Long story short, climate is affected by a range of factors such as orbital variation, solar output, particulates and atmospheric composition, it is totally unjustified and simplistic to suggest that carbon dioxide is the control knob of climate and global temperature.
@@pauljackson2409 Science says your cult is wrong. Orbital factors have been show to contribute a mere 0.7W/m2, far less than CO2 and feedbacks. The sun has been cooling since the late 1950's while we warm. Sun it is not only simplistic but flat out wrong to deny CO2 's influence. science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_lo03000u.pdf pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_lo03000u.pdf pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_lo03000u.pdf www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1955/plot/best/from:1955/trend
@@jamespyke6764 'Science says', yes corrupted junk science says carbon dioxide is driving global warming. It also said that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2014 and that sea-levels would rise by 20 feet. Carbon Dioxide levels have risen in the last twenty years, while global temperatures have been static or even declined. The Man-Made Carbon Dioxide global warming scam is driven by financial and political vested interests, and those behind it are using children in their fear-mongering campaign. Take your head out of your arse.
@@gavinminion8515 Yes. I was commenting on the contrasting quality of this presentation as compared to MM's constant appeals to authority, usually unbacked with any evidence.
@@77goanywhere I find it interesting that you say he has no evidence, when Mann and his colleagues have spent a lifetime collecting the best evidence anyone can get on the subject. And now we are all literally becoming surrounded by evidence. The hockey stick graph, made so controversial only by the concerted efforts of fossil fuel companies anxious to protect their balance sheet, has been show to be a reasonably accurate prediction of global temperatures. You now need to do some serious cherry picking to be able to deny the climate is changing rapidly, but still some people persist. Its kind of like a more dangerous version of the flat earth cult...
@@gavinminion8515 We are surrounded by group think and propaganda. Michael Mann has been challenged and called an outright fraud several times, has sued, but has never won a court case defending his position on the hockey stick. And there are many scientists coming out and openly confronting the IPCC's alarmist position. Very little of this gets into the media though. There is no climate emergency despite leftist governments and media pushing this line over and over. Every time I see in the media something claimed to be evidence of a climate emergency I find mainstream climate scientists who refute it. The most recent case is the bushfires here in Australia.
It’s just magnificent to see this type of woman: Thoroughly educated, perfectly rational and coherent; presenting bare natural science across a wonderfully natural and bare face.
@@rickgillis1613 You mean the liar for hire who previously worked for big tobacco denying the cancer smoking link while millions died and then went to work for big oil lying there as millions died. Good choice. For a denier. skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=lindzen&x=0&y=0
@@rutameldere3992 Great, go and watch some of her other videos where she explains AGW and Mans influence on the warming climate and how the sun has been cooling and can't be the cause of the warming. You're in for a real treat.
MrImarcus Absolutely correct. "Fairly sure" is science speak for probabilities point to it being so. All of the "science" surrounding climate change needs to be stripped of the political lobby influence on funding it to the detriment of rational logical balanced reasoned scientific research. Sadly science has become the darling of politicised directives which fly in the face of true scientific investigation. Without balance there are no truths.
@@brynleytalbot778 Yep deniers have made science political as an excuse to ignore reality. All science and reality is "lefty" apparently. That's why deniers never investigate other deniers claims.
@@jamespyke6764 The left has made this issue political, not the "deniers". Scientific minded people wouldn't resort to such hyperbolic nonsense and name calling.
At last, a sensible conversation and admission that we do not really understand the sun's influence on climate. We need more scientists like Joanna Haig who are open and admit our knowledge is very incomplete.
We have plenty of good scientists. We need a society which values their input more. We should start trusting people who spend their lives researching this, and other, topics which are made controversial by a toxic mix of money and politics.
@@gavinminion8515 Have you also noticed that the number of scientists who found the courage to question calculations and presented different results, related to Climate Change, came to an ugly end of their lives? Drowned?
Your understanding of what she said here - like almost all other commenters - is complete bollocks. Professor Joanna Haigh completely understands that current warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. ruclips.net/video/Kaf6SAW66cI/видео.html
Excellent! It's so refreshing to hear an objective, scientific approach to this "issue" without all the whole denier/skeptic polarity! As a curious observer with a mind geared naturally towards science, I just want facts and honesty about what we actually know. Joanna delivers that in spades. Thank you!! So sad discussions like this seem to be increasingly rare. She really touched on so many of the key variables in this science, the combined effects of which must be understood in order to understand global climate. At ~ 3:10 she notes that temperature increases result in releases of greenhouse gases (CO2). I would also offer that temperature increase would give rise to more water vapor. While she did not mention H2O specifically, maybe she included in under "greenhouse gasses". I find the question of how the elevated UV radiation levels during an active Sun could influence climate intriguing. It seems the more we look, the more we realize we do not know, at least to those who seek acts and truth. I respect scientists who take this approach, while those who insist "the science is settled" I find especially annoying!
She is not talking about the anthropogenic influences driving climate change in this video. You might want to watch another video with the same scientist. ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
I agree there are several howlers here, but for the most part it properly emphasises that global climate is overwhelmingly governed by the Sun, the planets, the earth/moon spin and magnetism and the feedback reactions of the surface of the earth. More up to date perspective on CO2 FOLLOWING the variation of mean ocean temperature and the vital and predominant influence of water vapour/clouds and their being subject to cosmic ray cloud nucleation needs to be noted and in addition, that the cosmic rays seem to cause increased volcanic activity.
@@Pacdoc-oz This is hilarious another cult member who doesn't have a clue what a scientist is saying. Watch again and the above links where she shows more clearly how delusional your cult is. And again why is it deniers never know what the sun is ACTUALLY doing even when it gets repeatedly pointed out to them????? The sun has been cooling since the 1950's while we warm. So how does cooling "naturally" cause warming??? ruclips.net/video/k5_zpjerQFo/видео.html Again the sun does and has not always led changes in CO2 eg the P-T extinction event where massive volcanoes and giant coal seams catching alight caused [CO2] to climb leading to GW. ruclips.net/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/видео.html ruclips.net/video/dHozjOYHQdE/видео.html Water vapour is controlled by temp. CO2 controls temp so as [CO2] increases so does water vapour creating a feedback mechanism. We don't pump 10 billion tons of water vapour into the air each year as we do with CO2. Cosmic rays should also cause cooling as we warm. skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm Clouds also show a net zero or slight +ve feedback. Also controlled by temp and CO2.
@@davod6015 Here is 1 I'll try and find more when I get a chance. There are a series of videos on this channel. ruclips.net/video/Kaf6SAW66cI/видео.html
@@NwoDispatcher truth is blasphemy? Only to deniers and their cult of coal cucked clowns. www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/funders What's up? Global temps due to AGW, www.climatesignals.org/
So refreshing to see a presentation about the natural event named climate change that covers some of the complexity involved. I, for one, am fed up with being told that humans and CO2 are the only cause, and that taxation and genocide is the solution.
Hate to break it to you, she does show how CO2 is the cause of the current warming. Watch some of her other videos for more explanation. This just goes to show how little you understand the science. As for the solution it is to remove tax. Currently you pay a giant big government FF welfare tax they call "subsidies". $5.3 trillion a year to cause AGW when an INVESTMENT of 10% of that is required to address AGW. That is 10x the HANDOUTS to FF billionaires than the net worth of the entire RE sector (as of 2015). AGW effects the poor and kills 7 million a year and relies on constant wars for oil and genocide. Clean air and water and cheaper electricity don't cause genocide, quite the opposite. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg
@@jamespyke6764 You're right, I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm certain of two things. 1) Climate is a complex system with tens if not hundreds of variables effecting it. I do understand enough physics and mathematics to see that small changes to one variable is not going to cause the catastrophic outcome predicted. 2) We have one ecosystem which we all live in, destroy it and were all dead, even the ones who make and control the rules. Yes, I know these "leaders" are narcissistic psychopaths to whom profit is more important than life. But they're not stupid, if things were REALLY as bad as we are told to believe, much more effort would be made to curtail the producers rather than punish the end users. The planets climate has been changing ever since it gained an atmosphere to be changed and this dynamic process will continue long after whatever method finally eradicates life from this world. The CO2/climate change fiasco is just another divisive tool used by the "elite" to manipulate and control the population.
@@drayboydog 1) How do you know? What outcomes? Those false claims made by the FF industry so they can debunk their own BS, those made by politicians or actual outcomes predicted by science? Such as clean air and water and cheaper electricity, no more wars for oil, less sea level rise etc. Or those lies made by deniers ie world economic collapse and back to the caves if you address AGW and end up with clean air and water? 2) "But they're not stupid.... " Good history books are wrong then. WW1 and WW2 never happened. I feel so much better now. How did my relatives die then? These clowns are living it up now and will be dead and buried when most of the adverse effects happen, so not their problem. They die rich and don't give a rats. If smoking were so bad.... oh wait those cancer denier scientists Sietz, Singer and Lindzen who worked for big tobacco then went and worked for big oil would have said something....if it was that bad, instead of just lying and collecting the $$$$ like they DID. If it was that bad. "The planets climate has been changing ever since it gained an atmosphere .." So? So you want more change just because it has changed. So we've had cancer, famine, floods, droughts and fires so let's make more. Genius. The CO2/climate change fiasco is just another divisive tool used by the "elite" to manipulate and control the population. Correct and that's how the FF industry controls deniers. Not a small group of unemployed tree huggers. www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ www.carbonbrief.org/analysing-the-900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-9-out-of-top-10-authors-linked-to-exxonmobil en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7
@@drayboydog One number one, systems with positive feedback _can_ certainly demonstrate such behaviour. Like you, I could certainly do without the Greta hysteria. I usually plug my ears and only listen to the scientists says and the there the consensus is clear: We have a problem! Debate is OK and welcomed; but if you are going to refute the 97% scientific consensus you have to demonstrate you can _do_ science and you have _done_ science, and it has to pass a peer review. Simply saying you know a bit of science and physics, or even worse as Trump phrased it "I believe it goes up a little and then it goes down a little" only demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's like a five-year claiming he can drive a car.
Isn't it peculiar that RUclips sees fit to provide a Wikipedia definition of 'Global Warming', right under every video made by a real scientist who speaks calmly, clearly, and factually about the subject, which might tend to suggest that there may not be the certainty we are supposed to believe...
I read your comment. I had to look and check. On this one I didn’t see the RUclips warning. They annoy me too. I’m not sure what gives the right to adjudicate.
I’m amazed she is teaching in London. I would have thought they would have taken her out and flogged her , for her heretic teachings. I guess there is hope for England.
