The Sun People existsence confirmed ✅

The fact that no one is discussing a much bigger problem. Plastic pollution will be far more detrimental to human health than climate change.

That I know how to fix this and no one believes me. Maybe it's because in return for "stopping hurricanes," I still require 7 things in return. One of them being to change the stars. What I mean is, get the IAU to, OFFICIALLY, change the name to make a new constellation. My idea for changing the stars includes Orion and Pleiades (Subaru). I figure it's time to put something up there that's relevant to us, don't you think? Take Orion's belt and Betelgeuse becomes the head with a baseball hat. The 3 stars of Orion's belt make up the 3 fat belt loops on a baseball uniform. Below the belt are two legs bending at the knee. Saiph is the back foot and Rigel is the front foot. The feet aligning perfectly under the bent knees. The spear pointing at "Subaru" is the bat being swung and "Pleiades" is the baseball flying away after being hit. Bellatrix is the hand that let go of the bat. Put it all together and you get, "THE ALL-STAR." In my case, I see a left-handed batter and I imagine a "7" on the jersey. Which makes him, "Mickey." (As it should be ;-) But you can put any number you want, making, "THE ALL-STAR," any player you want. It'd be wrong of me to not, at least, try. This is me, trying. Pass it on, please and thank you. Don't worry, where I come from, crazy is a compliment. ;-P

Hi Neil can you do these climate change news updates regularly? Maybe every year or half year?

That if NDT calls them "booeys", I wonder how he pronounces buoyancy

- of course the science is settled however - just let Armageddon roll on.

Just how long will the jury be out on this crime scene?

If the models don't accurately predict the observations, then the models are factually incorrect. Otherwise, the model results would correlate with these measurements.

@@rickmoore6527 or there is something wrong in the methodology of your evidence collection.

In the meantime let me ridicule your stance

Exactly! Life on this planet has come close to extinction several times already. But still after hundreds millions of years life erupted all around on an extraordinary scale. We can raise the temperature until humanity becomes extinct. As a result, we will accelerate the return to balance in nature. Therefore, the faster and more effectively we produce CO2, the worse it is for us and nature here and now, but the better for the planet in the long run.

As animals we benefit from global warming. It makes more of the earth inhabitable and produces more food.

@@bartolovelo8976is it true that we currently (last 100 years) has had the lowest co2 in planetary history? Plants thrive at 1000 ppm and die under 100 ish?

Seemingly a small amount compared to the sun, but how much does energy loss from heat from combustion or battery make a difference. As we put more people in the planet and use more ac/heat, no matter the source isn’t 80% of energy transfer lost as heat?

Actually, I'd say the irony is that, despite being arguably the most greedy, selfish species on Earth, even when the goal is to save ourselves, we're still failing to achieve it...

IT IS THE WATER IN THE MESOSPHERE INDEFINITELY THAT WILL FRY US TOTALLY 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

No mention here, but yes that's definitely a biggie. It was so powerful it ejected into space. (technically)

I am fortunate enough to live in the most isolated (state) capital city in the world and have a near pristine ocean view to the West. After the eruption in 2022 i started to notice around 15-30 minutes after sunset the Western sky had a greenish tinge, not the usual blue, gold or orange/red. This occurred throughout the following year into September/October and has now virtually disappeared. I can only assume it was an effect of the moisture and or volcanic dust in our atmosphere from the eruption.

It's estimated to be in hundreths of a degree, so it maybe is not as significant as you think

@@benmcconaghy3313 Estimated but not necessarily calculated. Maybe you can tell us when was the last time the climate was not changing?

That episode was hilarious! But it was (and yes, I’m nit picking) his back door - where his pool table was in his backyard!!

The price is right

Well Drew totally mixed up causes & effects. The aerosol was destroying the ozone, not causing global warming. Global warming is from the rapid release of all the Earth stored carbon. There is no carbon in aerosol

Writer's have been predicting things forever, 'Doc Savage' was written in the late 30's and had a Jet Plane

remember the ozone layer scam? the problem is always over some place that cant be observed by people. the great plastic patch in the middle of pacific, or polar bears at the poles, AHH ICE IS MELTING IN ANT ACTICA!! WE ONLY HAVE 100 years, will people have the change of clothes by then required to survive teh completely unnoicible practically undetecable without advanced scientific equipment and calculaters of the 1 degree change when averaged world wide. we must spend trillions of dollars to avert the mild discomfort someone may experiance if we havent ended teh world through war by then. OH THE HUMANITY~

In climate modeling i never hear about weather the temperatures represent winds from the Desert or Winds from Alaska affecting the same territory.

