z6bcCTFnGZ0/видео.html and walruses falling to their deaths caused by a drone flying over head causing panic in the herd. See the lying news is so great now everything has to be researched and who can you trust ? the govt? the oil companies, or the Elites.. Maybe brain dead Greta.. See the plan all along was to woo the people to sleep let the grand solar min do the rest and bingo you have now just did what the Georgia stones said woud happen a decrease in human population. By STARVATION
@Magee Mathisen What evidence do you have for a solar minimum causing earthquakes and volcanoes? The physics of the sun/earth relationship do not support such a theory. Since we have not even seen a GSM for over 300 years that sounds like quite a stretch to make that claim.
Are those farms actually lost or are they bought up and combined with others?
@@beckfordritchie6285 Gone to housing.
BASICALLY, when the Sun is being "naughty," we feel the effects more when WE are being naughty. So if we stop being naughty, we won't feel the "naughtiness" of the Sun so much. But that DOESN'T rule out the fact that sometimes the Sun can be VERY "naughty" with it's output, and there is nothing you can do, no matter HOW many Teslas you drive.
Perfect summary 10/10 🌟😂
👏👏👏
But what we have to take along is that the 1° warming since the preindustrial age was the natural walk out from the little ice age and not the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Precisely correct. I've been saying this for years. Climate change/global warming wackos just scoff at me.
@@sinjin6219 Whatelse do these Wackos expect if you recover from a Little ice age. You can argue that 90% warming are natural and 10% due to CO2 increase. But then one has to answer the question, why did Michael Mann make the Little Ice Age disappear in his fudged hockeystick diagram? There are historic recordings, even pictures of a frozen Themse. The only reason can be that with the existance of a Little Ice Age, their 1 degree CO2 warming theory breaks down.
The Sun is EVERYTHING!
Keep up the great videos. I'm a Sustainability major, I'm working on educating ppl at school and these videos help
Sustainability Major 😂
Good luck paying for (any) loan with that major. (
Grand Solar Minimum has started. Phenomenal storms coming very soon. YT interviews: John L Casey, Anita Bailey, PhD. YT channel: Adapt 2030.
Good for you Girl! Let's hope they don't harm you for trying to educate them... They are well entrenched in Bliss.
If you are using THESE videos, ...you are not educating people...you are propagandizing people.
What a brilliant interview! Such an open and honest lady. Really enjoyed this.... of course, she is a authority.
An authority on what? Applied Mathematics, Astronomy, Astrophysics with a certificate in project management. Nothing to do with meteorology or climate science.
Example "On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles," Fuck all to do with AGW & ACC.
@mkbxtr44 True, but then anyone believing the bible is a science reference book is a lost cause.
It's nice to listen to thoughtful conversation, rather than emotional histrionics.
Exactly! We get more than enough of that from republicans. 😅😂🤣
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Histrionics = Paris Accord. I think "Democrats" would be more accurate.
@@davidphillips8180 😂😅. Just take a look at Congress in this session and the last one. Democrats have been focused on passing legislation that can actually help Americans. Infrastructure bill, climate change bill which passed, but in a weaker form because of Manchin and Sinema who are democrats in name only. Republicans on the other hand are acting like bratty children. If you want to see what histrionics looks like then MTG or Lauren Boebart who use grandstanding on a regular basis because like most shallow people they have nothing to offer.
As for the Paris Accords that is far from perfect attempt to address climate change, but human beings are far from perfect. The science of climate change is not in doubt except by a few on the fringe of the matter who oppose climate change just like they oppose science. People like even you perhaps often ridicule that which they don't understand.
Love your work Valentina, I've been following it for a few years.
Pity she was wrong.
21:54, if the debate was on pollution instead of climate change, there would be a hundred percent agreement
Since the real battle is about energy, pollution is a non starter.
Sun: hey Earth you feeling hot? Lemme turn it down a bit...
On November 15, 2019 nine inches of snow fell in southern Michigan. Many trees here still have green leaves on them though they are quite withered looking. The trees are confused between the hours of sunlight and lower temperatures, not knowing if they should drop their leaves yet. Some have, but most had not. Most turned fall colors, but a significant portion of them kept their greenness until this early snow. She's quite right, the vegetation knows that something is up with the weather here on planet Earth. Something a little unusual, not the normal cycles.
Should we not pollute? Of course we shouldn't! Should we recycle? If we don't, nature will. We've already seen evidence of this with rocks showing up with amalgamations of plastics in them as if a new crystalized mineral has been catalyzed by Earth's geosphere. Scriptures tell us that "even these rocks will testify" and they most certainly do just that.
I believe mathematics in general and her math specifically that the patterns in global climate are in fact modulated primarily by our sun, and secondarily by the orbital (and electrical) characteristics of the planets in our solar system. Carbon dioxide levels ebb and wane following a natural cycle. Mankind gives themselves outsized credit for influencing this natural carbon cycle. That is however, not a carte blanche license to pollute!
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. ruclips.net/video/rRuAmhTCNTw/видео.html As CO2 levels have increased, US temperatures have DECREASED. How have the global warming crowd survived? They have altered the historical data. Look at Tony Heller's videos to see the data.
D Brelin you mix up meteorology and climate. Absolutely different things.
Please don’t mix religious myths with science.
The Bible and the Quran are full of scientific and historical myths they can never be said or inspired by the creator of this universe. It’s doesn’t matter if you interpret the verses you like the way you like, because you and others are not aware of , read and interpret or read and hide all the other mythical verses and stories that someone’s contradict even each other.
"Scriptures tell us " Nothing.
"the patterns in global climate are in fact modulated primarily by our sun" It dosn't due to all co². The Sun activity has temporary decreased the latest 4 decades but will soon increase again and making the global warming go crazy.
@Andy Theber also check out Adapt 2030 and Ice Age Farmer.
Shes speaking to radiance decreases but isn't mentioning the possible addition of solar-ray cooling via an increase in cloud cover , so theres also that
SIMPLY BRILLIANT!!! More of this, please!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
Many in the farming community know this. Maybe not on a granular level but high tunnels are big business now. Davos knows this too. Hence the control over a dwindling food production. We should all be growing what we can. We are gonna need to help each other as much as possible. Instead of honesty we get denial.