No, her teachings aren't heretical, everything here is scientifically backed and sensible. It is the rantings of the deniers who seek videos like this and distort their meaning to make unscientific claims like "we don't know how the sun affects the climate SO man made climate change is a hoax". Or, "it was colder in my back yard yesterday than it was this time last year SO man made climate change is a hoax". Or "There isn't a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere SO man made climate change is a hoax". These people are the real heretics nowadays. I still wouldn't bother with the effort of flogging them, though, there's a proverb about it being pointless to flog a dead donkey.
@@simonruszczak5563 Yep all the smart people are liberal that's why you have to warn your cult members because most are too stupid to understand science and what she is saying yet laughable think they "know" more than all the experts. But how dumb are you to think all the real scientists, reality, thermometers, oceans etc are all liberal.
@@simonruszczak5563 Best to then learn the physics of how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere and what CO2 saturation means in terms raising global temps. Also note that she said CO2 is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator, meaning CO2 levels rise following warming. In the 2 years since this was filmed, much more is understood from a geomagnetic and astrophysics perspective on how solar cycles affect global temperatures and geomagnetic events like earthquakes and activating volcanoes. Some of the UV rays she mentioned go much deeper that the statospheric cloud layer, all the way into the Earth's crust actually, even into the ocean floor.
Terri Pebsworth Me think that me heard she say that normally a rise in solar activity will result in higher temperature, which then result in a release of CO2 from oceans. The greenhouse effect of this CO2-release then results in a positive feedback which increases temperature further. I don't hear her saying anything abt AGW, only solar radiation, and how things would be if humans didn't interfer. Nothing wrong in that. That humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by almost 50% since 1850, is another thing, which she is not talking about at all.
Watching this makes me understand how much we still don’t know and if a scientists, media or politician says that the science is settled they are wrong.
"Haigh conforms to the mainstream scientific view, that anthropogenic carbon emissions lead to increased greenhouse warming. She stated in June 2016 that if current levels of carbon dioxide emissions continued unabated, they would lead to a 5 °C increase over pre-industrial climate by the end of the next century, and that achieving a zero temperature rise would require a complete cessation of carbon emissions.[15] She also stated that she was optimistic about the future, following the COP21 conference,[15] but later, when Donald Trump became president of the United States, she said: "If Trump does what he said he'd do, and others follow suit, my gut feeling is that I'm scared. Very scared."[16] - Wikipedia
I was seriously baffled by her remark about CO2, right in the middle of her explaining everything about angle's, orbits etc and just about to switch to radiation and sunspot variations. Thnx for the extra source material brother. It was looking so good, but reared off to nothing less than a mouthpiece and gatekeeper. Likely though the 'old hag', not to offend her, is just that, thus more of a useful idiot. Again, no need to attack her on that I think. Most of her science is pretty spot on, but lagging. That's what older people tend to do. Still generally speaking not a bad presentation/explanation I think.
@@jamespyke6764 There may be a correlation between more earthquakes and increased volcanic activity with solar minima. See for example: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html.
@@grindupBaker I heard the original expression as "Crazier than a dog in a hubcap factory" a few years ago when I visited the southern states on the other side of the pond. If said with a southern dialect the expression is even more amusing.
Your Fossil Fuel masters have you in hysterics because you don't understand what she is saying. Try these for clarification. ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8I72c_5nv1U/видео.html
@@williamlee583 Look unstoppable stopped. Oh no, back to your cult basement. Also this non-global, slight warming weather period was due to volcanic activity and not solar. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1955/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1955/trend www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1955/plot/best/from:1955/trend ruclips.net/video/QwNVpaDKdUY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/baYOjy9Q4v0/видео.html
@@jamespyke6764 You do realize that she said CO2 is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator, where CO2 levels rise in response to warming temperatures. Mainstream needs to find another scape goat besides CO2. Maybe water would be the obvious choice and humanity can work feverishly to try to get rid of as much water as possible since it makes up the bulk of greenhouse gas by far. I suggest you study a bit of astrophysics to get a better handle on the forces that regulate the planet's climate.
@@terripebsworth9623 You do realise only for a part of Earth's history. Mainstream deniers need to find another FF funded talking point. Not for example during the P-T extinction event where giant volcanoes and coal fires caused CO2 to build up and cause warming. ruclips.net/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/видео.html ruclips.net/video/dHozjOYHQdE/видео.html As for water, it's controlled by temp. We don't pump billions of tons of water into the atmosphere each year. CO2 raises temp therefore increases humidity. Cut CO2 emissions you cut temp you cut water. I suggest you study a bit of astrophysics, any physics to get a better handle on the forces that regulate the planet's climate. Perhaps watch some of Dr Haigh's other videos for example.
What a brilliant, clear and simple synopsis of real climate science. Thank you for sharing this. What a different world we would live in if more politicians and persons of the media took notice of real facts like these.
Completely forgot to mention the effect that 10,000,000 amperes streaming in through the poles has on the the Earth's weather and geology. The Earth and all the planets in the solar system are connected to the Sun by Birkeland Currents. Electricity is the driving force in the Universe.
Yes but john casey found an 80% correlation between volcanic activity and solar minimum on the 11 year solar cycle. So we can expect cooling due to increased volcanic ash ejection as we go into GSM
She is not talking about the anthropogenic influences driving climate change in this video. You might want to watch another video with the same scientist. ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
"Haigh conforms to the mainstream scientific view, that anthropogenic carbon emissions lead to increased greenhouse warming. She stated in June 2016 that if current levels of carbon dioxide emissions continued unabated, they would lead to a 5 °C increase over pre-industrial climate by the end of the next century, and that achieving a zero temperature rise would require a complete cessation of carbon emissions.[15] She also stated that she was optimistic about the future, following the COP21 conference,[15] but later, when Donald Trump became president of the United States, she said: "If Trump does what he said he'd do, and others follow suit, my gut feeling is that I'm scared. Very scared."[16]
Controversy intensified in late 2009, when emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were leaked in an episode that became known as “Climategate.” The emails highlighted the fact that the hockey stick relied on proxy data for early years but switched to thermometer readings for more recent decades. Notably, using all proxy data for the entire period would have suggested a recent decline in temperatures, disfiguring the hockey stick and (more fundamentally) calling into question the reliability of the proxy data altogether. Pet.App.265-69a. In one telling e-mail, a scientist wrote that he had deployed Mann’s “trick” of splicing data sets “to hide the decline.” Pet.App.9a n.9. “The emails led to public questioning of the validity of the research leading to the hockey stick graph and to calls for evaluation of the soundness of its statistical analysis and the conduct of the scientists involved in the research, including, specifically, Dr. Mann.” www .supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1451/100524/20190521145655298_National%20Review%20Inc.%20v.%20Mann%20-%20Cert%20Petition.pdf Man Made Global Warming = Case closed.
A wonderfully clear discussion of this aspect of the science. Thank you. I was interested to hear Joanna say at 15:39 that the radiometer instrumentation isn't quite there yet - a very important point to make in the face of those talking about the science being settled. Unfortunately there are many other areas where the instrumentation is, or has been, lacking. I did my Ph.D in cloud microphysics in the 1970s and spent some 20 years in cloud physics research. Clouds remain rather poorly understood while having the potential to massively modify the radiative balance of the Earth interacting, as they do, with both incoming and outgoing radiation over most of the solar spectrum (cf. CO2). Small changes to, for example, the Cloud Condensation Nucleus spectrum (CCN) could change the albedo and the lifetime of clouds that in turn could affect the radiative balance. Unfortunately, there are many problems on the question of CCN - a lack of any significant and reliable historical measurements combined with an incomplete understanding of the sources (especially those of organic origin that may have been modified by, for example, land usage, changes in vegetation type etc.). Certainly in my day you could depress yourself about your chances of doing meaningful work in cloud physics simply by running two notionally identical CCN counters side by side sampling the same air only to observe that they didn't agree by factors of 50% or more.
Yes cloud effect uncertainties make quantity uncertain and quantity is what it's about. Still, as you know as a physicist, the temperature changes by themselves are proof positive that increased so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs) are causing some warming the last few decades irrespective of whatever other things might or might not be simultaneously attempting to cool or warm.
Yes, again I would like to point out that it is the natural effects which are not fully understood. Whilst the man made effect is not completely clear, what is clear is that our emissions are causing a temperature rise. To say otherwise is like saying : "You can't tell me EXACTLY what will happen if I pick a fight with a bear, so therefore it cannot be wrong to pick fights with bears"
@@gavinminion8515 The problem is that we are betting the farm on the belief that if we stop GHG emissions the warming will stop. Overwhelmingly the money spent in response to climate change is going into mitigation not adaption. What if, having stopped GHG emissions and even sequestered CO2 out of the atmosphere the climate just goes on warming? This may sound far-fetched but bear in mind that the IPCC have gradually shifted their stance over the last 30 years and, for example have, in the 2018 interim report, lowered their estimate of the warming rate from 0.3C/decade to 0.2C/decade (a value that, had you subscribed to say 25 years ago, would have earned you the “denier” tag). The assertion that the medieval or Roman warm periods were confined to Europe or moderate in duration or magnitude is not accepted by historians. I tried it on an Oxbridge medieval historian as I just happen to have one in my family and apparently there is documentary evidence from China and Japan along with masses of European evidence for an extensive MWP. So, it is entirely possible that we could go back to the conditions of the medieval warm period - CO2 at 300ppm but with a climate warmer that today and sea levels rising at about 1.5mm/year (as they have been for centuries). I have been working for the last decade on renewables and I agree completely with Bill Gates that the current renewables technology is totally incapable of replacing fossil fuels. Expenditure of huge effort to say nothing of huge CO2 emissions on creating renewables infrastructure that is simply not fit for purpose is madness. To use your bear analogy, having convinced yourself you are up against a bear you confidently open the door with Glock 20 in hand only to be stung to death by Asian Hornets 8-)=
@@ColinMill1 Hi Colin, the point of my analogy is that we should not be fighting the bear. To take it back to the debate, whilst I agree that a simple switch away from fossil fuels is simply not practical at present. We need to begin engineering away from them immediately. Continuing to spend vast amounts on consumerist waste, fritter away natural resources and make ridiculous claims like 'I have a god given right to burn oil any way I want' is simply picking a fight with a bear which is currently asleep, and us 'hystericals' just want it to stay that way. We don't need to go back into the dark ages, just stop pretending that our resources are unlimited - or we will be sent back to the dark ages against our will.
@@gavinminion8515 I think we may be in agreement. I have always contended that we will need to transition to renewable energy sources eventually. I went into atmospheric physics in the early 70s when it was a largely forgotten backwater subject because I am passionate about the environment - a trait I share with many of the other scientist like Spencer and Heller who also have the offensive denier tag thrown at them. Like Heller I have done much to minimise my footprint on this Earth (and done so long before that term was coined) I'm on only my 3rd car since 1982 - all bought used (it would be fewer if someone hadn't T-boned the first in the side and written it off) and used them only when public transport is incapable of doing the job (I've tried carrying an 12ft long item on a bus - they chuck you off). We heat the house primarily from wood from our own land (not a solution open to many in a country with over 400 people /sq.km.) - I could go on. I and my co-workers in the renewables research are trying to make them a practical proposition but even with the exciting materials research that is going to come on line in the next 20 years it remains a massive task.