Yep the average daily temp, right across the US was almost 1 degree higher.

@@jonovens7974 Its a fake average because wind direction determines temperature and these things are too Variable to come to any conclusions.

@@woodchipgardens9084 "Its a fake average because" yada yada yada. Give us a break. If a compendium of the numerous and varying climate change contrarian opinions, claims and excuses was compiled, it would be larger than a single book volume of all three episodes of Lord Of The Rings. Mean while the actual scientific research, explanations, evidence and reality regarding AGW have remained consistent for over 100+years. When are climate change contrarians ever going to stop making stuff up and pretending they know more than they actually do. If they keep this up there will be another episode to add to the compendium of nonsense claims.

The effect of aerosols in dimming insolation has been known for a long time; it was noted in university earth science courses in the late 1980s. Eliminating acid rain cleared the atmosphere and increased warming. Interestingly spring plowing for crops was regarded as helping cool the planet because it put particulate matter into the atmosphere, but since then it's been learned that it actually releases massive amounts of CO2, so the net effect is a big contribution to warming. More recently in an online seminar I learned that the trick for using particulate matter to cool the planet is picking the right size particles. That size happens to match the smaller of the sort of volcanic dust sent up by the Mount Saint Helens eruption that circled the globe several times before all falling out -- go just a bit smaller and it will take several years to all fall out. So aerosols are too tiny but volcanic ash dust is about right.

I think "Don't look up" is a perfect description of what's going on with man-made climate change, only that it's moving a lot slower than that meteorite. But same behavior and probably same outcome...?

Dont look up (if I remember correctly) was a terrible movie lmao

​@@simonjaz1279 I almost gave up on Don't Look Up in the first 20 minutes, but so many people were talking about it that I stuck with it. Now I really love it. The moment where the meatier hits earth gives me a sort of peace because the main characters are just sitting around having a completely mundane conversation after dinner, knowing they're all about to die. They just carry on talking about store-bought apple pie vs home-made apple pie, I think it is, until the house collapses on them.

@@MrStevemur one good scene still doesn't make a movie good. I thought it was terrible lmao big thumbs down

The video that Neil deGrasse Tyson & Gavin Schmidt ignore: Climate Shipwreck- CDN

Jan ‘22 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai did indeed affect climate. Cubic kilometres of water thrown into the stratosphere or mesosphere. We had pumice rafts 10s of kilometres long, green sunsets for a year and of course the Tsunami was devastating for the western Pacific.

That volcano breaks assumptions by the IPCC. The introduction of water vapour into the Mesosphere is a critical factor and is ignored by climate models. It doesn't fit the narrative that man is the ONLY player, and not Volcanoes, the Sun and release of subsea Methyl Hydrates by Earthquakes/ Tsunamis. QED.

Increased aerosols in the atmosphere cool the air by blocking sunlight, whether it is pollution or volcanoes.

@@matthewgraham2518 Yes aerosols cool the air by blocking the sun, the issue is that volcanos also eject tons of waters directly into the stratosphere where it does a lot of heating in a layer that is supposed to carry the heat of the lower atmosphere into the upper atmosphere where it cools down in large convective cells, heating this layer directly negates some of the cooling effect of the lower atmosphere, increasing the average temperature close to the ground.

Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas. That was likely underestimated in the modeling.

I agree and love this statement!

I have a poster on the wall in my kitchen which is a modern take on Murphy's Law, one of the statements in it is, "If you plan for A, B, C and D, E will likely happen."

My advisor loved quoting someone else and saying "all models are wrong, but they can be useful." Don't except a computational model with simplified physics equations to predict something down to the T, but if a model is getting 65% of its predictions right, you should still reference it and hope they improve it.

So when the heat rise. You got more greenhouse gases yes. So the Milankovitch cycles tells us that it should be warm know. That the greenhousegasese should rise. And that we are son heading for an ice age. Why don you talk about the eccentricity of the earth? Is it any reason for that?

Because it is, in this context, about as relevant as the price of fish in Hull.@@havardmika

Yes, a micrometer is 1000th of a millimeter, but PM10s are 10 micrometers, so it is the particles that are around 1000th of a cm.

Most of the time

I came here to say this too.

@@ahaveland Except they were talking about PM2.5 particles, so, 1/4 of a 1,000th of a cm. Not very accurate either way he meant it.

@@blakewalker84120 It's easy to be petty and hypercritical from your comfy chair when you aren't the one in a hot spot on a livestream.

it looks scary and that is the point, if they would use data for thausends years, that we have, that would not look as scary at all.