Great that you are getting her work out there. . Bravo!!
New subscriber just for that! I'm in. . :)
Check out his interview with Freeman Dyson. Freeman says we need 4 times the amount of CO2 for plants to grow properly.
@@waynebow-gu7wr Diddums, bless.
Since there was a mini ice prediction spawned & promoted by the
PR departments of the Fossil Fuel Multi-Millionaires
back in the 70s,
twice in the 80s,
again in the 90s
...then they sat on their hands a claimed global warming would end by 2000
then there would be a new ice age in the 2007-2009 Solar Minimum,
Then again a mini ice age 2015/2016
...that was postponed to 2020...
the reality is if the much-ballyhooed Grand Solar Minumum shows up...
there is so much Global Warming Energy stored in our atmosphere and oceans
...
the Grand Solar will be a mere whimper unheard by the world at large.
-----------------------------------------
@@rakooi It does seem like a continual scare campaign for each new generation. You never know... David Ikes theory of Reptilians living on fear might have some merit.... after all Quantum theory is out there !
@@waynebow-gu7wr THIS LECTURE is the Continuing SCARE CAMPAIGN ! !
ANOTHER MINI ICE AGE....and who sells heat...the Fossil Fuel Industrialists!
Thousands of PRESS RELEASES Warned of a MINI ICE AGE...using the outdated work of 3-4 scientists all through the 70s....by the end of the decade,
the industry was jumping for joy at selling a record 1 million Oil Furnaces.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
They Repeated the Myth in the 80s, the 90s, then they changed to a Warming Pause and then a Warming Hiatus, then a Cooling (defying every weather TV/RADIO STATION on the planet....
.
-----------> documented by Barton Paul Levenson,
I quoted Barton as follows below:
"Global Warming Science & Climate Models have successfully predicted steadily increasing WARMING for over 60 YEARS!
See the
1958 &
1965
AAAS (( the American Association for the Advancement of Science & Presidential Science Advisory Councils Research Reports & Warnings on Global Warming which causes threatening Climate Changes.))
These projections would start to be seen 50 years from 1965.
1.
That the globe would warm.
((directly counter to the Mini ICE Age myth perpetuated by the Skeptic/Fossil Fuel Industrialists DEEP STATE.
---a mini ice age PREDICTED in the '70s, & again in the '80s, '90s, 2007-2009, 2015 and now in 2020,
.
we will be up to our assets in that mini ice age in 2020))
&
2. about how fast it would warm,
&
3. about how much it would warm.
.
science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469
.
4. That the troposphere would warm
&
5. The stratosphere would cool.
.
(( hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png ))
.
(( not one SKEPTIC has offered ANY FULL Scientific Based Explanation for this GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE PROOF ))
.
6. That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures. ----->Nighttime Lows Warming Faster Than Daytime Highs - Does ...
praedictix.com/nighttime-lows-warming-faster-than-daytime-highs-does-hot-weather-make-us-d…
.
(( www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/climate-change-rule-thumb-cold-things-warming-faster-warm-things ))
.
7. That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
.
(( After all of the SUB ZERO temps this year, Wisconsin meteorologists pooled their data and found nite time winter cold temps have WARMED 10 degrees of the last 40 years))
.
8. Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
.
Arctic amplification | National Snow and Ice Data Center
.
(( nsidc.org/about/monthlyhighlights/2009/09/arctic-amplification ))
.
9. That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
.
Arctic melt versus Antarctic freeze: Is Antarctica warming ...
nsidc.org/.../11/arctic-melt-versus-antarctic-freeze-antarctica-warming-or-not
.
10. The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
.
11. They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
.
12. They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
.
13. The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
.
14. The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
.
15. The expansion of the Hadley cells.
.
16. The poleward movement of storm tracks.
.
17. The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
.
18. The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
.
19. The near constancy of relative humidity on a global average.
.
20. That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
.
-----------> Broecker is probably best known for popularizing the term “global warming” through his 1975 paper
. “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
"Winter is coming"...wise man.
Focus on Deforestation and desertification, not on the symptom of rising CO2.
CO2 is not a symptom but shown to be a CAUSE over 150 years ago.
Catch up...take a college course or two.
If CO2 rises, regardless of the reason then atmospheric temp rises.. So how is that a symptom?
@@stevewilson4321 "regardless of the reason" is the simplistic part of your question.
TODAY'S Dramatic rise in CO2 and an equally Dramatic Rise in temperatures is a Human DEFEAT-of-Earth's Most Powerful-NATURAL cycles
...the Milankovitch Cycles.
7,000 to 8,000 years of cyclical FALLING temperatures
(in spits and spurts...like the Medieval & Roman Warmings)
...
1. Earth's Orbit is still pulling us away from our primary source of heat.....the sun.
2. Earth's Axial Tilt is still pulling us away from our source of heat...............the sun.
3. Earth's Wobble is similarly favorable to our Planet to COOL!
and now,
4. We Are in a 40+ year Solar Decline In Energy Output....which means we should be cooling!
Cooling Dramatically!
....and yet, temperatures are rising since the 1700s.
----> "Solar Energy Output has Decreased (a kind of solar minimum) over the recent decades, but Global Warming has Increased.
Translation: It Is Not The Sun Causing ALL of this rapid Warming."
static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png
.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams discussed CLIMATE CHANGE from about 1799 thru 1804.
Alexander von Humboldt studied & lectured about what he defined/labeled as "CLIMATE CHANGE", precisely as it is used today.
.
@@rakooi If U actually understood what Milankovitch Cycles actually R then U would have known that it has nothing to do with CO2 rising and causing GW. 2nd U would then also know Milankovitch Cycles do not acct for GW occurring over decades as we have ALREADY SEEN... Maybe U should actually learn about the cycle 1st and what it is actually used for (its actually used to explain ice ages occurring over 10s of thousands of yrs) b4 assuming its an instant ans 4 GW. Then maybe U can understand how grn house gases actually CAUSE atmospheric temp rise...
@@stevewilson4321 What a ridiculous misstatement of my recitation of Mainstream Science. A PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION ON YOUR PART!