This free platform should not be used to expose yourself to ideas different from your indoctrination. Remember the only acceptable view is the one linked under the video which we conveniently placed above the title and description. -RUclips (on behalf of mainstream media)
Blessings on this woman explaining the causes and conditions that determine our climate and the changes in it through time, short term and long term. Thank you, Joanna D. Haigh!
never thought of that, but sounds perfectly feasible. Good catch. I feel a bit silly now too though, as I was told/aware of the fact there are still streets in England that refer to winemaking, as they obviously did there in the Medeval Warm Period, at the same time likely as the Vikings were still peacefully herding their sheep on Greenland.
Wonderfully articulated information. One of the few instances when there is no hint of politicization of the scientific understanding. What a breath of fresh air (no pun intended).
Takeaway: There are many more variables to this issue than just CO2 ( if that is a variable at all) and the equations that govern the behavior of all these other variables have not be deduced. Not to mention that you need as many equations as there are variables to understand the whole picture. God, I cannot understand the hubris of some of mankind in all this "man made" global warming BS.
She is not talking about the anthropogenic influences driving climate change in this video. You might want to watch another video with the same scientist. ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
@@traditionalfood367 Not really. But so what? As the MM was caused by volcanic aerosol cooling and only cooled by 0.6C and we have warmed by 1C a GSM would result in a freezing 0.4C of warming at the coldest. Add the AGW on top, at most we would be warming by 0.4C over pre-industrial. But even though she hindcasted her predictions she still got it wrong. ruclips.net/video/NYN0meLWJLg/видео.html
@Allan Sneddon The Fossil Fuel industry receive over $6 trillion in taxpayer subsidies or about 10X the entire RE sectors net worth in big government FF billionaire welfare handout "subsidies" each year. That's 10X more than addressing AGW. FF generators are also highly unreliable and breakdown esp in the heat of summer. So not so reliable. The Tesla battery for example cost the South Australian government about $26 million and saved the taxpayer $30 million in the first 12 months of operation by stopping FF generators from price gouging. RE has reduced blackouts and stabilised the SA grid and German grid and can be done easily with a little planing and better design and interconnection of the grid everywhere. Add trillions to the military industrial complex for constant wars for oil then yes. Any lies that have to be told to generate more money higher taxes will be used to empty your wallet. So global warming denial fits the bill. But you won't hear that in big oil owned fake news media because it is owned by war criminals who kill for profit. And no sacrifice is too big for OTHERS to make for oil billionaire profits. www.nationofchange.org/2017/01/15/cheney-rothschild-fox-news-murdoch-drill-oil-syria-violating-international-law/
What I can't stand is the arrogant hubris of deniers who think despite knowing nothing know more than all the experts. The arrogance of those that think they can pollute without consequence. The hubris of deniers that don't know and have never tried to find out the answers to their questions but arrogantly still know more than the experts. ruclips.net/video/TMNtd29OF6A/видео.html The arrogance of deniers that take no personal responsibility for their actions and just want the Gods to fix everything for them like mommy does for a child. www.desmogblog.com/cornwall-alliance-stewardship-creation ruclips.net/video/yLYqzIhhT6o/видео.html
excellent analysis. best I've heard yet. we are getting closer to understanding all the complexities of c.c. I can see a future computer program being able to handle all the dynamics and giving us a prediction with some degree of accuracy. hopefully the u.n doesn't get to be the dispenser of this knowledge.
She's a great presenter of physics. In 2021 Valentina Zharkova presented a more detailed paper on the subject showing, that we're on our way to a new cold period.
Bridge Beautys now ask yourself if you watched this whole video and what the conclusions are this superb scientist has made. They are not what you made them seem to be in your comment. The subtleties of disinformation are in themselves truly worth researching.
Claire Molleman all I know is There’s no solid evidence that Co2 causes global warming. Co2 (the gas of life) makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is insignificant compared to the power of our star.. everything in our planetary system is on a big cycle including the rise and fall of civilisations.. so hold on to your hat because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.. ruclips.net/video/ieDl06jLLfY/видео.html Doesn’t look like catastrophic melting to me..
Bridge Beautys The video you are pointing to is made by Tony Heller, aka Steve Goddard who is not and has never bern a climate scientist. His ravings are nicely debunked here : skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=Steve+Goddard Nice trick of him pointing out mistakes published in newspapers or other non - scientific publications by the way. But that is nothing new if course. His own ravings are beautiful examples of that. Happy debunking !
I agree she could explain this to the tin foil hat clown. ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html And the parts in this video where she explained the little ice age was caused by volcanoes and a GSM would temporarily change global temps by a few tenths of a degree in 2-6C warming ie SFA. But he won’t, his funding depends on his GSM BS scare.
@@jamespyke6764 why is it people who are on one side of an issue usually wrong side have to get personal and name call? That's the sign of somebody who doesn't have information but does have a big mouth.
@@jerricroft937 Why do people on "your side" hate the truth? Such as your God Adapt who gets so personal and calls all real scientist frauds? That's the sign of somebody who doesn't have information real scientists do. Why is everyone on "your side" such snowflakes? Why do you snowflakes do anything to avoid the science and reality? Explain to, or get your false prophet to, how this ice age causes decade after decade of record high temps.
My statement to you is about the tone and the language that you use in describing people with differing opinions than yours. Antifa is a good example they don't want to discuss or argue a point they want to say f*** you shut up f*** you shut up that's the left that's been well-established if you want to get a different opinion look up a guy named piers corbyn. He will tell you all about your honest scientist on your side honest in quotations
@@jerricroft937My side, my tone? usually I just cut and paste other's comments to mock their comments. But adapt is a proven liar and has used "your sides" tone regularly calling real scientists frauds. Have you had a good cry over his tone and your sides tone too? The difference is he is a tinfoil hat liar. That’s a fact. If you don’t like facts tuff. If you want a better tone, start with adapt and start with him not lying and I'll stop calling out those lies. As for Antifa, you cry about them saying "f*** you shut up f*** you shut up ..." do you also cry for the people actual fascists killed? Guess not. Tone is way worse than actual actions. As for Corbyn he too is a lying conman. Here for example: ruclips.net/video/p64P8Fmb52k/видео.html Corbyn has contunuall predicted cooling since the 1990's while we WARM and set record after record. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
Is there any research being done on the changing ocean floor topography, due to earthquakes and tectonic movement, and it's potential effects on ocean circulation and climate?
Thank you so much for the education. You are well spoken and able to describe the sun and its permutations and effects simply. I was hoping to hear about the GSM (also) however.
Harvest season is ongoing. Last year's heavy snows and spring flooding got the season off to a late start. Heavy rains and early snow has disrupted harvest. The season is not over.
Notice how Joanna doesn't demand to be "believed" or bleets endlessly about so called scientific consensus she offers a level headed scientifically based opinion which is quite compelling for those not completely brainwashed. This is a real scientist
can someone send me a link of an actual picture of earth... also take into account that it must fit with what scientists have said that the earth is not perfectly round due to tides...
A very good perspective on the science of Solar Cycles. I am intrigued with the effects of Solar Cycles on Food Prices And Trades. I did expect a bit more information on that too. But you just touched it. If you do have more studies on it could you please share?
Thank you for this rational discussion of climate science. I hadn't considered the correlation of volcanic activity to the Maunder Minimum period, and I will be alert to additional input. I would like to hear Joanna's perspective on radiative forcing of CO2 (generally agreed to be about 1.7 W/M2 at current CO2 levels) and its contribution to global temperature trends. It seems to me that such a small contribution necessarily implies that natural climate variation factors are dominant. Solar magnetic cycle impacts on cloud formation? Thanks.
Much of the cooling of the little ice age preceded the volcanic eruptions of the late 1700’s, but the volcanic eruptions did cause further cooling. Another point she is missing is that other scientists have noted a correlation between lower Solar activity and a change in the electromagnetic field of the planet which also increases volcanic and earthquake activity.
Great summary of radiation effects. I would note that the earth is a magnet suspended in the sun's magnet field. Solar minimums also seem to cause shifts in the sun's magnetic fields. I don't know if the current shifts of the earth's magnetic poles is related but, especially since it is not symmetric, would this cause surface stresses, more volcanic activity and more particulate in the atmosphere?
WoW, I really liked this video. A question came to my mind at some point, when the lecturer said that the ultraviolet light is more susceptible to change than visible light. So does it make any sense to think that the adaptation of our eyes from red to violet has to do with this property of the sun? Sure there are animals which vision is focused on different wavelengths, but it’s mostly in the spectrum of infrared rather than ultraviolet, which allows vision at night, when the earth is emitting radiation back to the sky. Isn’t it fascinating?
Sun heats oceans which do release co2 and other gasses . It is the Boyle law of phisycs. Liquids do trap gas molecules and the colder the liquid the higher the gas trapped and viceversa, never tried to boil water? Not even for a pasta ever? Bad. ;) We can still observe and learn from observation if not from phisycs books
It's very clear - at 3;25 she says that the warming cycles release CO2 (stored in permafrost, oceans, soils, bogs) which feeds into the warming, but the CO2 follows the warming and not the other way round..
Your question is meaningless because "June 20th" and "December 21" are just things humans invented with no physical relevance at all. You meant your question to be "Why then can't the perihelion and the aphelion be variable with respect to Earth's tilt direction vis a vis the plane of the celestial equator ?". Answer is that the perihelion and the aphelion ==are== variable with respect to Earth's tilt direction vis a vis the plane of the celestial equator. That Milankovitch cycle is called "precession of the equinoxes" (the other 2 are"tilt/obliquity" and "orbit"). Tilt/obliquity is the most powerful of the 3 for determining whether a glaciation period (colloquial "ice age") will be the situation or an inter-glaciation. It's extremely simple, you just compute the ==summer== solar radiation at latitude 65N and if it's high then ice sheets can't form so not an "ice age", if it's low then ice sheets can form so it's an "ice age". You can easily find plots with the 3 Milankovitch cycles shown and also the ==summer== solar radiation at latitude 65N plotted so you can check whether natural forces favour an "ice age" cooling or a "warm inter-glacial warming", and by how much. Of course that's all just for academic interest about Earth the last 3,500,000 years because it was too warm for these glaciation period "ice age" cycles before 3,500,000 years ago and humans over this century are going to be setting the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) back to where it was long before 3,500,000 years ago so the glaciation period "ice age" thing is just going to be a thing that academics study like hiw they study Earth's creation and the Deccan Traps and so on.