​@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 that would make it scarier. Temperatures hit this high before yes. But the change was never this abrupt. These changes take hundreds of thousands of years to occur naturally, compared to that the changes we have caused are basically instant which would make for quite a discrepancy in the graph.

@@idontknowhowtoplaylol280 Always the same argument, cruelly lacking in perspective. The changes observed over the last two centuries should not have appeared and manifested themselves in this way over several millennia. We are +1.49 degrees compared with the pre-industrial era, and for the record, the difference between 1850 and the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago is 2.5 degrees. At that time, Paris was under 4 metres of ice. You have no idea how far ahead of the initial cycle we are (but find out for yourselves).

A few things that stick out: The early 1940s bulge, I would posit was due to the mechanization and increased manufacturing involved in WWII. The cone at the top seems to start around 1980 I'd love to see historical data going back a few thousand years presented this way, but I suspect the accuracy that data would be suspect. As they said, there's science to do.

@@Broockle You have zero idea about how quickly or slowly climate has changed in the past. We use proxies to estimate, the margin of error is greater than the change in temperature.

Well, there is only one problem.....when it's too late that even studies can't save you😅Also improvements are not guaranteed, it's not like a progress bar in a loading screen, you can discover a thing, or you can't, the problem with this is that it's too randomic and casual😅

So we should stop burning fossil fuels straight away.

I'd argue we'd all do better to not Act soon, but Change soon. The problems would be magnitudes easier to fix if everyone took it just a little easier on the planet, myself included.

If you're asking the world to dramatically reduce its standard of living dramatically you need to have very hard science to back up that those dramatic changes are going to have a meaningful impact on the problem.

You are already deep into the realm of unintended consequences.

Looks like Neil threw back more than a few shots

Paul, show some respect. Your barbed comments to Mr. Schmidt did not go unnoticed.

We, Wee, Wee, all the way home

Fun vid ought to have Dire Straits in the background ;-). Politically obtuse IMO. Sabine Hossenfelder punditry on this news item much better for public perception and expectation.

Paul was extremely rude.

Scientists sound alarms, Politicians fart in their sleep.

Problem is "We" change our minds every 10 years or so ... Coming Ice age... Acid Rain ... Global Warming ... Climate change ...

@@merodobson we need to stop feeding the politicians, they are nowhere as useful as cows but fart just as much.

@@merodobson Not like oil companies have admitted this issue within the last 20 years and not like we were all warned of this issue 40 years ago. 🤷‍♂

And thank god for that.

atmosphere is already saturated with methane when it comes to absorption of infrared light

Look into methane sink in greenland

​@@ChaosQueen040bserver?

You are not telling climate researchers something they don't know here. Of course that is factored in, and to imagine nobody else is thinking about something you happen to have heard about is ridiculous.

You're a novice. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Scientists test theories. Doing that with global effects is spectacularly expensive and spectacularly hard.

@@flagmichael *RE "Scientists test theories. Doing that with global effects is spectacularly expensive and spectacularly hard."* So is creating the entire universe out of nothing, thankfully we now have God and Scientists to tell us how they did it.

*RE: " I think it is extremely honest by Gavin Schmidt to admit this. Back to the drawing board."* If at first you don't succeed, fail fail again as long as someone else is footing the bills.

Surely some had negative feedback loops in other words a stabilising effect. Regards from a Tom :)

@tomdavies6443 yes in that case they eventually break and restabilize

Please sing your song freely anywhere tonight.@@TangentFuture41

I don't think this is necessarily true, at least from a systems/process control perspective. If your inputs are truly cyclical (e.g. sinusoidal) then your response CAN overshoot and cause de-stabilization (whether increasing or decreasing uncontrollably), but it depends on the dynamics of the system you're analyzing. The "inputs" here are highly non-linear (take the sunspot cycle for example), so it's not an easy task to build a model and use it predict such global phenomena.

I just love that people admit the models dont represent reality, then make an opinion based off models

If you join their patron you can probably get a question or 2 if it's a great one.

They are extremely dishonest about this subject... unfortunately

I love this idea

They hate questions.

Ask whats in the( strataspheric aerosol injections) that we breath!!

If the Tonga eruption does push the global mean temp up globally temporarily; still insignificant in regard to long-term climate trend, but not for the stratosphere, as it has created a wide range of potential long-lasting repercussions for its global composition and dynamics. A much bigger concern is how its chemistry affects ozone variations causing an impact on sea ice and sea surface temperature.

Yes. Discussion in Australia about this causing higher heat and humidity. 😮

@@rps1689 By pushing the global temperature up temporarily it may be affecting their estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2.