CO2 has followed the natural cycles
(google: Milankovitch Cycles)
.
"... Natural global warming, and cooling, is initiated by Milankovitch cycles. These orbital and axial variations influence the initiation of climate change in long-term natural cycles of 'ice ages' and 'warm periods' known as 'glacial' and 'interglacial' periods. Our current climate forcing shows we are outside of that natural cycle forcing range.
\
Milankovitch Cycles
Where are we currently in the natural Milankovitch cycle?
Pre-industrial forcing estimated around 0.0 to -0.1W/m2
.
The natural cycle that people refer to regarding large scale climate change
is the time between ice ages and warm periods. The long cycle time is about 100,000 years.
.
We can spend around 20% of the cycle in an interglacial and around 80% in an ice age,
depending on where we are in these cycle influences.
.
What causes this is the natural cycles that influence earth climate - the Milankovitch Cycles?
The Milankovich cycles are caused by changes in
the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun,
the tilt of the Earth's rotation axis, and the wobble of our axis.
The mass and movement of the other planets in our solar system actually affect the Earth orbit
just as our planetary mass similarly affects their orbits.
As the Earth's orbit changes so too do the amount of sunlight that falls on different latitudes and in seasons.
The amount of sunlight received in the summer at high northern latitudes appears to be especially important to determine whether the Earth is in an ice age or not.
When the northern summer sun is strong, the Earth tends to be in a warm period.
When it is weak we tend to be in an ice age.
As we come out of an ice age, the sea level rises about 400 feet, and we enjoy a warm period 'like' the one we are in now. That is the natural cycle, brief warm periods followed by an ice age about every 100 thousand years.
There are three general factors that determine the forcing changes in the Milankovitch cycles.
Eccentricity
(the elliptical changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun)
Obliquity (the tilt of Earth's axis toward and away from the sun)
Precession (the wobble of Earth's axis toward and away from the sun)
.
The two terms you want to be familiar with in the Milankovitch cycles are perihelion and aphelion.
These terms pertain to proximity to, and/or climate forcing from solar energy.
Perihelion
is when Earth spends more time in close proximity to the sun, or in the case of the tilt and wobble cycles
when the northern hemisphere landmass facing the sun is closest to the sun, causing warming.
Aphelion
is the opposite, when the Earth spends more time during the year away from the sun,
or in the case of the tilt and wobble cycles when the northern hemisphere landmass facing the sun is further from the sun, causing cooling.
The Eccentricity Cycle (Elliptical Cycle)
.
This is the longer cycle.
About every 100k years.
When the Earth orbit is elliptical we spend less time close to the sun in the span of a single year. This means we get less solar energy on an annual basis and tend to cool the Earth.
.
According to Ralph Keeling, Director of the CO2 program at Scripps Institute of Oceanography:
“The ice sheets melt when the ice sheet is exposed to more summer sunlight.
This happens when the northern summer aligns with the point of the closest approach between the earth and the sun.
The point of closest approach is known as perihelion.
The earth/sun perihelion depends on how elliptical the orbit is.
The more elliptical, the closer the approach.”
.
The Obliquity Cycle (Axial Tilt)
The Axial Tilt, or obliquity, varies to the plane of the Earth's orbit.
This tilt,
typically around 23 1/2 degrees can vary between 22 and 24 1/2 degrees.
That means it can change up to 2.5 degrees over a period of 41,000 years.
Increased obliquity can cause summers to be warmer and winters to be colder.
So when our orbit is elliptical and our northern hemisphere,
which is mostly landmass is tilted toward the sun, we can melt our way out of an ice age pretty fast, in fact, it only takes a few thousand years.
As we attain a more circular orbit and the combined effects of the tilt and
wobble work together in their natural cycles the Earth has a chance to cool again and we go back into an ice age.
.
Inversely,
decreased obliquity can cause cooler summers that in combination with other factors can help push the climate system into ice ages when this cycle is favorable for that condition.
********* We are currently in a decreasing phase,
which under normal circumstances, without the excess GHG’s, would cool the climate system.
.
The Precession Cycle (Wobble)
Next is precession, or wobble.
This cycle occurs every 26,000 years. This gyroscopic wobble of the earth axis is driven by tidal forces which are influenced by our sun and moon. The Earth is actually not perfectly round so the gravitational pull tugs the axis over time creating the wobble cycle.
.
Now there's a technical term for you.
.
This wobble can cause a difference in the types of seasons one polar hemisphere will experience over the other.
The hemisphere at perihelion (closest to the sun) will enjoy an increase in summer solar radiation but a cooler winter,
while the opposite hemisphere will have a warmer winter and a cooler summer.
Currently,
the southern hemisphere is at perihelion, so they are enjoying warmer summers,
but cooler winters, which likely contributes to snowfall in the hemisphere.
.
Natural Cycle Departure
The natural cycle is range bound and well understood,
largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.
.
Natural vs. Modern Forcing
Climate Forcing & Temperature
Natural vs. Modern Climate Path
Mheel Attribution Chart
.
This departure is so dramatic that it has instigated a new era.
.
According to research studies,
there is enough evidence to state that we have departed the Holocene and entered the Anthropocene.
*
******* Simply put,
based on the evidence, mankind has forced the Earth climate system to depart from it's MOST POWERFUL natural cycle
------- GLACIATION !
.
Links
NASA Earth Observatory - Milutin Milankovitch
IPCC/UCAR - What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?
NASA/NCDC/NOAA Astronomical Theory of Climate Change
AGU - "Concrete" Testimony to Shifting Latitude of the Tropics
Open University Netherlands - Solar radiation and Milankovich
Univ. of Rhode island - Milankovitch Cycles in Paleoclimate
NASA Earth Observatory - Earth is Cooling…No It’s Warming
.
nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/gov-rick-scott-bans-term-climate-change-in-florida
New sub. Great interviewer, humble & asking the right questions.
Exactly right I feel, the climate will obviously change regardless of what we humans do but we urgently need to get our act together to stop polluting whilst learning to live with nature rather than fighting against.
Totally unrealistic. No way to do that. Even nature pollutes. We can try to beep it low but you can’t eliminate it.