I’ve read that there is a positive correlation between diminished heliosphere/solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Could the cooling identified in the volcanically active 1600s be causally linked to Maunder Minimum decreased solar activity by increased volcanism? Perhaps a variation in magnetic field or particle forcing that is not significantly measured by TSI?
magnetic field and particles are vast orders of magnitude less than the tectonic plate forces that affect volcanic activity. Be more likely that diminished solar activity upset a bunch of crickets so they all landed on a volcano and made it erupt. Hardly any change at all but still more likely than magnetic field and particles because the impact of a bunch of crickets landing on something would be far greater than the impact of a change in magnetic field and particles.
If there's a relationship then it's going to be the weight of water/ice/snow on land and more likely ice/snow than water. I know that snow builds up heavy over time because I shovelled 320 tonnes of snow last winter just in my garden. Maunder Minimum decreased solar activity. Huge cooling of the northern hemisphere (was 0.3 degrees global so will have been ~0.6 degrees. maybe slightly more, for the northern hemisphere because that's where Earth's land has clumped up). So snow/ice stay more from last winter and build up just like the start of a glaciation period "Ice Age" (but the 70 years 1645-1715 AD is woefully too short to get a glaciation period "Ice Age" going). The tectonic plates are relentlessly pushing against each other at various angles (pushing underneath or sliding) so it follows there's always a huge variety of how close the friction is to what it needs to be to stop a sudden jolt as the force reaches the point that overwhelms the friction. So a bunch of extra ice/snow weight on a bit of land where the friction could have held out another 100, 200, 300 years manages to just tip the balance and cause the slip/jolt. So earthquake & volcano. So all kinds of earthquakes & volcanoes that would otherwise have been spread over the next few hundred years are instead triggered "early" by the little bit of extra ice/snow weight. If there's a correlation of earthquakes & volcanoes anomaly with Maunder Minimum solar activity climate anomaly then that will be it.
Grind up dude Thanks. It is intriguing that what seems to be weak or marginal forces are possible explanations, via indirect effects or tipping point effects, of putatively very impressive events. CO2 absorption spectrum is certainly weak or marginal compared to the infrared absorption by water vapor but by indirect effects is purported to have 3 times the effect of direct CO2 induced warming. How applicable is this thought pattern to other physical-chemical phenomena beyond radiative forcing? So much is unknown.
Views on climate change[edit] Haigh conforms to the mainstream scientific view, that anthropogenic carbon emissions lead to increased greenhouse warming. She stated in June 2016 that if current levels of carbon dioxide emissions continued unabated, they would lead to a 5 °C increase over pre-industrial climate by the end of the next century, and that achieving a zero temperature rise would require a complete cessation of carbon emissions.[15] She also stated that she was optimistic about the future, following the COP21 conference,[15] but later, when Donald Trump became president of the United States, she said: "If Trump does what he said he'd do, and others follow suit, my gut feeling is that I'm scared. Very scared."[16]
11:51 if she does not know I am probably wrong but isn't this because when it is warmer (sun activity) the oceans are releasing more CO2 (less CO2 in water = ocean colder)?
This is some of the most important information to be had regarding climatology!!! This woman is brilliant and easy to understand. Take that AOC and ExtinctionRebellion!
Very useful and clear summary of solar and orbital effects. I've not heard anyone put it all together in 15 mins like that before, and the bit about solar cycle variability being of different magnitude in different bands was new to me. It would be useful to know how much energy is in each of the bands she talked about, or perhaps how much that energy is coupled with the planet (as opposed to just reflecting back off). Funny how there are hordes of so-called skeptics in these comments celebrating this entirely sensible science, whilst being rude about other bits of entirely sensible science. It all fits together: nothing Ms Haigh said here is any kind of disagreement with climate science.
She knows. And I distrust the knowledge of the average follower of extinction-rebellion, including Greta. For additional info it is worthwhile to see the conversations with William Happer, Anthony Watts, Patrick Moore and Valentina Zharkova. Try to avoid the hockey stick of Al Gore.
So, I can listen to this lady, obviously well educated, erudite, articulate and master of her subject, or I could listen to a Asperger's cabbage patch doll with a (nasty) attitude. Yeah... Im with Joanna on this one.
@@jamespyke6764 Perhaps the more important lesson would be for climate activists to not use kids as propaganda mouthpieces. But no, criticize the people taking umbrage with her misanthropic indignation.
@@NGC-gu6dz Perhaps the more important lesson would be for climate denial activists to cowardly attack children and use that as a piss poor excuse to cowardly hide from science and reality. But no, criticize the people taking umbrage with your misanthropic cowardly indignation. ruclips.net/video/RWo65Uhekjs/видео.html www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial "Easier" than facing reality and taking any personal responsibility though.
@@viktorthegreat3594 Yes How dare YOU and others cowardly attack children to hide from science and reality and to protect your FF funded cult. How dare YOU. www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
It is all dynamic... natural activity and human activity. All we can do is focus on what we can control and prepare for natural changes so we can adapt. Nicely presented.
This is fantastic. I am hearing that variations in the magnetosphere impact the solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth. I am hearing the idea that the magnetosphere weakens during times of low sunspot activity thereby allowing more radiation to reach the surface of the earth even though the sun, itself, is producing less radiation. I am also hearing that the hole in the ozone layer occurred during times of extreme cold weather at the southern pole, and that there is a significant hole in the northern polar regions now that we are seeing extreme cold weather at the North Pole. Finally, there is good research that shows the high temperatures in the northern hemisphere are closely related to the periodic variations of the ocean currents in the Atlantic. The currents vary on a 60 year cycle leading to warming trends that last 30 years and cooling trends that last 30 years. The current in the Atlantic could appear stable (linear), but most phenomena can become unstable. The biggest risk of man-made climate change could be that we do something to hasten the disruption of the Atlantic Ocean currents. When that happens--whether or not it is we who do it--all bets are off. I am not saying that I believe these hypotheses. I am saying that they are, indeed, potential parameters that need further investigation and incorporated into future models if found to be significant. Finally, we should all trust The Science before trusting The Consensus because The Consensus follows The Money and The Money follows The Power and The Power, currently, has lost The Plot.
I read about studies which have found that GCR's have also been shown to "Excite salicic lavas", increasing volcanic activity during solar minimums. Acting a bit like a microwave as they pass through it - greater GCR, greater magmatic activity.
Its nice to see a balanced and sensible portrayal of science fact without any one sided opinion or hype. As someone who has an interest in man's impact on our planet since early 1980s it is sobering to remember that there is more to climate behaviour than just man's current affects upon it.
Наука
Long story short, climate is affected by a range of factors such as orbital variation, solar output, particulates and atmospheric composition, it is totally unjustified and simplistic to suggest that carbon dioxide is the control knob of climate and global temperature.
Also, compared to earth history, we are currently in a co2 shortage. It's about as tiny as it can get. We actually need more co2.
CO2 is _one_ of the control knobs.
@@yottaforce Yeah, it's about as significant as the volume control on your TV, to the temperature in your house.
@@pauljackson2409 Science says your cult is wrong. Orbital factors have been show to contribute a mere 0.7W/m2, far less than CO2 and feedbacks. The sun has been cooling since the late 1950's while we warm. Sun it is not only simplistic but flat out wrong to deny CO2 's influence.
science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_lo03000u.pdf
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_lo03000u.pdf
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_lo03000u.pdf
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1955/plot/best/from:1955/trend
@@jamespyke6764 'Science says', yes corrupted junk science says carbon dioxide is driving global warming. It also said that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2014 and that sea-levels would rise by 20 feet.
Carbon Dioxide levels have risen in the last twenty years, while global temperatures have been static or even declined.
The Man-Made Carbon Dioxide global warming scam is driven by financial and political vested interests, and those behind it are using children in their fear-mongering campaign.
Take your head out of your arse.
Funny, I haven't heard the eminent Dr Michael Mann give such a highly detailed but hysteria free presentation.
@@408Magenta and beating him with hockey sticks?
You understand that this video is about solar effects on climate change. Not man made effects, right?
@@gavinminion8515 Yes. I was commenting on the contrasting quality of this presentation as compared to MM's constant appeals to authority, usually unbacked with any evidence.
@@77goanywhere I find it interesting that you say he has no evidence, when Mann and his colleagues have spent a lifetime collecting the best evidence anyone can get on the subject. And now we are all literally becoming surrounded by evidence. The hockey stick graph, made so controversial only by the concerted efforts of fossil fuel companies anxious to protect their balance sheet, has been show to be a reasonably accurate prediction of global temperatures. You now need to do some serious cherry picking to be able to deny the climate is changing rapidly, but still some people persist. Its kind of like a more dangerous version of the flat earth cult...
@@gavinminion8515 We are surrounded by group think and propaganda. Michael Mann has been challenged and called an outright fraud several times, has sued, but has never won a court case defending his position on the hockey stick. And there are many scientists coming out and openly confronting the IPCC's alarmist position. Very little of this gets into the media though.
There is no climate emergency despite leftist governments and media pushing this line over and over. Every time I see in the media something claimed to be evidence of a climate emergency I find mainstream climate scientists who refute it. The most recent case is the bushfires here in Australia.
It’s just magnificent to see this type of woman: Thoroughly educated, perfectly rational and coherent; presenting bare natural science across a wonderfully natural and bare face.
check out Richard linden, also just science. very refreshing to hear truth, not hype
Richard Lindzen , sorry typo because of spell check
@@rickgillis1613 You mean the liar for hire who previously worked for big tobacco denying the cancer smoking link while millions died and then went to work for big oil lying there as millions died. Good choice. For a denier.
skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=lindzen&x=0&y=0
I couldn’t ‘t agree with you more ! Great presentation !
@@rutameldere3992 Great, go and watch some of her other videos where she explains AGW and Mans influence on the warming climate and how the sun has been cooling and can't be the cause of the warming. You're in for a real treat.
Now that's how I thought Scientists should approach a problem. Hypothesis, questions and further enquiry. Brilliant.
Here some more further enquiry.
ruclips.net/video/8I72c_5nv1U/видео.html
MrImarcus Absolutely correct. "Fairly sure" is science speak for probabilities point to it being so. All of the "science" surrounding climate change needs to be stripped of the political lobby influence on funding it to the detriment of rational logical balanced reasoned scientific research. Sadly science has become the darling of politicised directives which fly in the face of true scientific investigation. Without balance there are no truths.
@@brynleytalbot778 Yep deniers have made science political as an excuse to ignore reality. All science and reality is "lefty" apparently. That's why deniers never investigate other deniers claims.
@@jamespyke6764 The left has made this issue political, not the "deniers". Scientific minded people wouldn't resort to such hyperbolic nonsense and name calling.