@@andrewfong4216 Time will tell. It takes fifty years for a climate trend to stand out from weather noise and ocean oscillations, and thirty years to stand out from weather noise alone. It will take an eruption more powerful than Tonga’s to affect a climate trend, a volcanic eruption bigger than any in human history. Basically an event like Tonga in the long run will work out to zero as a climate forcing over the long-term.

@@lrvogt1257 Not after the water vapor reaches the Stratosphere where it is normally very dry and there is little mixing between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Scientific papers predict the water vapor in the stratosphere could remain elevated for up to 10 years!

Just a hunch, but he may be on a Pharma cocktail. Although he does work extremely hard and has time to write a book a year!

@@jannichi6431 I could imagine his schedule is always booked as he's super popular and he's trying to contribute as much as he can to society. Either way he should pencil in a few breathers 🤟

Neil, you have my permission as well!

Neil, your impact is inmense. Rest a bit

lol

Possibly less CO2 uptake as well when photosynthesis rates decline

Most plants aren't limited by sunlight but by nutrients, temperature, daylength and water. In fact planets that live in full sun have pigments to protect them from the extra light.

On top of this, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I do believe individuals will generally work in their own self-interests. The climate research profession is rewarded for looking for negatives rather than positives.

thousandth*

9:39 Yeah, for a moment I thought I was either hearing or thinking wrongly.

One millionth of a meter. Neil got it 10 times too much

1 micron is 1/1000 of a millimeter and also 1/10,000 of a centimeter.

Americans...

the annual atmospheric CH4 flux is roughly 420 teragrams or 420 000 000 metric tonnes so an increase of that magnitude, while being a huge single emission, still wouldn't make that big of a difference in global temperatures. According to United Nations Env. programme (UNEP) the emissions from Nord2 were at most 230 kilotonnes which is 0.23 teragrams

Don't think the effect of that event would be felt in the world's climate only months later.

Every little bit hurts!

Recently, cows have been blamed for CH4 emissions. Science has found that these cow farts actually breakdown in the atmosphere to CO2. So cattle operations which maintain constant long term herd numbers have been shown to be carbon neutral. CH4 has leaked from natural sources for thousands of years. The stability of CH4 over the long haul needs to be evaluated.

Nopppppe

It's like we all know it means but it's fun to imagine it's only happening in the laboratory

Ocean warming has a lag of 800 years as they are HUGE and take a very long time to hear or cool. As such oceans warming has a cause that happened hundreds of years ago.

i mean if a nearly undetectable trace amount of co2 can determine the climate, imagine what simply painting your roof black will do. it is going to detrail entire ecosystems and melt the polar ice caps. what i am worrying about is after the end of the world has happened. most people wont have the scientific equipment to detect that the average temperature has increased by 1 degree, how are they going to know that the world has ended? where i live were to far away from the icce caps to notice any change what so ever. the other day my back porch rose 5 degrees between 8am and 10am, should i be terrified? thats 5x greater than 1 degree, not in 50 years in 2 hours! global warming is reaking havok! AHH! WE NEED TO BE WORRIED

@@nationalsniper5413 We're talking about SST, Sea Surface Temperatures. It doesn't take 800 years to warm the top 2m of the ocean. Swing and a miss.

@@nationalsniper5413a lag can’t happen that quickly and in such a high magnitude. The energy has to come from somewhere and that kind of jump don’t happen even when you nuke the ocean.

The chart is not someone who spends most of their life building PowerPoint Decks, but the depiction of the global warming trend was clever until it reached the present and tilted up to show the vertical timeline - that was very cool.

And isn't that strange!

We are in an interglacial period. Which is a warm period seperating glaciation events within an ice age. But those kind of events last for several thousands years and change earth climate extremely slowly. They are an entirely different topic than the warming that occur over a few decades or even up to a couple of centuries.

@@zagorim7469 Yes but normally they change earth climate extremely slowly, but what happens to that kind of event if there is an acceleration factor such as humans, would changes occur at a much greater coefficient? I understand that it's not something like oh the interglacial period is to blame. I want to know more about the interglacial period and is there some metrics that can be used to verify if we are accelerating the interglacial period? Essentially making it shorter and is there a risk that we create an other ice age prematurely?