@@talisikid1618 Nobody, anywhere, ever said we want to eliminate the pollution. But wee do need to minimize the impact of our warming climate which is definitely attributed to increasing CO2 and CH4.The evidence for this is quite overwhelming.
I love his first sentence claiming the Sun is going through a Maunder Minimum. It's January 2022 and we aren't in anything resembling a Maunder Minimum. The sun is alive and kicking, plenty of sunspots to count, plenty of flares. This dude needs to make a retraction video.
Sunspot cycle 24 was the lowest in the 20th century. We are in the cycle 25 now. It is a bi higher but still low. So we were in the minimum.
July 2022 now
It is not GSM
Predictions of the future is not easy
In her Paper she says that almost all recent warming is explainable by suncycles
Correct. Even states we are in a 600 year warm up, with two mini ice ages of 2020-2055 and 2370 to 2410.
@@sponger7642 we will see. If co2 is really a potent Greenhouse Gas, it would be rather good in my opinion, because we could act with it against little or bigger ice ages. If the world freezes again, we would have much more problems than with a little Bit of warming...
@@sponger7642 yes true but look back 11,000 years since the last ice age ended. We went thru 8000 years of much much warmer temps than we have now and you'll also see the last 3000 years we are on a steep decline of temperatures with just this "normal blip of slightly warmer temps. Heading now into a grand solar minimum. This is ALL caused by the sun. Co2 cannot cause temperatures to increase in our atmosphere. The only anthropogenic climate changes humans can cause is raising temps in large cities with lots of concrete and few trees. Co2 is a very minor trace gas that increases after temps increase and that takes around 100 years.
@@s1iznc1d34 What's your PhD in?
@@s1iznc1d34 and the earth is flat right? She does have the credentials. I'd ask what yours are but everyone already knows the answer troll.
Amazing guest logical true scientist no DOGMA , pleasure to listen .
warmer climate countries with lots of vegetation seems a good real estate investment for the next 30 years.
Make your investment.
I prefere a place where vegetation don't get flooded , don't get out of water, don't burn or don't blow away.
Right now 30 millions Africans have to move since it's too hot for anything to grow.
ytbabbler -too hot? Well we need more co2 then
ytbabbler no you nutcase, 30 million Africans are on the move because lots of them have now a smartphone and internet access and they can see how the average westerner lives and they are after the same quality of life. I am from Greece and even the poorest of immigrants that are entering the country illegally have latest model smartphones. There’s no proof whatsoever that droughts, floods, hurricanes or any other local phenomena are increasing in number or intensity. You have been paying too much attention to the wrong sources.
Would explain why the Chinese are buying up central Africa.
Simon Ruszczak -you mean supplying africa corned beef made from human body parts
We are a month behind here in Alberta Canada, I’ve been saying there has been a shift of about a month for the last 2 years
Its slowly been shifting for years.
Excellent interview on solar activity.
Many climate models ignore the effects of solar activity and water vapor.
Climate model “scientists” got into trouble trying to demonstrate the change in temperature was based mainly on CO2 emissions, especially when CO2 emissions increased and the temperature did not increase.
No! Climate scientists study things like changes in solar output, changes in the Earth’s orbit, multidecadal natural variability in the Atlantic and Pacific, water vapor and other factors that impact climate change. They find that natural factors alone would have resulted in a modest cooling over the past 50 years or so, compared to the dramatic warming that we’ve experienced.
@@hosnimubarak8869 I stand corrected, I had read that they didn’t in some articles; however, a search on solar activity and climate change I did had determined that it is being considered and has been for a while.
The more important question is how chemtrails effect not only temperature but the weather in general.
Really? Which "chemtrails" are those? The ones that don;t exist? "Joe ker".
Weather mod + Grand Solar Minimum = sh*t show squared.
@@lovebiota286 Really? Who conned you into believing that?
@@boffeycn Hi Jesus!
@@lovebiota286 Thanks for confirming you are bat shit crazy.
The irradiance (power) of the Sun has been declining since 1960
Yet our temps keep going up ?
"Yet our temps keep going up ?" Yes they certainly do. It's 0.18 / decade at the surface and it's pushed by 413,000 gigawatts. I'm sending you my address under separate cover so's you can forward my large cash prize in a plain brown envelope.
Whatever you do, don't mention the two words, "greenhouse gases." You'll be lynched.
Decent interview, other than the fact that she "sold out" to the CO2 BS at the end. Our climate is driven by the SUN.
Dave Braatz I caught that too, she probably has to say that to keep her job at North Umbria 🤷🏻♀️
CO2 has about a 20% influence according to IPCC but man only contributes a very small amount of the CO2. Here is where the IPCC has to make a leap of faith - all the EXTRA CO2 due to man is causing all sorts of problems, and they get about a 10x too high sensitivity to CO2 as well, such that the small warming due to CO2 causes more water vapor, which is a major greenhouse effect. So it's just an assumption to suit their needs. They don't address the cosmic rays and clouds effect either, or they again assume it is negligible.
Yeeeeah, she obvsly did it as a persuasion technique , imo. Feed the nutters , whatever it takes to be listened to.
"Our climate is driven by the SUN"
Aha, so the Moon has the same temperature as the earth?
Maybe scientists know more than you do even if it's very hard for you to accept that.
@@rkcannon "man only contributes a very small amount of the CO2"
You have been fooled, humans ADD 4% co² to a carbon flux that is in balance.
The planet has even absorbed half of our co² but that will soon end since the planet get warmer.
People lie to you, please check facts.
Carbon flux explained and anti science fraud exposed:
ruclips.net/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/видео.html
I wonder what the energy charge will be in the middle of cycle 26.
spex357
What is cycle 26 what year will this be impacting earth
The Maunder Minimum refers to a specific period of cooling in the past. It was one of many solar minimums.
She's walking back on what she said before.
THANKS FOR REPOSTING ...had me worried there for awhile.
There have been many grand solar minimums. Maunder minimum was only one of them. We have also had Dalton, Wolf, Spörer minimum - the one we're hitting now has been named the Eddy minimum after John A Eddy. Maunder min. was the Little Ice Age.