Yep. Great response.
At last, a sensible conversation and admission that we do not really understand the sun's influence on climate. We need more scientists like Joanna Haig who are open and admit our knowledge is very incomplete.
We have plenty of good scientists. We need a society which values their input more. We should start trusting people who spend their lives researching this, and other, topics which are made controversial by a toxic mix of money and politics.
@@gavinminion8515 Have you also noticed that the number of scientists who found the courage to question calculations and presented different results, related to Climate Change, came to an ugly end of their lives? Drowned?
She is too polite and professional to say that the current hysteria over man made climate change is complete bollocks.
Indeed - but she's certainly thinking it !!
I'll say it.
Your understanding of what she said here - like almost all other commenters - is complete bollocks. Professor Joanna Haigh completely understands that current warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. ruclips.net/video/Kaf6SAW66cI/видео.html
Yea, dude, if you had an inkling of the science , youd know yer full of shit.
@@ilikethisnamebetter weird aint it?
Excellent! It's so refreshing to hear an objective, scientific approach to this "issue" without all the whole denier/skeptic polarity! As a curious observer with a mind geared naturally towards science, I just want facts and honesty about what we actually know. Joanna delivers that in spades. Thank you!!
So sad discussions like this seem to be increasingly rare. She really touched on so many of the key variables in this science, the combined effects of which must be understood in order to understand global climate. At ~ 3:10 she notes that temperature increases result in releases of greenhouse gases (CO2). I would also offer that temperature increase would give rise to more water vapor. While she did not mention H2O specifically, maybe she included in under "greenhouse gasses". I find the question of how the elevated UV radiation levels during an active Sun could influence climate intriguing. It seems the more we look, the more we realize we do not know, at least to those who seek acts and truth. I respect scientists who take this approach, while those who insist "the science is settled" I find especially annoying!
She is not talking about the anthropogenic influences driving climate change in this video. You might want to watch another video with the same scientist.
ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
Nothing said here by Dr Haigh contradicts the consensus view on climate -- why try to hang climate science denial on this?
I got your professor right here: ruclips.net/video/8I72c_5nv1U/видео.html
I agree there are several howlers here, but for the most part it properly emphasises that global climate is overwhelmingly governed by the Sun, the planets, the earth/moon spin and magnetism and the feedback reactions of the surface of the earth.
More up to date perspective on CO2 FOLLOWING the variation of mean ocean temperature and the vital and predominant influence of water vapour/clouds and their being subject to cosmic ray cloud nucleation needs to be noted and in addition, that the cosmic rays seem to cause increased volcanic activity.
@@Pacdoc-oz This is hilarious another cult member who doesn't have a clue what a scientist is saying. Watch again and the above links where she shows more clearly how delusional your cult is. And again why is it deniers never know what the sun is ACTUALLY doing even when it gets repeatedly pointed out to them????? The sun has been cooling since the 1950's while we warm. So how does cooling "naturally" cause warming???
ruclips.net/video/k5_zpjerQFo/видео.html
Again the sun does and has not always led changes in CO2 eg the P-T extinction event where massive volcanoes and giant coal seams catching alight caused [CO2] to climb leading to GW.
ruclips.net/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/dHozjOYHQdE/видео.html
Water vapour is controlled by temp. CO2 controls temp so as [CO2] increases so does water vapour creating a feedback mechanism. We don't pump 10 billion tons of water vapour into the air each year as we do with CO2.
Cosmic rays should also cause cooling as we warm.
skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm
Clouds also show a net zero or slight +ve feedback. Also controlled by temp and CO2.
Thank you for the scientific view on climate. I´m fed up with climate-hysteria.
Watch it again and her other video which explain why the cult of AGW denial is BS. Can't wait to see your reaction to them.
James pyke can you link it?
@@davod6015 Here is 1 I'll try and find more when I get a chance. There are a series of videos on this channel.
ruclips.net/video/Kaf6SAW66cI/видео.html
@@jamespyke6764 yea you tell that blaspheming kafir what's up
@@NwoDispatcher truth is blasphemy? Only to deniers and their cult of coal cucked clowns.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/funders
What's up? Global temps due to AGW,
www.climatesignals.org/
The sun has something to do with climate. Who'd have thunk it?
Going Clear have you got any idea what the stance of this superb scientist is on anthropogenic warming ?
@@anonymous.youtuber nice big word there... who cares when it's obviously BS to anyone with any intelligence?
So refreshing to see a presentation about the natural event named climate change that covers some of the complexity involved. I, for one, am fed up with being told that humans and CO2 are the only cause, and that taxation and genocide is the solution.
Hate to break it to you, she does show how CO2 is the cause of the current warming. Watch some of her other videos for more explanation. This just goes to show how little you understand the science. As for the solution it is to remove tax. Currently you pay a giant big government FF welfare tax they call "subsidies". $5.3 trillion a year to cause AGW when an INVESTMENT of 10% of that is required to address AGW. That is 10x the HANDOUTS to FF billionaires than the net worth of the entire RE sector (as of 2015). AGW effects the poor and kills 7 million a year and relies on constant wars for oil and genocide. Clean air and water and cheaper electricity don't cause genocide, quite the opposite.
www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg
@@jamespyke6764 You're right, I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm certain of two things. 1) Climate is a complex system with tens if not hundreds of variables effecting it. I do understand enough physics and mathematics to see that small changes to one variable is not going to cause the catastrophic outcome predicted. 2) We have one ecosystem which we all live in, destroy it and were all dead, even the ones who make and control the rules. Yes, I know these "leaders" are narcissistic psychopaths to whom profit is more important than life. But they're not stupid, if things were REALLY as bad as we are told to believe, much more effort would be made to curtail the producers rather than punish the end users.
The planets climate has been changing ever since it gained an atmosphere to be changed and this dynamic process will continue long after whatever method finally eradicates life from this world. The CO2/climate change fiasco is just another divisive tool used by the "elite" to manipulate and control the population.
@@drayboydog 1) How do you know? What outcomes? Those false claims made by the FF industry so they can debunk their own BS, those made by politicians or actual outcomes predicted by science? Such as clean air and water and cheaper electricity, no more wars for oil, less sea level rise etc. Or those lies made by deniers ie world economic collapse and back to the caves if you address AGW and end up with clean air and water? 2) "But they're not stupid.... " Good history books are wrong then. WW1 and WW2 never happened. I feel so much better now. How did my relatives die then? These clowns are living it up now and will be dead and buried when most of the adverse effects happen, so not their problem. They die rich and don't give a rats. If smoking were so bad.... oh wait those cancer denier scientists Sietz, Singer and Lindzen who worked for big tobacco then went and worked for big oil would have said something....if it was that bad, instead of just lying and collecting the $$$$ like they DID. If it was that bad.
"The planets climate has been changing ever since it gained an atmosphere .." So? So you want more change just because it has changed. So we've had cancer, famine, floods, droughts and fires so let's make more. Genius.
The CO2/climate change fiasco is just another divisive tool used by the "elite" to manipulate and control the population. Correct and that's how the FF industry controls deniers. Not a small group of unemployed tree huggers.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
www.carbonbrief.org/analysing-the-900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-9-out-of-top-10-authors-linked-to-exxonmobil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7
@@drayboydog One number one, systems with positive feedback _can_ certainly demonstrate such behaviour. Like you, I could certainly do without the Greta hysteria. I usually plug my ears and only listen to the scientists says and the there the consensus is clear: We have a problem! Debate is OK and welcomed; but if you are going to refute the 97% scientific consensus you have to demonstrate you can _do_ science and you have _done_ science, and it has to pass a peer review. Simply saying you know a bit of science and physics, or even worse as Trump phrased it "I believe it goes up a little and then it goes down a little" only demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's like a five-year claiming he can drive a car.
genocide is the objective silent genocide by psychopath but yes the lady knows her stuff and knows not enough is known yet it very complicated
Isn't it peculiar that RUclips sees fit to provide a Wikipedia definition of 'Global Warming', right under every video made by a real scientist who speaks calmly, clearly, and factually about the subject, which might tend to suggest that there may not be the certainty we are supposed to believe...
I read your comment. I had to look and check. On this one I didn’t see the RUclips warning.
They annoy me too.
I’m not sure what gives the right to adjudicate.
I’m amazed she is teaching in London. I would have thought they would have taken her out and flogged her , for her heretic teachings. I guess there is hope for England.
No, her teachings aren't heretical, everything here is scientifically backed and sensible. It is the rantings of the deniers who seek videos like this and distort their meaning to make unscientific claims like "we don't know how the sun affects the climate SO man made climate change is a hoax". Or, "it was colder in my back yard yesterday than it was this time last year SO man made climate change is a hoax". Or "There isn't a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere SO man made climate change is a hoax". These people are the real heretics nowadays. I still wouldn't bother with the effort of flogging them, though, there's a proverb about it being pointless to flog a dead donkey.
Wakeup, she believes in man-made global warming, she's a Libtard.
@@simonruszczak5563 Yep all the smart people are liberal that's why you have to warn your cult members because most are too stupid to understand science and what she is saying yet laughable think they "know" more than all the experts. But how dumb are you to think all the real scientists, reality, thermometers, oceans etc are all liberal.
@@simonruszczak5563 Best to then learn the physics of how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere and what CO2 saturation means in terms raising global temps. Also note that she said CO2 is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator, meaning CO2 levels rise following warming. In the 2 years since this was filmed, much more is understood from a geomagnetic and astrophysics perspective on how solar cycles affect global temperatures and geomagnetic events like earthquakes and activating volcanoes. Some of the UV rays she mentioned go much deeper that the statospheric cloud layer, all the way into the Earth's crust actually, even into the ocean floor.
Terri Pebsworth Me think that me heard she say that normally a rise in solar activity will result in higher temperature, which then result in a release of CO2 from oceans. The greenhouse effect of this CO2-release then results in a positive feedback which increases temperature further.
I don't hear her saying anything abt AGW, only solar radiation, and how things would be if humans didn't interfer. Nothing wrong in that.
That humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by almost 50% since 1850, is another thing, which she is not talking about at all.
Watching this makes me understand how much we still don’t know and if a scientists, media or politician says that the science is settled they are wrong.
One of the best presentations I have seen! This. especially in the context of politically driven climate panic, is refreshing...
"Haigh conforms to the mainstream scientific view, that anthropogenic carbon emissions lead to increased greenhouse warming. She stated in June 2016 that if current levels of carbon dioxide emissions continued unabated, they would lead to a 5 °C increase over pre-industrial climate by the end of the next century, and that achieving a zero temperature rise would require a complete cessation of carbon emissions.[15] She also stated that she was optimistic about the future, following the COP21 conference,[15] but later, when Donald Trump became president of the United States, she said: "If Trump does what he said he'd do, and others follow suit, my gut feeling is that I'm scared. Very scared."[16] - Wikipedia
I was seriously baffled by her remark about CO2, right in the middle of her explaining everything about angle's, orbits etc and just about to switch to radiation and sunspot variations. Thnx for the extra source material brother.