@@farminginthehighlands1205 Most of the interglacials over the past million years have lasted only ~ 10-20 thousand years, though an exceptionally long one 400000 years ago was about 1.5-2x as long. Current changes in the orbital cycles of Earth suggest we should be in a cooling trend for about 20000 more years, followed by a warming up to 50000 years in the future, and a large decline after that. Without humans, we would likely be slumping back into glacial conditions, but not fully so until past 50000 years from now. Humanity is warming the planet beyond what it would be in most of the past interglacials, with us surpassing event the warmest spikes over the past 2-3 million years within the next decades. As the Earth warms, ice melts and actually makes the Earth less sensitive to orbital cycles - as such, it is expected we are actually acting like a 'geological agent' of sorts, pushing the planet OUT of the current glacial cycle altogether and back into the warmer states it was in 10s of millions of years ago, when the planet was totally or mostly ice free and orbital cycles had only modest impacts on climate (changes in sunlight/precip at the poles and subtropics, affecting the monsoons). So it isn't really an acceleration at all, but breaking of the cycles which wouldn't resume until our CO2 is drawn down by weathering/erosion over the next 100000-200000 years. As far as global warming pushing us into an ice age, that is a misrepresentation of past events and current concerns over the Atlantic branch of the thermohaline circulation, which is slowing due to freshwater injection from melting ice and precipitation but which would have more regional/seasonal effects if it shut down, not plunge us into a new glacial period.

Or the temperature should naturally be higher than what we expect, and our calculations were wrong because we did not realise how much of an effect the aerosols had on the overall temperature. More work to be done before we start making claims like that.

Let me ask you a question: how big is an aerosol particle compared to a Co2 molecule? Straight answer please..

@egoncorneliscallery9535 A sulfate aerosol particle is around 1000nm to 2000nm. A CO2 molecule is around 0.33nm.

Ocean CO2 releases more into the atmosphere when ocean temperature rises.

Cable news is just as bad for your health as cigarettes

No Sir, a micron is a thousandth of a mm

They dont want smart presidents, presidents exsist so there is someone to blame for "their" decisions

*too much

WHY? Why, I ask, would you wish such a misery upon such a good man?

jancovici is excellent !

Well you can have Amazon deliver for you or you can get in your car and make 5 stops to buy things when Amazon makes one trip. Either way product has to get from point A to point B.

@@Cancelthis1541This is the seeming paradox with lifestyle choices. "Oh, so I'll not order it, and do it myself" does *not* automatically make your choice ecologically friendly. Because economy of scale is a thing, it might very well be more ecological to always use centralized delivery services rather than individual transportation. So ordering at Amazon might actually be more ecologically friendly than getting something yourself. (Buuuut it would also be even more ecologically friendly not to purchase that something if it's i.e. an electronic device meant to replace your broken other device, and instead have manufacturers ensure that the other device would have lasted another few years.)

You cannot avoid what you have no power over.

In climate modeling i never hear about weather the temperatures represent winds from the Desert or Winds from Alaska affecting the same territory.

​@@woodchipgardens9084 They measured the temperature of the ocean at different depths and have been comparing the upward trend, using historical data. They are not, for example, calculating the wind from the Sahara Desert with the wind in Alaska and determining whether those winds affect Europe.

@@anthonycongiano8890 temperatures swing up and down depending which direction the wind blows, Ocean currents change also, seems highly manipulated by chance.

Let's educate young people and empower the movement that youth are creating to push back on the earth- hostile industries

What would you say if I'd be you a radical 👍 love it now I can't get the song out of my head

And by the way hello from Kentucky

What would you say if I'd be calling you a radical voice text can drive you bonkers sometimes 🤪

Unknowns are included in the error bars. Betting on unknown positives is a very risky play.

As is betting on unknown negatives. @@mattleathen445

Unknown positives and negatives are hard to track.

From what I remember from middle school they basically said 2 billion people will die very quickly. And I've always believed it. Just waiting for it to fully kick into high gear.

Those unknowns are what make the model results probabilities instead of certainties, the model makers may talk about probabilities in their professional papers but it never makes it to the headline or the policy debate.

Relative to the age of the earth, we’ve been collecting data for a submicroscopic amount of time. It makes it meaningless. Also, the sun is expanding so of course it’s going to heat up.

I am terrified of the data we are no longer collecting and using model proxy data in its replacement within the global mean calculations

One thousand years ago, generations of Norsemen were harvesting wheat and barley - IN GREENLAND. This is the Medieval warming period - much warmer than today, and with no noticeable rise in CO2. You can't farm grain crops in Greenland today, it's too cold.

@@Krusty-kl5ej well, the good news is that they are going to be able to do it again in a few years. The bad news is that when the ice cover melts to allow this, the oceans will rise another 7 meters, flooding the homes and farms of about two billion people, give or take. That's why we might want to do something now.