Add Oort. As well missing a letter in the name somewhere?
The Maunder minimum was not, in fact, the cause of the so-called Little Ice Age. It merely happened *during* a portion of the Little Ice Age. The assertions of a causal link are simple false. The Maunder minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715. The Little Ice Age began centuries earlier, around 1300, and lasted into the early 19th century. The primary cause of the Little Ice Age seems to have been increased volcanic activity, not the fact that for a brief period there was a reduction in solar output (particularly given that even at the height of a grand solar minimum, there isn't actually all that much reduction in the amount of heat Earth receives from the Sun).
@@RedXlV Yes. You are of course right. I should have concluded this myself.
@@RedXlVFor my understanding. I have been told that CME is the main cause for eartquackes and vulcanic eruptions. Because it moves the earthcrust. And that this is more stronger during a Solar Maximum. But the moral of this story is the opposite. That their will be more vulcanic eruptions during a Solar Minimum ?
Could you make me see the correct picture please ?
Zharkova predicted this cycle would be 20% weaker than the last. This cycle has now overtaken the last. Nothing to look at here.
Yep that's right carbon has saved us from going into an ice age and saved humanity.
Respect to Professor Zharkova.... Разбираме ви.
Very interesting conversation on the sun, I learnt a lot! Thank you 🙏
I learned to speak Russian from this science talk.
i just watched this episode for the second time - still sensational
thanks for uploading this. Some things are not public knowledge for a reason. Knowing these things is kept because people can make a ton of cash from it all.
The powers-that-be have more than one reason (money) for misleading the public.
Or alternatively .... because Zharkova's predictions were *WRONG.*
I like how this interviewer remains silent and then summarises at each important point.
Solar radiation is certainly the main source of our planetary warmth. Just as the general day to day state of the Earth is controlled by the state of the planets' magnetic field, so the day to day state of the Sun is also controlled by what appears to be an 11 year cycle magnetic reversal. Every 11 years the sun has a magnetic pole 180 degree reversal, so after a second 11 year period, the magnetic field returns to its starting point. During the reversal period, the quantity and location of sunspots, coronal holes, solar flares, coronal mass ejections, coronal loops, prominences, and reconnection events vary at different stages and locations of the 11 year reversal. According to recorded data, there also appears to have been variations in the overall effect and frequency of the aforementioned events at different stages of the suns history.. The breakdown in the north/south magnetic field during the suns' eleven year cycle has a particular effect on the geographical location, frequency and size of sunspots and coronal holes as multiple poles develop during the reversal. One important discovery, however, is that the variation in solar radiation is only in the order of 0.1% of the solar radiation constant. So sunspots and coronal holes may not have a great deal of influence on our planet's day to day climate. Another factor that alters the intensity of radiation from the sun is the current elliptical orbit of the Earth around the sun.
Comprehensive and well put sir. Only one question about your opening sentence. Is there a secondary source for planetary warmth?
Yes. Geothermal. Earth has its own heat. Lava is not heated by the sun.
Basically, Valentina is telling us we are entering Grand Minimum. Heads up!!!! It doesn't happen over night---it's gradual with every season. Learn to grow your own food.
What you miss is the impact on cosmic rays. Those have a huge impact on Earths temperature.
Scientist Ken Rice have been fighting her paper claiming that the distance between Sun and Earth remain constant during time spans where it appears she claims that terrestrial temperature would be affected by change in distance. I have not seen if that fight have played out in any Nature decisions regarding paper validity ?
In South Eastern Australia right now and it’s unseasonably cold and wet for this time of year...
I have never been convinced re warming / climate emergency.
Greta does NOT approve of this video! "How dare you!"
🙄
Why don’t you try using your brain? It’s very easy, you just stick a finger up a nostril and go “click”
There, fixed that for you.
It seems the two previous commentors have missed the humor in your comment Blah Blah Blah . . . smile
@@shaundaugherty1028 No. They understood perfectly the childish attempt at an insult. It is also copied fro elsewhere, you brain dead sheep.
@@boffeycn what if you're wong
So influences will be felt between Solar Cycles 25-26 if I’m hearing her right. Late 2020’s. Now couple that with the AMO 70yr cycle. Another Maunder or a milder Dalton minimum? Let’s hope it’s the latter.
Nice presentation filled with valid science. 🌞
Thank you, Valentina
Seems that botanist Dr David Bellamy, who used to work for the BBC many years ago, before being replaced with David Attenborough, could have been right all along. He always claimed that the warming was due to the suns activity, and was ridiculed for his opinion.
The sun causes most of the heating of Earth? How revolutionary! Then, there are those who claim that Earth is cooling: Solar Minimum. More sunspot activity results in higher temps. Fewer sunspots, cooler temps. Earth was in a warm period from about 1800 to the present. Earth is now cooling off toward a possible mini ice age?
Where I live it's getting cooler and cooler every year. We never needed jackets for the evening in the summertime 30 years ago. Absolute low temperature records in small countries don't make to the news in big media I guess.
Sure thing dear.
A very scholarly explanation of;
It's the SUN stupid, not CO2...
CO2 is plant food not a pollutant
5 million years ago 6,000 PPM of CO2 , plant growth flourished
Greenland was warmer 700 years ago than it is today. We are being lied to!
she did not actually say that. She said that the CO2 effect was there and that the solar minimum would reduce the impacts of increased CO2, then as we come out of it we will have CO2 heating AND solar activity. She absolutely said we need to deal with CO2. Amazing how this scholarly work is being used by CO2 deniers.
Claire Brereton she literally said that “we let the experts do their job” which means she refrains from making a diagnosis on the ordeal. Learn to read between the lines (and statements). You can look at many many prominent skeptic scientists that refute the proclaimed huge impact of CO2 (which is at minuscule levels - just 400 molecules for every 1 MILLION molecules of air or 400 parts per million/ per volume or 0.04% of the atmosphere) that is pushed by the fearmongering, climategate perpetrators of doomsday scenarios (of which we have seen none - and we aren’t going to).
Observer : We've noticed that the Sun disappeared.
Researcher: We can't be sure what effect it has on the Planet.