It was looking so good, but reared off to nothing less than a mouthpiece and gatekeeper. Likely though the 'old hag', not to offend her, is just that, thus more of a useful idiot. Again, no need to attack her on that I think. Most of her science is pretty spot on, but lagging. That's what older people tend to do.
Still generally speaking not a bad presentation/explanation I think.
@@ResurrectingJiriki You aren't a useful idiot. You're just an idiot. Unfortunately, though, there are thousands just like you.
Awesome discussion. Bright, balanced and intelligent. Need more of this. Thank you.
Actual science, objective, unbiased and without political rhetoric. How refreshing.
Nice to hear science without the alarmism!
By far the clearest and most thorough explanation of climate mechanisms anywhere on YT. Full marks to Professor Haigh.
im at 7min and started thinking Joanne is about to anounce the coming ice age.. big one? we need more like her.
Wait to you hit 10:30. You're in for a surprise. A big one. Spoiler alert it was caused by volcanoes not a GSM.
Note recent volcanic activity ...
Meanwhile, 36 days straight without sunspots; at least 61% this year.
@@jamespyke6764 There may be a correlation between more earthquakes and increased volcanic activity with solar minima. See for example: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/st07500u.html.
Linda Edwards The troll has been silenced 👏🏼
Well galactic cosmic rays are though to CAUSE (some/most?) volcanicism and earthquakes so there is that, more GCRs more of other the other two
This lady delivers more facts than a dog in a hubcap factory.
Pure awesomeness, I love it!
Do you dogs have a vast body of dog-related analogies that I've never heard before ?
@@grindupBaker I heard the original expression as "Crazier than a dog in a hubcap factory" a few years ago when I visited the southern states on the other side of the pond.
If said with a southern dialect the expression is even more amusing.
Can someone pass this on to Greta. Her people have her in hysterics.
Your Fossil Fuel masters have you in hysterics because you don't understand what she is saying. Try these for clarification.
ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8I72c_5nv1U/видео.html
Unstoppable Solar Cycles - Full Video
ruclips.net/video/zDOgWeTAas0/видео.html
@@williamlee583 Look unstoppable stopped. Oh no, back to your cult basement. Also this non-global, slight warming weather period was due to volcanic activity and not solar.
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1955/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1955/trend
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1955/plot/best/from:1955/trend
ruclips.net/video/QwNVpaDKdUY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/baYOjy9Q4v0/видео.html
@@jamespyke6764 You do realize that she said CO2 is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator, where CO2 levels rise in response to warming temperatures. Mainstream needs to find another scape goat besides CO2. Maybe water would be the obvious choice and humanity can work feverishly to try to get rid of as much water as possible since it makes up the bulk of greenhouse gas by far. I suggest you study a bit of astrophysics to get a better handle on the forces that regulate the planet's climate.
@@terripebsworth9623 You do realise only for a part of Earth's history. Mainstream deniers need to find another FF funded talking point. Not for example during the P-T extinction event where giant volcanoes and coal fires caused CO2 to build up and cause warming.
ruclips.net/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/dHozjOYHQdE/видео.html
As for water, it's controlled by temp. We don't pump billions of tons of water into the atmosphere each year. CO2 raises temp therefore increases humidity. Cut CO2 emissions you cut temp you cut water.
I suggest you study a bit of astrophysics, any physics to get a better handle on the forces that regulate the planet's climate.
Perhaps watch some of Dr Haigh's other videos for example.
Add to this , Suspicious Observers, and Tony Heller. Great, people are waking up!
Yip!
Tony Heller has been shown to be a fraud.
@@WalkingDday how so?
Evan Clayson At 4:30 ruclips.net/video/WLjkLPnIPPw/видео.html
And at 3:00 ruclips.net/video/-fY9_R9Qwm4/видео.html
Thunderbolts Project
It is a pleasure to listen to a scientist at the top of their discipline.
She's White too. What are the chances?
What a brilliant, clear and simple synopsis of real climate science. Thank you for sharing this. What a different world we would live in if more politicians and persons of the media took notice of real facts like these.
Completely forgot to mention the effect that 10,000,000 amperes streaming in through the poles has on the the Earth's weather and geology. The Earth and all the planets in the solar system are connected to the Sun by Birkeland Currents. Electricity is the driving force in the Universe.
You got it Franz. The Thunderbolts Project is a great resource for electric universe information.
Yes but john casey found an 80% correlation between volcanic activity and solar minimum on the 11 year solar cycle. So we can expect cooling due to increased volcanic ash ejection as we go into GSM
principia-scientific.org/do-cosmic-rays-trigger-earthquakes-volcanic-eruptions/
And so the science is most definitely not settled. There you have it succinctly.
She is not talking about the anthropogenic influences driving climate change in this video. You might want to watch another video with the same scientist.
ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
Science is never settled; if it ever were, it wouldn't be science anymore
Thank you, a great explanation to pass on to the science ignorant alarmists
"Haigh conforms to the mainstream scientific view, that anthropogenic carbon emissions lead to increased greenhouse warming. She stated in June 2016 that if current levels of carbon dioxide emissions continued unabated, they would lead to a 5 °C increase over pre-industrial climate by the end of the next century, and that achieving a zero temperature rise would require a complete cessation of carbon emissions.[15] She also stated that she was optimistic about the future, following the COP21 conference,[15] but later, when Donald Trump became president of the United States, she said: "If Trump does what he said he'd do, and others follow suit, my gut feeling is that I'm scared. Very scared."[16]
Controversy intensified in late 2009, when emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were leaked in an episode that became known as “Climategate.” The emails highlighted the fact that the hockey stick relied on proxy data for early years but switched to thermometer readings for more recent decades. Notably, using all proxy data for the entire period would have suggested a recent decline in temperatures, disfiguring the hockey stick and (more fundamentally) calling into question the reliability of the proxy data altogether. Pet.App.265-69a. In one telling e-mail, a scientist wrote that he had deployed Mann’s “trick” of splicing data sets “to hide the decline.” Pet.App.9a n.9. “The emails led to public questioning of the validity of the research leading to the hockey stick graph and to calls for evaluation of the soundness of its statistical analysis and the conduct of the scientists involved in the research, including, specifically, Dr. Mann.”
www .supremecourt. gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1451/100524/20190521145655298_National%20Review%20Inc.%20v.%20Mann%20-%20Cert%20Petition.pdf
Man Made Global Warming = Case closed.
A wonderfully clear discussion of this aspect of the science. Thank you. I was interested to hear Joanna say at 15:39 that the radiometer instrumentation isn't quite there yet - a very important point to make in the face of those talking about the science being settled. Unfortunately there are many other areas where the instrumentation is, or has been, lacking.
I did my Ph.D in cloud microphysics in the 1970s and spent some 20 years in cloud physics research. Clouds remain rather poorly understood while having the potential to massively modify the radiative balance of the Earth interacting, as they do, with both incoming and outgoing radiation over most of the solar spectrum (cf. CO2). Small changes to, for example, the Cloud Condensation Nucleus spectrum (CCN) could change the albedo and the lifetime of clouds that in turn could affect the radiative balance. Unfortunately, there are many problems on the question of CCN - a lack of any significant and reliable historical measurements combined with an incomplete understanding of the sources (especially those of organic origin that may have been modified by, for example, land usage, changes in vegetation type etc.). Certainly in my day you could depress yourself about your chances of doing meaningful work in cloud physics simply by running two notionally identical CCN counters side by side sampling the same air only to observe that they didn't agree by factors of 50% or more.
Yes cloud effect uncertainties make quantity uncertain and quantity is what it's about. Still, as you know as a physicist, the temperature changes by themselves are proof positive that increased so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs) are causing some warming the last few decades irrespective of whatever other things might or might not be simultaneously attempting to cool or warm.
Yes, again I would like to point out that it is the natural effects which are not fully understood. Whilst the man made effect is not completely clear, what is clear is that our emissions are causing a temperature rise. To say otherwise is like saying : "You can't tell me EXACTLY what will happen if I pick a fight with a bear, so therefore it cannot be wrong to pick fights with bears"
@@gavinminion8515 The problem is that we are betting the farm on the belief that if we stop GHG emissions the warming will stop. Overwhelmingly the money spent in response to climate change is going into mitigation not adaption. What if, having stopped GHG emissions and even sequestered CO2 out of the atmosphere the climate just goes on warming? This may sound far-fetched but bear in mind that the IPCC have gradually shifted their stance over the last 30 years and, for example have, in the 2018 interim report, lowered their estimate of the warming rate from 0.3C/decade to 0.2C/decade (a value that, had you subscribed to say 25 years ago, would have earned you the “denier” tag).
The assertion that the medieval or Roman warm periods were confined to Europe or moderate in duration or magnitude is not accepted by historians. I tried it on an Oxbridge medieval historian as I just happen to have one in my family and apparently there is documentary evidence from China and Japan along with masses of European evidence for an extensive MWP. So, it is entirely possible that we could go back to the conditions of the medieval warm period - CO2 at 300ppm but with a climate warmer that today and sea levels rising at about 1.5mm/year (as they have been for centuries).
I have been working for the last decade on renewables and I agree completely with Bill Gates that the current renewables technology is totally incapable of replacing fossil fuels. Expenditure of huge effort to say nothing of huge CO2 emissions on creating renewables infrastructure that is simply not fit for purpose is madness.
To use your bear analogy, having convinced yourself you are up against a bear you confidently open the door with Glock 20 in hand only to be stung to death by Asian Hornets 8-)=
@@ColinMill1 Hi Colin, the point of my analogy is that we should not be fighting the bear. To take it back to the debate, whilst I agree that a simple switch away from fossil fuels is simply not practical at present. We need to begin engineering away from them immediately. Continuing to spend vast amounts on consumerist waste, fritter away natural resources and make ridiculous claims like 'I have a god given right to burn oil any way I want' is simply picking a fight with a bear which is currently asleep, and us 'hystericals' just want it to stay that way. We don't need to go back into the dark ages, just stop pretending that our resources are unlimited - or we will be sent back to the dark ages against our will.
@@gavinminion8515 I think we may be in agreement. I have always contended that we will need to transition to renewable energy sources eventually. I went into atmospheric physics in the early 70s when it was a largely forgotten backwater subject because I am passionate about the environment - a trait I share with many of the other scientist like Spencer and Heller who also have the offensive denier tag thrown at them. Like Heller I have done much to minimise my footprint on this Earth (and done so long before that term was coined) I'm on only my 3rd car since 1982 - all bought used (it would be fewer if someone hadn't T-boned the first in the side and written it off) and used them only when public transport is incapable of doing the job (I've tried carrying an 12ft long item on a bus - they chuck you off). We heat the house primarily from wood from our own land (not a solution open to many in a country with over 400 people /sq.km.) - I could go on.