@@Krusty-kl5ej I've seen quite a few graphs showing that CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way round. So much of the discussion of climate change involves cherry picking information to suit. Gavin Schmidt ( what a name for an Englishman!!) introduced a whole load of variables that I've never heard of before, and neither had Neil Grasse, it seems.

They do consider the effect of volcanos, it’s just not something they can predict in advance. So they can look at the effect after it happens, and can extrapolate what will happen over the long term in the future. It might only be helpful for checking if the models change when they include it as a factor, vs don’t include it. Climate change happens over a longer timescale, so effects from volcanos are less important than if they’re looking at weather predictions for the month following the eruption for example. As far as I’m aware, there’s nothing to suggest volcano eruptions are happening more or less than what otherwise would be naturally, and most of the effect is short term (a few months to years). So for example, if they’re releasing a yearly prediction for 2024 and a big volcano erupted in 2023, then they could include that in the prediction. But if a volcano erupts in 2024 then the effect won’t be in the original prediction because they can’t know about it in advance.

Always wondered how volcanos under the ocean affect the water temperature where these buoys are taking readings

sure but let's put it into context. Greenland was a temperate rainforest 11 to 19 C warmer on average than today, only 2 million years ago.

@@QuitworkBehappy 2 million....

perfectly normal for the planet@@danguee1

@@QuitworkBehappyand the world’s coastlines looked drastically different. The fact that worse ultra slow motion floods have happened in the past doesn’t mean that it won’t cost society dearly

well, that's alright then, we can all relax@@QuitworkBehappy

Ya mean Jack Horcheimer (sp?) The Star Hustler?

@@markhoffart622 I'm not old enough to remember when it was Star Hustler, but yes.

It just made think of that movie that supposed to project climate future and media / politics reaction to it in "Don't look up"

The Star gazer devotee was for the episode "@@reuireuiop0 I forget. Maybe Lovely flower.

@@markhoffart622 Yes, Jack Horkheimer: Star Hustler.

There is no win, there is endure and survive to the best of our ability. ADAPT OR DIE.

We have won... It's still the best planet to be cruising the universe on.

No, the warming impact of CO2 is basic physics. We may have counterbalanced it somewhat with parallel particulate pollution, but man’s role is undeniable.

Changes we are seeing in the atmosphere caused by Tonga are highly likely short term, as that eruption might raise the risk that at least one year in the next five will temporarily exceed the 1.5C warming threshold. Most of the water vapour that didn’t make it into the stratosphere from the Tonga eruption a year ago has already rained out. That being said, if the Tonga eruption does push the global mean temp up globally temporarily; still insignificant in regard to long-term climate trend, but not for the stratosphere, as it has created a wide range of potential long-lasting repercussions for its global composition and dynamics. A much bigger concern is how its chemistry affects ozone variations causing an impact on sea ice and sea surface temperature.

There is a reason why some climate deniers start their trend line in 1998; because it was the strongest El Nino of the 20th century, but of course they also didn't notice or ignore the fact the the next El Nino was much stronger. La Ninas and El Ninos cancel each other out, except for the long-term trend, which is warming. El Ninos are growing stronger, La Ninas weaker. The trend is global warming.

@@rps1689 There is zero evidence linking co2 levels with warming trends. Co2 is at historically low levels today. So there we have it the science is settled.

Need celebrate and idolize these ppl over celebrities

Absolutely we remain in dire circumstances in our worship of rock stars and actors like Ronald Reagun, Arnold Swartznegger, and Trump. Get the media to start honoring truth seekers called scientists.

Gavin Shmidt and Michael Mann (hockey stick guy) are two of the world's top climatologists, they run a brilliant web site called 'realclimate'. Anyone who is anyone in the climate science community hangs out there.

Which is ironic considering how Neil is barely able to keep his eyes open in this video

Did you miss the part where they said it was a higher solar maximum, which they missed the model. Also look into the Tonga volcano that exploded a few years ago.

Its may more complicated than that.

Not that complicated, just to many humans consuming to much stuff…🔥🪦🌎🪦🔥

All of that is taken into account. Those magnetic forces, which are far less than changes in solar irradiation and the Milankovitch cycles (both of which are in cooling phases) and the long-term carbon cycle as reflected in changes in the greenhouse composition of the atmosphere. In addition, those magnetic forces are relatively constant, so while they might impact the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere, it would only be in terms of short-term fluctuations working out to zero over the long-term. Solar forcing is important, but on time scales relevant to human history solar irradiance is practically constant. Even near solar minimum, when galactic comic rays have easier access to Earth, and during the solar maximum, their spectrum remains relatively constant in energy and composition, varying only slowly with time. Just as the solar cycle follows a roughly elven year cycle, so does galactic cosmic rays with its maximum. No mechanism has been discovered for variations in the solar wind or magnetic field to affect Earth's climate significantly. It's a red herring when folk claim these forcing do; popular on "climate skeptic" pseudoscience blogs, but we know once a talking point gains inertia in the "skeptic" echo chamber, it never dies. The steady decline in energy output, the 11 year cycle in sunspots, and the variations in the solar wind shows no correlation with climate on annual, decadal, nor century scales.