Earth : Flies off into stellar space, Earth turns into an solid ball of ice.
The sun has a "climate" the same way all celestial bodies have a "climate"
If you make a claim then show me the evidence and how this evidence is melting the Arctic Sea Ice pls sir.
So What?????
Of relevance to planet Earth is the amount of energy coming from the sun.
I encourage viewers to look into the peer review of her work. It seems there are some important areas where her work falls short. In June 2019 the journal Nature retracted her paper and issued the following statement. (There's more. I'm just quoting a piece, for brevity.)
"The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented."
The Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum! We are heading into an ice age! Wow...
No we are not.
skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Patrick Lincoln were you always content to live in an echo chamber? Are you serious? You site skepticalscience/com of C(r)ook et al (97% bogus study) as a reliable source?
@Andy Theber also go to Adapt 2030 and Ice Age Farmer. People need to be informed so the can get ready for it.
@Andy Theber 100% brother Ben 👍 i believe the sun is a reset every 12000yrs or so, wonder why the elites are building underground 🤔 I believe the sun is at the time or near the time for the RESET !! Doug Vogt speaks well on this topic RUclips him 👍 PEACE BE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ALLWAYS AND FOREVER BROTHER Andy🎅
If carbon (CO2) is such a problem, why did it not matter when it was 5 times higher(2000 PPM) during the Cambrian Period about 500 million years ago?
Has anyone told Greta Thornburg yet? Can’t wait to watch her epic meltdown ...
Gotta love people who failed high school science thinking they know more science than the people who have been DOING science for many decades solely because political propaganda tells them to think that...
How DOES it feel, knowing you are a tool?
I want to make greta watch michael moore's new film and watch her have an aneurism!
Has anyone told you you’ve been fooled? Can’t wait to watch your epic meltdown ...
Valentina says we still need to address the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere. Why would Great have a meltdown?
A pity Mr.McNish could not leave aside mention of anthropogenic 'carbon' (carbon dioxide) which has no bearing on the subject of global mean temperature at all.
Dr. Patrick Moore's explanation on CO2 has more credibility. He says CO2 sustains all life, without it we'd all be dead. He also says heat always follows CO2 not the other way around. Check out his videos and learn the truth. Climate change is cyclical. Dr. Moore also said plants need at least 150 ppm and at one period of time it reached 180 ppm which was 30 ppm away from extinction - humans came along and made the change. He also said, plants optimum for growth is 1 - 2 thousand ppm, so their you go folks we need CO2 to exist.
ruclips.net/video/TjlmFr4FMvI/видео.html
Part 2 of our Conversation with Patrick Moore
Part 1 with Patrick Moore ruclips.net/video/vb-52nlv0qs/видео.html
No-one is disputing this.
@@sr.b8002 "No-one is disputing this."
There is nothing that no-one dispute.
Just look at the comments here, they dispute science and facts with claims that contradict each others.
The world is crazy with this polarization of media, people believe what others say at a level of 0% or 100%, no gray scale and no fact check.
We need more co2
Climate is the complex physical, chemical mechanism by which the Earth system distributes the energy coming from the sun...and guess what? is always changing
5+ meters snow on zugspitze germany late in may 2019. Record high since at least 40 years !
K. N that goes against the Gullible Warming Narrative for the Masses.
@@minibrownliger Yes the earth has gone back to osscillating Jet Stream instead of the Zonal Jet Stream flow. All in my lifetime.
Have you guys spoken to Suspicious observers, the thunderbolts project. Our model of the sun needs some serious rethinking. Sunspots show us temperature beneath the surface is cooler. The Safire project have replicated plasma double layers as predicted by the electric not fusion model of the Sun.
A breath of fresh air among all the climate alarmists' fear mongering presentations.
Nico Meier this is incorrect, basically bullshit.
Umm you do know climate goes both ways yeah? Too cold bad news , too hot bad news. What she is saying is because of the level of warming we have caused already , this cold cycle wont be nearly as cold as it would otherwise be. Humans exist in a goldilocks zone, we are kinda fragile that way.
and the least accurate.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!?
"Solar Energy Output has Decreased (solar minimum/low sunspots) over the recent decades, but Global Warming has Increased.
Translation: It Is Not The Sun Causing ALL of this rapid Warming."
static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png
-------
vimeo.com/34099316
*** PART 3 OF 3 ***
The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect".
The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres ---> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called "downwelling LWR radiation at the surface" and I've explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface.
That's the lower end of how the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" works.
---------
Note 1: I haven't yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don't know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn't find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2.
Note 2: I've read on the internet that spontaneous emission of a photon of LWR by a GHG molecule with MVE will typically occur after ~1.0 seconds with MVE but I'm not accepting that without some serious fact checking which I haven't done yet. One photon / second just seems way too minuscule to me. I also need that information to calculate whether mis-calibration method of the STAR MSU/AMSU instrument makes the RSS & UAH TLT temperature O2 proxy analyses analyse a significantly lower total of energy than thermometers measure, or whether the difference is negligible. It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above.
Note 3: 80% of Earth's atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The "greenhouse effect" warming can only happen in Earth's troposphere, there's no effect in Earth's tropopause and the effect is "backwards" in Earth's stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that's how it's known with total certainty that it's increased "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there's no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you'll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That's the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it's a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there's only 0.4% of Earth's atmosphere's molecules above, negligible.
Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the instrument on a satellite show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. From this atmospheric physicists have calculated the 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs.
Absolutely not, there's no way that the gigantic thermonuclear fusion reactor we see through the sky could possibly have any effect on global climate. To make suggestions that reality has any bearing on political reasons for raising taxes and decrease personal freedom is blasphemous. She must be Expelled from the Academy.
Solar maximum is caused by the gravitational pull of Jupiter, Venus, and Earth upon the sun. Every 11 years these three planets line up in their orbits together on the same side of the sun. Presumably, similar to the affect of the moons influence upon the ocean/ocean tides, the sun is more ‘active’ every 11 years because the inward pull of gravity within the sun is counteracted by an outward pull of gravity caused by the planets orbiting the Sun. This is settled, proven, and well-know science. Although this has only been proven recently, there is no reason for this information not to appear in the article.