I and my co-workers in the renewables research are trying to make them a practical proposition but even with the exciting materials research that is going to come on line in the next 20 years it remains a massive task.
Our entire universe is far more "complicated" than a couple of "simple theories" may presume !
This free platform should not be used to expose yourself to ideas different from your indoctrination.
Remember the only acceptable view is the one linked under the video which we conveniently placed above the title and description.
-RUclips (on behalf of mainstream media)
Blessings on this woman explaining the causes and conditions that determine our climate and the changes in it through time, short term and long term. Thank you, Joanna D. Haigh!
If one looks at wine prices vs year, vintage years, etc... you can also relate to the sun activity :) interesting
never thought of that, but sounds perfectly feasible. Good catch.
I feel a bit silly now too though, as I was told/aware of the fact there are still streets in England that refer to winemaking, as they obviously did there in the Medeval Warm Period, at the same time likely as the Vikings were still peacefully herding their sheep on Greenland.
When my husband and I visited Hampton Court back in the 80s, we heard that during Henry the Eighths reign British wine was considered the best.
@@dawne5139 Unfortunately when the climate later cooled, the English vines were destroyed by disease.
So wonderful to hear an organised and lucid speaker whose discussion is based upon evidence and refrains from speculation.
Wonderfully articulated information. One of the few instances when there is no hint of politicization of the scientific understanding. What a breath of fresh air (no pun intended).
Rational , clear and to the point , its the sun that does it.
Outstanding presentation.
Thank you for uploading this great interview!
Grand solar minimum approaches. Get ready people.
Takeaway: There are many more variables to this issue than just CO2 ( if that is a variable at all) and the equations that govern the behavior of all these other variables have not be deduced. Not to mention that you need as many equations as there are variables to understand the whole picture. God, I cannot understand the hubris of some of mankind in all this "man made" global warming BS.
She is not talking about the anthropogenic influences driving climate change in this video. You might want to watch another video with the same scientist.
ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
Solar physicist Valentina Zharkova's recent confirmation of the next Grand Solar Minimum.
@@traditionalfood367 Not really. But so what? As the MM was caused by volcanic aerosol cooling and only cooled by 0.6C and we have warmed by 1C a GSM would result in a freezing 0.4C of warming at the coldest. Add the AGW on top, at most we would be warming by 0.4C over pre-industrial. But even though she hindcasted her predictions she still got it wrong.
ruclips.net/video/NYN0meLWJLg/видео.html
@Allan Sneddon The Fossil Fuel industry receive over $6 trillion in taxpayer subsidies or about 10X the entire RE sectors net worth in big government FF billionaire welfare handout "subsidies" each year. That's 10X more than addressing AGW. FF generators are also highly unreliable and breakdown esp in the heat of summer. So not so reliable. The Tesla battery for example cost the South Australian government about $26 million and saved the taxpayer $30 million in the first 12 months of operation by stopping FF generators from price gouging. RE has reduced blackouts and stabilised the SA grid and German grid and can be done easily with a little planing and better design and interconnection of the grid everywhere.
Add trillions to the military industrial complex for constant wars for oil
then yes. Any lies that have to be told to generate more money higher taxes will be used to empty your wallet.
So global warming denial fits the bill.
But you won't hear that in big oil owned fake news media because it is owned by war criminals who kill for profit. And no sacrifice is too big for OTHERS to make for oil billionaire profits.
www.nationofchange.org/2017/01/15/cheney-rothschild-fox-news-murdoch-drill-oil-syria-violating-international-law/
What I can't stand is the arrogant hubris of deniers who think despite knowing nothing know more than all the experts. The arrogance of those that think they can pollute without consequence. The hubris of deniers that don't know and have never tried to find out the answers to their questions but arrogantly still know more than the experts.
ruclips.net/video/TMNtd29OF6A/видео.html
The arrogance of deniers that take no personal responsibility for their actions and just want the Gods to fix everything for them like mommy does for a child.
www.desmogblog.com/cornwall-alliance-stewardship-creation
ruclips.net/video/yLYqzIhhT6o/видео.html
excellent analysis. best I've heard yet. we are getting closer to understanding all the complexities of c.c. I can see a future computer program being able to handle all the dynamics and giving us a prediction with some degree of accuracy. hopefully the u.n doesn't get to be the dispenser of this knowledge.
She's a great presenter of physics. In 2021 Valentina Zharkova presented a more detailed paper on the subject showing, that we're on our way to a new cold period.
And this cycle is already WAY past Zharkova's prediction.
It’s not Co2, it’s not you, it’s the SUN...
Bridge Beautys now ask yourself if you watched this whole video and what the conclusions are this superb scientist has made. They are not what you made them seem to be in your comment. The subtleties of disinformation are in themselves truly worth researching.
Claire Molleman all I know is There’s no solid evidence that Co2 causes global warming. Co2 (the gas of life) makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere which is insignificant compared to the power of our star.. everything in our planetary system is on a big cycle including the rise and fall of civilisations.. so hold on to your hat because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.. ruclips.net/video/ieDl06jLLfY/видео.html
Doesn’t look like catastrophic melting to me..
Bridge Beautys The video you are pointing to is made by Tony Heller, aka Steve Goddard who is not and has never bern a climate scientist. His ravings are nicely debunked here :
skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=Steve+Goddard
Nice trick of him pointing out mistakes published in newspapers or other non - scientific publications by the way. But that is nothing new if course. His own ravings are beautiful examples of that.
Happy debunking !
At last the voice of intelligent reason.
Joanne do an interview with David on adapt 2030 channel ??
I agree she could explain this to the tin foil hat clown.
ruclips.net/video/t3LlKueTUfQ/видео.html
And the parts in this video where she explained the little ice age was caused by volcanoes and a GSM would temporarily change global temps by a few tenths of a degree in 2-6C warming ie SFA.
But he won’t, his funding depends on his GSM BS scare.
@@jamespyke6764 why is it people who are on one side of an issue usually wrong side have to get personal and name call? That's the sign of somebody who doesn't have information but does have a big mouth.
@@jerricroft937 Why do people on "your side" hate the truth? Such as your God Adapt who gets so personal and calls all real scientist frauds? That's the sign of somebody who doesn't have information real scientists do.
Why is everyone on "your side" such snowflakes?
Why do you snowflakes do anything to avoid the science and reality?
Explain to, or get your false prophet to, how this ice age causes decade after decade of record high temps.
My statement to you is about the tone and the language that you use in describing people with differing opinions than yours. Antifa is a good example they don't want to discuss or argue a point they want to say f*** you shut up f*** you shut up that's the left that's been well-established if you want to get a different opinion look up a guy named piers corbyn. He will tell you all about your honest scientist on your side honest in quotations
@@jerricroft937My side, my tone? usually I just cut and paste other's comments to mock their comments. But adapt is a proven liar and has used "your sides" tone regularly calling real scientists frauds. Have you had a good cry over his tone and your sides tone too? The difference is he is a tinfoil hat liar. That’s a fact. If you don’t like facts tuff. If you want a better tone, start with adapt and start with him not lying and I'll stop calling out those lies.
As for Antifa, you cry about them saying "f*** you shut up f*** you shut up ..." do you also cry for the people actual fascists killed? Guess not. Tone is way worse than actual actions.
As for Corbyn he too is a lying conman. Here for example:
ruclips.net/video/p64P8Fmb52k/видео.html
Corbyn has contunuall predicted cooling since the 1990's while we WARM and set record after record.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
Is there any research being done on the changing ocean floor topography, due to earthquakes and tectonic movement, and it's potential effects on ocean circulation and climate?
Thank you so much for the education. You are well spoken and able to describe the sun and its permutations and effects simply. I was hoping to hear about the GSM (also) however.
Excellent discourse. Very informative. Good work. Cheers from Michael. Australia.
The US midwestern grain states will have negligible harvests this year.
Harvest season is ongoing. Last year's heavy snows and spring flooding got the season off to a late start. Heavy rains and early snow has disrupted harvest. The season is not over.
@@socalslk because of weather warfare...chemtrails, bunkerfuel deployed, haarp..
The list goes on...
Thanks. I'm just hazarding an off-the-cuff guess here but was the effect of Sunspots on wheat that the wheat went spotty ?
Notice how Joanna doesn't demand to be "believed" or bleets endlessly about so called scientific consensus she offers a level headed scientifically based opinion which is quite compelling for those not completely brainwashed. This is a real scientist
Isn’t it wonderful to listen to a calm voice telling the truth not pushing an alarmist agenda✅👊
i can simplify, here in canada apparently all of this can be worked out just by paying more taxes. simple solution we have here.
I think you have hit on something.
Thanks. I hope the world is listening.
Well done Professor! Your grant application has been approved. Your cheque is in the mail.
Very well presented! A+. Maybe the increased volcano activity during "the little ice age" was caused by orbital eccentricity too?
Or volcanic activity was up because of few sunspots?
Brilliant! Very informative video.
10:30 yes, solar radiaton also effects geophisical activity as well as cilmate (directly and indirectly via volcanos)
yes, but she speaks as if she does not think there is a correlation ?
So well explained - Thank you
Wonderful presentation very informative thank you very much.🌞👍
Out of the modern-day warm period Into the Eddy Grand solar minimum folks!
Wow, real science based on evidence and logic instead of emotive rants from children. "How dare you!"
can someone send me a link of an actual picture of earth... also take into account that it must fit with what scientists have said that the earth is not perfectly round due to tides...
A very good perspective on the science of Solar Cycles. I am intrigued with the effects of Solar Cycles on Food Prices And Trades. I did expect a bit more information on that too. But you just touched it. If you do have more studies on it could you please share?
Thank you for this rational discussion of climate science. I hadn't considered the correlation of volcanic activity to the Maunder Minimum period, and I will be alert to additional input. I would like to hear Joanna's perspective on radiative forcing of CO2 (generally agreed to be about 1.7 W/M2 at current CO2 levels) and its contribution to global temperature trends. It seems to me that such a small contribution necessarily implies that natural climate variation factors are dominant. Solar magnetic cycle impacts on cloud formation? Thanks.
Much of the cooling of the little ice age preceded the volcanic eruptions of the late 1700’s, but the volcanic eruptions did cause further cooling. Another point she is missing is that other scientists have noted a correlation between lower Solar activity and a change in the electromagnetic field of the planet which also increases volcanic and earthquake activity.
@@KatJaguar1122 you are 100% correct!
Brilliant explanation.