Co2 didn't create a cooling barrier, particulate matter did (air pollutants). They're different. Hope that helps.

China wil just go ahead and do geoengineering whenever they like, when it gets too hot for comfort - and for reliable crop harvests. They've already done their Geo engineering bit by having showers rain out before hitting the Beijing Olympics. In Chinese eyes, the only civilization worth thinking about is theirs, the rest are irrelevant barbarians, not necessary to listen to. The West to them are decadents, who've been at it only for some centuries, while Chinese culture goes back millennia. Arguments we the West think are relevant, don't count when saving Chinese lives and culture. They'll tell us "you've brought most carbon in the atmosphere, now _you_ go and pay the hefty price ($80-120 a ton co2 at leastest, the going price today) for removal of the greenhouse causing emissions". If rep party succeeds in making US irrelevant as a world power (what's that muttering about the Mexican border when you got two be wars going on that could both end the west's tenure as the world dominating power .. they think America can go it alone ? Good luck with that

It's not a problem with science, but with politics. Turning science into politics with no time to reconsider things always will fail.

Just look at the movie Geostorm, which would most likely be more real than you could believe.

@@hansolo2797 I think they both play equal parts in the propaganda.

Hi, Well said. Thusly, I hope to get all my research into your hands. All I can say is - or, so it seems - my OCD found us a - very workable - path...? I promise - as a former Marine - this is incredibly good stuff... ... While, not being my creation. ... I only found parts and pieces, we can refit, into a 21st century context. I hope to hear back. This is incredibly important. I struggle, to get the right folks, to listen... ... To hear me out, and take and apply it. ... Through,a neutral / objective logistics / liaison matrix NGO. Structured, something like ARC, with Chapters, everywhere. It needs champions. Semper Fidelis...

If you're over seventy, you should remember the coming ice age we had to prepare for, how are those preparations coming along?

heresy!

@@BenotzJoe Any facts to support your BS?

@@bungeebones I like your post. I was being sarcastic. Sorry.

Me too! Also explanations about temp. measurements. The city can be warmer by 10C than a nearby forest. If weather station 60 years ago was still in the forest, but now the city surrounded it - how do they adjust? In that case temperature change has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels, but more tarmac and concrete around the station.

​@@hotbit7327 I don't remember where I saw it originally, but there was a clip out there describing the process as first breaking Earth's surface into a large number of grids (imagine longitude and latitude lines, but finer resolution / smaller scale). Temperatures are measured within those grids and we take the average to get an idea of the temperature. This is done worldwide, constantly. So your inner-city high temperatures would likely get averaged out by the lower forest temperatures, to yield some value in between them. Not sure how altitude comes into play, but we've also got weather balloons and other depth/height-sensitive equipment for things like that

The heat Island effect is a well known problem & controlled for, like solar cycles .. kinda basic stuff, but deniers think they are smart enough to think of this & professional climate scientists are not!

I would also like to know what assumptions - and how many assumptions - are used in climate modeling.

its important to remind people before and after this climate costastrophe has occured. since 1 degree is less the temperature change between lunch and noon, most people will not have the scientific equipment and mesurements to know that the world has ended due to climate change. good thing we have 100 years to prepare for this disaster, were goign to need trillions of dollars to avert this. RING THE ALARMS THE END IS NEAR!

?

​@@aaronjennings838512:58

Shocking.

*RE: "When I heard..."we're all Fucked"...I spit coffee all over my keyboard...smiles."* He was talking about getting more taxpayer funded grants for telling scary stories no one but fools and prepubescent little girls from Sweden would believe at this point.

I think that was mainly due to him completely misusing the term 'aerosols' and potentially confusing the audience.

And then he goes "see, I know words" 😅

😢

How about we educate people on icehouse earth cycles and greenhouse? The earth has been in a greenhouse stage with far warmer temps and far high co2 levels for over 70% of it's existence. During which life THRIVES during a greenhouse earth. We need clean air, water, etc but it wouldn't matter if human beings ceased to exist today. The earth would continue to warm and go back to a greehouse stage. We are still recovering from a catastrophe that caused the ice age. We're technically still in that ice age because of the glacial mass that's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. This is known and accepted science. Why are the alarmists completely ignoring it and spreading fear???? It's going to happen regardless of human emitted co2.