Don't care what they say but its 10degrees cooler near Acapulco.
MEXCAN FUN and it’s quite warmer here in Greece. That doesn’t prove a thing and I’m a very active skeptic of anthropogenic global warming (which I consider a political agenda of all things).
To simple to note that the centre of the sun is normally more or lesst the same as the barycentre of the solar system, but when the Jovian planets align as they are now, that the sun actuallyt orbits the barycentre. For earth, following the orbit leads to an increase in seismic activity.
This is a way different DR speaking than from her original explanation. She’s holding back. Perhaps been bought out
Yes others have noted that. She explains it here by saying they had not figured in the warming effects of development when they made their initial report. Most of us know she is referring to concrete jungles and pollution ...not CO2 which actually cools the earth by greening up the temperate zone
First " Maunder Minimum" refers to a specific event(1645 to 1715); (2) The number of sunspots has been decreasing since around 1953-55; (3) I saw a report that said Cycle 26 has begun.(sidc.be/silso/yearlyssnplot)
Please point out where in your link it says "cycle 26 has begun".
And no - the current cycle will be stronger than the last.
It's quite amazing that the global warming crowd can't wrap their head around the hottest brightest object near us has nothing to do with global warming.
Looking at the data online, Earth's temp correlated well with Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) up until around 1980, when it diverged. So although it looks like the Sun was driving our temp, something happened quite suddenly in addition, and took over. If this was/is CO2, why would it act in this way - rather suddenly? I fully agree that temp has gone up, and continues around 0.13 deg C per decade (though there has been no acceleration in warming for the past 10 years, and no acceleration in Arctic sea ice loss since 2007!), but it surely (to this engineer) points to something that isn't CO2?
"though there has been no acceleration in warming for the past 10 years, and no acceleration in Arctic sea ice loss [citation needed].
@@milankovitch8697
If you didn't know this, then it shows that you're not aware of what's happening about climate change, and that you're too lazy to research it, so why should I go to the trouble? If you just go to the HadCrut and global cryosphere watch sites, you'd see it. Go look for yourself.
@@feistyphysicist
You're crazy.
Do you deny that globally, the years 2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2021, 2018, 2014, 2010 2013, are the hottest on record in modern history?
@@milankovitch8697
I always find comments like yours so odd. Do you not read what someone else has written?
"...there has been no acceleration in warming for the past 10 years..."
Go see for yourself. As the world warms at 0.13 degrees C per decade, we will have warmer years which are the latest years. BUT, there has been no acceleration for 10 years, at least. The warming will probably resume, but we can't be sure of it...and this is why it isn't CO2. The 'method' of warming is odd. I'm an engineer with a degree in geophysics. There's something not quite right about the warming.
@@feistyphysicist
Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are over 30% higher than they were about 150 years ago at the dawn of the industrial revolution and in the same time span the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
It makes so much sense that the sun's interaction with the earth is perhaps a stronger influence on climate than CO2 levels. There are two worries I have with the United Nations push to address CO2. If CO2 is reduced sufficiently, plants will die and I suppose we will have to grow our food indoors with an artificially raised CO2 level. The second is this proposed carbon tax. It would seem this is another way to raise money for the UN and fund the vision of a global world government. Our various levels of government in the USA have foolishly bought into this idea, perhaps not realizing it could kill our economy as energy usage (which drives our economy) is mandated through taxation to be lowered. Glad I had a chance to listen to Zharkova's comments.
No matter how much sense you think it makes, it's still not true. CO2 *is* the largest driver of climate. Far more so than the minor variations in solar output.
"
It makes so much sense that the sun's interaction with the earth is perhaps a stronger influence on climate than CO2 levels." That is totally wrong. The greenhouse gases CH4, CO2, N2O, and O3, raise global temperatures by 33F compared to the moon which is the same distance from the Sun. s we increase these greenhouse gases, we reflect more infrared photons back toward the Earth. This increase in infrared photons increases evaporation. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, that additional evaporation has raised global humidity by 8% and global drought by 29%.
"If CO2 is reduced sufficiently, plants will die and I suppose we will have to grow our food indoors with an artificially raised CO2 level." Where do you people get such crazy ideas? Plant life has been doing quite well when CO2 concentrations were running between 280 ppm during interglacial periods, and 180ppm during glacial periods. At 420ppm plant life has been decreasing their stomas. Plants require only so much CO2 to function.
"The second is this proposed carbon tax." Which would put dollars in every American's pocketbook by increasing efficiency by decreasing fossil fuel usage. On the other hand, solar is the cheapest energy source ever followed closely by wind energy.
"Glad I had a chance to listen to Zharkova's comments." Clearly, you only heard your own preconceived notions.
Cui Bono? Answer: The enemies of the West.
RedXIV … Bollocks
EF M utter rubbish
I tried to subscribe, but , got an error code [503] network problem !!!!
I love the way she threw in the CO2 comment at the end, I suppose that was to keep her in employment at the University, fair enough 🙄
In the U.K. the magnetic field started moving east about 11 years back and I noticed the the season shift. As it takes 120 years to go from zero to 27 degrees and back, it could be 50 years before we are 27 degree east, last time we were there, it was 240 years ago I’m sure it was bloody cold then. Mid 17th century.
48° C in Australia yesterday, apogee to our Sun, too.
But that's entirely due to Natural Hot Air from "Stuart McNish" so just another Natural Cycle and not anything to do with global warming or burning carbon or anything that relates to wealth in the slightest. So bottom line, nothing to see here so move on and if you do get fried just look on the bright side, at least you didn't freeze.
@@grindupBaker how do you explain that solar intensity is waning but global temperatures are rising?
Can't wait for your explanation. Please provide supporting evidence or don't bother responding at all. Your opinion is not fact.
@@takuitoito9259 I explain it is that I'm pissing around.
@@grindupBaker ok, right. As you know so many ludicrous comments here are written in a serious manner therefore it is not always to distinguish the sarcastic from the idiotic. Cheers.
@@takuitoito9259 Do you not have a science journal to link about sarcasm vs stupidity on the internet?