Great summary of radiation effects. I would note that the earth is a magnet suspended in the sun's magnet field. Solar minimums also seem to cause shifts in the sun's magnetic fields. I don't know if the current shifts of the earth's magnetic poles is related but, especially since it is not symmetric, would this cause surface stresses, more volcanic activity and more particulate in the atmosphere?
WoW, I really liked this video.
A question came to my mind at some point, when the lecturer said that the ultraviolet light is more susceptible to change than visible light.
So does it make any sense to think that the adaptation of our eyes from red to violet has to do with this property of the sun?
Sure there are animals which vision is focused on different wavelengths, but it’s mostly in the spectrum of infrared rather than ultraviolet, which allows vision at night, when the earth is emitting radiation back to the sky.
Isn’t it fascinating?
I though co2 follows temperature rise.
By about 800 years
Sun heats oceans which do release co2 and other gasses . It is the Boyle law of phisycs. Liquids do trap gas molecules and the colder the liquid the higher the gas trapped and viceversa, never tried to boil water? Not even for a pasta ever? Bad. ;) We can still observe and learn from observation if not from phisycs books
Really interesting explanation.
It's very clear - at 3;25 she says that the warming cycles release CO2 (stored in permafrost, oceans, soils, bogs) which feeds into the warming, but the CO2 follows the warming and not the other way round..
Is there any weather or climate statistics about 22 year cycle. I understand the odd and even solar cycles are different.
That's right but I don't know details. The cycles are quite tiny, ~0.18 w/m**2
great info..
Ha ha! Isn't it amazing that the sun used to influence climate but now has no effect?
The best explanation i have heard. Good to hear about a serious grown up's research. instead of a climate alarmist informed by the main stream media.
Please help us understand the effects of changes in relativistic electrons, solar cosmic rays and galactic cosmic rays.
Nothing new here, all these things she mentions have of course been put out there for twenty years
Ahhh :) How refreshing....
Why then can't the perihelion and the aphelion be variable for the various solstices, instead of June 20th and December 21?
Your question is meaningless because "June 20th" and "December 21" are just things humans invented with no physical relevance at all. You meant your question to be "Why then can't the perihelion and the aphelion be variable with respect to Earth's tilt direction vis a vis the plane of the celestial equator ?". Answer is that the perihelion and the aphelion ==are== variable with respect to Earth's tilt direction vis a vis the plane of the celestial equator. That Milankovitch cycle is called "precession of the equinoxes" (the other 2 are"tilt/obliquity" and "orbit"). Tilt/obliquity is the most powerful of the 3 for determining whether a glaciation period (colloquial "ice age") will be the situation or an inter-glaciation. It's extremely simple, you just compute the ==summer== solar radiation at latitude 65N and if it's high then ice sheets can't form so not an "ice age", if it's low then ice sheets can form so it's an "ice age". You can easily find plots with the 3 Milankovitch cycles shown and also the ==summer== solar radiation at latitude 65N plotted so you can check whether natural forces favour an "ice age" cooling or a "warm inter-glacial warming", and by how much. Of course that's all just for academic interest about Earth the last 3,500,000 years because it was too warm for these glaciation period "ice age" cycles before 3,500,000 years ago and humans over this century are going to be setting the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) back to where it was long before 3,500,000 years ago so the glaciation period "ice age" thing is just going to be a thing that academics study like hiw they study Earth's creation and the Deccan Traps and so on.
I’ve read that there is a positive correlation between diminished heliosphere/solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Could the cooling identified in the volcanically active 1600s be causally linked to Maunder Minimum decreased solar activity by increased volcanism? Perhaps a variation in magnetic field or particle forcing that is not significantly measured by TSI?
magnetic field and particles are vast orders of magnitude less than the tectonic plate forces that affect volcanic activity. Be more likely that diminished solar activity upset a bunch of crickets so they all landed on a volcano and made it erupt. Hardly any change at all but still more likely than magnetic field and particles because the impact of a bunch of crickets landing on something would be far greater than the impact of a change in magnetic field and particles.
If there's a relationship then it's going to be the weight of water/ice/snow on land and more likely ice/snow than water. I know that snow builds up heavy over time because I shovelled 320 tonnes of snow last winter just in my garden. Maunder Minimum decreased solar activity. Huge cooling of the northern hemisphere (was 0.3 degrees global so will have been ~0.6 degrees. maybe slightly more, for the northern hemisphere because that's where Earth's land has clumped up). So snow/ice stay more from last winter and build up just like the start of a glaciation period "Ice Age" (but the 70 years 1645-1715 AD is woefully too short to get a glaciation period "Ice Age" going). The tectonic plates are relentlessly pushing against each other at various angles (pushing underneath or sliding) so it follows there's always a huge variety of how close the friction is to what it needs to be to stop a sudden jolt as the force reaches the point that overwhelms the friction. So a bunch of extra ice/snow weight on a bit of land where the friction could have held out another 100, 200, 300 years manages to just tip the balance and cause the slip/jolt. So earthquake & volcano. So all kinds of earthquakes & volcanoes that would otherwise have been spread over the next few hundred years are instead triggered "early" by the little bit of extra ice/snow weight. If there's a correlation of earthquakes & volcanoes anomaly with Maunder Minimum solar activity climate anomaly then that will be it.
Grind up dude
Thanks. It is intriguing that what seems to be weak or marginal forces are possible explanations, via indirect effects or tipping point effects, of putatively very impressive events. CO2 absorption spectrum is certainly weak or marginal compared to the infrared absorption by water vapor but by indirect effects is purported to have 3 times the effect of direct CO2 induced warming. How applicable is this thought pattern to other physical-chemical phenomena beyond radiative forcing? So much is unknown.
Very articulate discussion!
Views on climate change[edit]
Haigh conforms to the mainstream scientific view, that anthropogenic carbon emissions lead to increased greenhouse warming. She stated in June 2016 that if current levels of carbon dioxide emissions continued unabated, they would lead to a 5 °C increase over pre-industrial climate by the end of the next century, and that achieving a zero temperature rise would require a complete cessation of carbon emissions.[15] She also stated that she was optimistic about the future, following the COP21 conference,[15] but later, when Donald Trump became president of the United States, she said: "If Trump does what he said he'd do, and others follow suit, my gut feeling is that I'm scared. Very scared."[16]
In 1971 my work showed the effect of the 11 year solar cycle on river flows in SW UK.
11:51 if she does not know I am probably wrong but isn't this because when it is warmer (sun activity) the oceans are releasing more CO2 (less CO2 in water = ocean colder)?
Fabrice Bankhauser CO2 rise follows warmer temperatures, not the reverse
J Andrews that’s exactly what I said lol
I googled AGW meaning....first thing that comes up: All Goes Well...lol...the irony
Haigh, Jo. I said where you goin' with that thermometer in your hand?
Not bad
This is some of the most important information to be had regarding climatology!!! This woman is brilliant and easy to understand. Take that AOC and ExtinctionRebellion!
Very useful and clear summary of solar and orbital effects. I've not heard anyone put it all together in 15 mins like that before, and the bit about solar cycle variability being of different magnitude in different bands was new to me. It would be useful to know how much energy is in each of the bands she talked about, or perhaps how much that energy is coupled with the planet (as opposed to just reflecting back off).
Funny how there are hordes of so-called skeptics in these comments celebrating this entirely sensible science, whilst being rude about other bits of entirely sensible science. It all fits together: nothing Ms Haigh said here is any kind of disagreement with climate science.
So The Science Is NOT Settled?
Of course not! Real science is never 'settled'. That's not how science works.
Linda Edwards I know Linda, the climate alarmists seem not to know it! 🤷🏻♂️
She knows. And I distrust the knowledge of the average follower of extinction-rebellion, including Greta. For additional info it is worthwhile to see the conversations with William Happer, Anthony Watts, Patrick Moore and Valentina Zharkova. Try to avoid the hockey stick of Al Gore.
Great explanations. Thank you. (Some graphics would be great too...)
Shes practiced this...its too bad she has to censor herself and not come out and say that the AGW alarmists are F.O.S.
Co2 us plant food
So, I can listen to this lady, obviously well educated, erudite, articulate and master of her subject, or I could listen to a Asperger's cabbage patch doll with a (nasty) attitude. Yeah... Im with Joanna on this one.
@@jamespyke6764 Perhaps the more important lesson would be for climate activists to not use kids as propaganda mouthpieces. But no, criticize the people taking umbrage with her misanthropic indignation.
@@NGC-gu6dz Perhaps the more important lesson would be for climate denial activists to cowardly attack children and use that as a piss poor excuse to cowardly hide from science and reality. But no, criticize the people taking umbrage with your misanthropic cowardly indignation.
ruclips.net/video/RWo65Uhekjs/видео.html
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
"Easier" than facing reality and taking any personal responsibility though.
How dare you !
@@viktorthegreat3594 Yes How dare YOU and others cowardly attack children to hide from science and reality and to protect your FF funded cult. How dare YOU.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
It is all dynamic... natural activity and human activity. All we can do is focus on what we can control and prepare for natural changes so we can adapt. Nicely presented.
This is fantastic. I am hearing that variations in the magnetosphere impact the solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth. I am hearing the idea that the magnetosphere weakens during times of low sunspot activity thereby allowing more radiation to reach the surface of the earth even though the sun, itself, is producing less radiation.
I am also hearing that the hole in the ozone layer occurred during times of extreme cold weather at the southern pole, and that there is a significant hole in the northern polar regions now that we are seeing extreme cold weather at the North Pole.
Finally, there is good research that shows the high temperatures in the northern hemisphere are closely related to the periodic variations of the ocean currents in the Atlantic. The currents vary on a 60 year cycle leading to warming trends that last 30 years and cooling trends that last 30 years. The current in the Atlantic could appear stable (linear), but most phenomena can become unstable. The biggest risk of man-made climate change could be that we do something to hasten the disruption of the Atlantic Ocean currents. When that happens--whether or not it is we who do it--all bets are off.
I am not saying that I believe these hypotheses. I am saying that they are, indeed, potential parameters that need further investigation and incorporated into future models if found to be significant.
Finally, we should all trust The Science before trusting The Consensus because The Consensus follows The Money and The Money follows The Power and The Power, currently, has lost The Plot.
"Milankovitch Cycles"
I read about studies which have found that GCR's have also been shown to "Excite salicic lavas", increasing volcanic activity during solar minimums. Acting a bit like a microwave as they pass through it - greater GCR, greater magmatic activity.
No effect from cosmic rays beyond 20m depth below land surface.
Its nice to see a balanced and sensible portrayal of science fact without any one sided opinion or hype. As someone who has an interest in man's impact on our planet since early 1980s it is sobering to remember that there is more to climate behaviour than just man's current affects upon it.
The year without a summer affected, perhaps, a few million people. Today, it will affect billions.
Affect, being starved.