@@p.lyskawa2651 Why do you consider nearly all climate scientists alarmists? You are also ignoring the main problem with current warming which is the RATE of warming.

@YourArmsGone Why do I consider most of them alarmists? Because most are and it's irresponsible. There's a handful I've heard speak out but they're instantly black balled by the alarmists that are profiting from it. That said, most of the outright crazy alarm bells are being sounded by common citizens, media and politicians. I understand the current rate is faster than what they believe is normal. So the alarm is that we're going to return to normal too soon? Again.......if all of humanity persished tomorrow, we'd still return to a greenhouse earth. Much higher avg temps and far higher co2 levels. And don't forget the sun is entering its solar maximum cycle. We're a planet that revolves around a star in a universe. Things are ever changing. The human race is in ZERO danger of perishing if the avg temp increases. Quite the opposite actually. Animals that live at the poles will either adapt or perish. Antarctica was once tropical for goodness sake. I'm sure there was thousands of species that died or adapted. As technology rapidly advances we absolutely will transition away from fossil fuels. There's no dire emergency to put ridiculous and unattainable deadlines from our government. Especially at the expense of our adversaries growing more powerful. There are other countries that would love to see the USA fall. And if you think it's not possible, you're incredibly naive and uninformed.

@@p.lyskawa2651 Problem is current global warming and how it affects the current earth configuration, not the warming coming in the next hundreds of thousands of years. warming is much more dangerous to human societies that are sedentary for example, think of all the billion people living inside or close to the equatorial region, high temperatures and air saturated with humidity, impossible to survive even for a healthy human , that's what will happen within this century, not in thousands of years, people currently alive will live something we cannot face that easily.

No it's not like that. The impact of reducing air pollution has caused a short-term, small uptick in heat input, but it's only offseting other measures. Longterm it is still far better to reduce air pollution. GHG emissions are a slightly different topic, and it's always better to reduce GHG emissions. It's not a Kobayashi Maru, there is a win condition for climate survival - and it's to reduce our GHG emissions.

@@Yvaelle Not really. There was a win condition had we reduced GHG emissions starting in 1990 and come to 0 emissions by 2010. Instead, Ronnie and Margaret made sure we tripled emissions by 2023 instead. NOW it is Kobyashi Maru, as evidenced by our top billionaires trying to escape the planet and immigrate to the nearest friendly colony of psychotic brethren!

All depends on whether the feedback loop is past the point of returning. Hope for the best, fear for the worst

Yup

Wait...what?

@@singingway Particle pollution - also called particulate matter (PM) - is made up of particles (tiny pieces) of solids or liquids that are in the air. These particles may include: Dust Dirt Soot Smoke Drops of liquid Some particles are big enough (or appear dark enough) to see - for example, you can often see smoke in the air. Others are so small that you can’t see them in the air.

Could you explain what you mean here? I don't see how particulate matter and aerosols are any different in this context. Pressurized gas cans vaporize their contents as they flow out of the nozzle, thus creating microcontaminants (say, Febreze or something similar). Smoke particulates would effectively be the same thing, less any difference in their overall size, no?

@@Strategies2010 - Pariticluate matter (smoke, dust, ash, etc.) blocks the sun and is a cool forcing. Aerosol can propellants like butane and isobutane, are greenhouse gases and are a warm forcing.

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is geoengineering the weather.

It just shows the level and reliability of their "predictions" and "conclusions".

@@ika5666 No, it's just easy to misremember something that is commonplace, so much so, that it becomes redundant. You ever hear of a 'redundancy' before?

@@CynicalBastard I odn't agree. They just don't care and, therefore, their opinions are barely competent and worthy of respect.

@@ika5666 You just described yourself.

@@CynicalBastard You just have shown that you like lies, both your own and those of fake climate change maniacs.

Not to mention a golden opportunity for bad actors, if we could control it good enough (and if we can't, too).

Only one Ice age, which is coming to an end. Why ???? We are burning fossil fuels and returning those precious elements, to the atmosphere. The result is the world is greening again

Regulatory fixes cannot apply to the largest producers of CO2, China and India. Hence the comment about "we" in the video.

The earth has a huge loss of CO2, and other elements buried in the fossil fuel layer, since burning fossil fuels, some of those elements are returning, and greening the earth again. @@BenotzJoe