Please I need closure on your anecdote.
is the next Milankovic cycle dip in temperature going to come in 10000 years?
The solar activity has decreased during those 40 years that the planet gets hotter.
??? We went through 2 periods of cooling in the last 40 years. So much so that they were calling for an ice age! What are you talking about?
apumasterp Don’t worry about him, he’s just a RUclips Babbler.
@@apumasterp No scientist was calling for an ice age, that was fake news in the daily mail. There was a short cooling period due to heavy pollution but as scientists predicted, the warming effect from co² should win and it did.
What I'm talking about is that you believe in bullshit, the global warming that for a fact exist is caused by co² from fossil fuel, nothing else.
@@malcolmtent Well, true, but at least I learn the facts before babbling.
@@ytbabbler , what you spouted were not facts. There was a lot of talk in the 70's about a possible ice age. Co2 is innocent, it has never had a measurable effect on the earth's temperature. When the earth's oceans heat up they release more co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is nothing but plant food and the plants love it.
It is said that carbon dioxide stands for 14-25 percent of the greenhouse effect. I strongly doubt that it is that much for several reasons (it also defies logic that the 0.04% CO2 would cause as much as 14-25% of the greenhouse effect).
This means that out of the raise of 0.8-1 degree Celsius since preindustrial times the burning of fossile fuels results in at the most 0.2 degrees Celsius. I'm however pretty sure - for several reasons - that the burning of fossile fuels has resulted in substantially less than a 0.2 degrees Celsius increase of the global temperature during the last 150 years.
And when you add the fact that the burning of fossile fuels only has added 3-4% (maybe less) of the 0,04% CO2 in the atmosphere, then the burning of coal, oil and gas of - at the very most - the 0.2 degrees becomes much less.
SOURCE: G. A. Schmidt, R. A. Ruedy, R. L. Miller and A. A. Lacis (2010). ”Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect”. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106.
Out of all greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, human CO2 emissions amount to merely 0.12% ! Just how much of an extra warming effect does this have ?
Yeah but CO2 has gone up 1.5 hundredths of 1 percent of the overall atmosphere over the last couple decades so we're all doomed now.
That's equivalent to this 1 youtube video compared to the last 6,667 youtube videos you've watched so it isn't nothing.
We can be sure that they measured it at an average location with no other changes, where weather is constant and using the same CO2 meter the whole time.
ruclips.net/video/CcmCBetoR18/видео.html. ruclips.net/video/OjD0e1d6GgQ/видео.html
It's really remarkable. At that second link for example, he mocks people for pointing out that 4 parts per million (ppm) or 0.04% of our atmosphere is "tiny", and that the increase over time is even smaller of course. Instead of discussing why tiny can matter so much, or I suppose that must happen somewhere else, eventually, he plays the song `Feelings`, which is, naturally, the scientific thing to do right? Both sides like to accuse the other of operating on feelings, myself included, to wit ... I suspect his viewers enjoy hearing the song of his voice lulling them into a hypnotic state of trust, which is quite the high perhaps. I wouldn't know, I follow actual data, not personalities.
I was ready to be convinced and spent hours listening to that youtuber called potholer54 before, holding out hope that he would break out of the smug sing-song cadence and pause his performance long enough to zero in on one point in a convincing way, thoroughly. The pump-valve illustration in the first link didn't make sense to me. I worked at Microsoft and in high energy research and I write stock market algorithms so I have to think logically.
I agree he does make a few sound points here and there, both sides have some truth, but I think what's missing all across the board by either side is a discussion of the methods of measurement, that's missing and replaced instead by a blind trust, so if anyone runs across a seriously detailed examination of measuring methods and the data, I'd appreciate a link. The reason I'm asking is that I've done my share of measuring things so I know there are always holes. For example, in 133 satellite projects by various countries since 1962 (OSO), I would be curious to know why infrared is not included, if it isn't. I'm not saying there is some grand conspiracy in that, I just want to understand. It is the case for NASA's latest also, LISIRD, which says on their About page it only goes to near infrared. Why would infrared (absorbed by CO2) be not measured or why would it be excluded in presenting the data? Again, there might be a reasonable answer to that, the question is not an indictment, it is a humble question. Well, ok, maybe not humble, but about the best I can do in that department. :)
@@garyha2650 Strangely you didn't seem to get it at all. Do you under after watching the video, that making the argument "a substance is only in a very small amount, therefore it can only have a very small effect", is a very retarded argument to make? It couldn't have been any clearer.
CO2 cannot by any means be a greenhouse gas that can be blamed for climate change..it certainly did not that in the past
Percentages are just too low , less than 1%. Water vapour, sun activity and the tilting of the earthaxis as well as her elliptical circling around our Sun, have the only proven or partial proven influence on our climate. Change thereof is a ever occurring event for millions of years and everchanging. Humans play part in pollution, but s neglectable part in climate change.
Which phenomenon of course cannot be denied.
Watch on RUclips the eye-opening British Documentary" The Great Global Warming Swindle" from 2007, still valid to counteract the pseudo- scientific statements and graphs in Al Gore's documentary" An Inconvenient Truth" ......
Everything can be related to this - The pool is full of water. The water is everywhere in the pool. Smack the surface at one end and a wave (Of water) moves but it's not moving it's just a perturbation. the energy is moving. The question is, was it felt at the other end of the pool at the moment of impact or creation of the wave? That would be called "Instant action at a distance" and it exists! Like scalar, we have multiple things going on, but moving particles are not the answer! Aether, Magnetism, electricity, light and the dielectric are at play here. If the Sun is under pressure then maybe we are witnessing high static discharge witch creates heat and light (Photons are torpedo's from a famous TV show only) Light is a coaxial circuit but like the wave it's not moving, it's the instant action at a distance and the pool is large, Galaxy large! We swim in gases but everything has an Aether like the sidewalk being created only with each step you take because the wave is the water! and we are getting close, we just need to let go and feel what's natural. Deep down we know what's not true a when we hear it it will seem so simple! Like everything else, how did I miss it? moments.
Great conversation, interesting caveat at the end off the interview. The comments at the end about CO2 , must be for the insurance of future funding! She is much to bright and professional not to be very well read.