วีดีโอ

Indeed!

Thank you kindly. I enjoy creating content and this is a good way to contribute to climate action as I get old. Thank you.

Well, our species has survived many challenges and managed to successfully deal with them. We are an ambitious species and we tend to do some bad experiments but then focus on solutions. So no need to despair I think. We will bring ourselves to sustainability. Thank you.

Well, Mother Nature doesn’t seem to care. So it’s about our risks. All the best.

@@RaghuMurtugudde We are ran by junkies, “profit junkies” (paraphrasing) "Wealth is addictive, the rich will eventually destroy society" -Socrates and friends

@@RaghuMurtugudde have you considered a different hypothesis? [Exothermic (Cyclic) Core Theory of Climate Change] - by Ethical Skeptic. i think you should be open-minded.

Thanks for the advice. All the best.

Yes many factors but literately we need to focus on solutions and decarbonising. Thank you and best.

Glad that they help. Feel free to share.

Thank you. Glad that they help

Haha. They can be quite violent but they respond quickly to disturbances because they don’t have technology to make them feel invincible like we do.

Victor Lebow was a no-name retail salesman but wrote an ominous article on how to grow economies forever. You can find him on google. Thanks for your kinds words. Please feel free to share if appropriate.

Thank you. There are several reconstructions going back in time Will check it out.

Some good points but so contradictions. There is enough CO2 in the oceans for photosynthesis so it’s not going to be limiting in the alkalinity approach to enhance CO2 uptake. Yes, lime disappears at the calcite compensation depth so you have to do it where the bottom is above that and so on. All these need life cycle analysis just to ensure actual additional CO2 sequestration and the scale of CO drawdown. Whale numbers are down and krill numbers are down. So a decreased grazing pressure causes long periods of starvation. Thanks.

@@RaghuMurtugudde and why do you want co2 to be bound in the water so that it comes out of the cycle, why should we change the natural, it is not our fossil that is the cause of co2 rising, the 3.2% that comes from us has no impact, see what atmospheric scientist Murray Salby has found out, if you bothered to look at ice cores, you would see that co2 lags at least 650 years after the temperatures both up and down, it is not co2 that controls but is controlled by the heat, and that does not change the climate, the sun does with its heat and they warm ocean currents, look at ice cores from Greenland with the Younger Dryas 12,850 years ago, it was triggered by especially 2 large astorids that came down in the north of the USA and moved the globe's pivot point 2.5 - 3,000 km from around the Hudson Bay up to where it is now, the same thing happened with the south pole, but there we see no effect in the vostok glacier, it was too far away from where there was a change on the edge of antarctica under southwest australia, the sudden change explain the big climate changes in north america, south south america, in west antarctica which suddenly got snow, siberia and in australia but no change in south africa or alaska/east siberia at the bering strait because they were on the side of that shift, the sudden climate change caused the ice masses on North America to melt quickly during the 2000 years the Younger Dryas lasted, if it was today you are several 100 km north of the Canadian border and 2 seconds later in Texas, the rapid climate change can no larger mammals and plants survive, the large meltwater mass mainly ran out into the Gulf of Mexico, can be seen on a cross-section of southern USA where there is a depression from Florida to Texas, a part ran down through the hudson valley which was covered by a 3 km thick glacier that was at least 250 km wide, long island is a moraine from it and the strait in the south is made of the rapidly large amounts of meltwater because the moraines continue inland south of the island, the meltwater that ran in the gulf pushed the global ocean current that is warm when it enters the caribbean from down around south africa, it usually goes west and north of cuba and out into the atlantic as the gulf current, it was from the meltwater that is fresh and therefore lighter than salt water (think of the amacon river that makes the Atlantic fresh several kilometers out into the Atlantic) pushed south of Cuba instead of and thus away from the North Atlantic what caused the temperatures to drop 6-8- 10 degrees c., what we see in the ice cores from this interglacial in greenland but not in the previous ones, when it stopped then in 15 years the temperatures rose 14 degrees to 4 above now again, so it is both the sun and the warm ocean currents that control the temperatures, we must not start tinkering with the balance of nature and our 3.2% have nothing to say, look at what has happened around the South Pole when 300,000 whales were slaughtered, each whale must eat at least 3 tons of krill a day so that is 900,000 tons a day x that with 365 days that are not eaten and breed so in 2 years there will be 100x as many krill that need food, every year they empty the sea of ​​a plankton species around the south pole and die of starvation, the dead drift into the same bays every time and are eaten by bacteria that inhale oxygen and exhale co2, their excrement is cut to pieces of enzymes that make new plant nutrition but also methane from the c atoms and methane breaks down ozone, researchers' studies down there in the 90s showed that process started a few years after whaling started down there sediment samples showed, funny that you can't find the discoveries anymore, I saw them in the early 00s with films and pictures from there, the only way is to restore it again is to catch the too many tons of krill and use them in e.g. fish farm as feed, and then you can probably think of changing the ocean's ph value with can have catastrophic consequences not only for life in the sea, and it does not improve for krill and their food, on the contrary, if you lower co2 what will happen if you raising the ph will plankton grow more slowly and there will be fewer of them, yes, there is 10 times as much co2 in the sea, but it must be there to keep the ph at 7.3 - 8.3, and that amount is necessary for plankton, which is a plant, to grow fast enough to supply the food chain in the sea , look in greenhouses why they put co2 generators in there, look what happened in biosphere 2 in arizona when co2 dropped, that's why they put co2 pressure vessel in there for no. 2 experiment that started in march 1993 to keep co2 up, we can't increase co2 in the ocean but we could increase the amount of nutrients the scientists tried in the 90s around the south pole but their 40,000 tons of fertilizer spread out from a ship helped like hell when they came next year and caught plankton there several of the species of krill do not eat, but the one they do eat was gone again, by the way, it is not the first time co2 has been so high in the last 200 years, see

@@RaghuMurtugudde no, no and no, why do you want co2 to be absorbed into the water, why do you have to change the natural, it is not our fossil that causes co2 to rise, the 3.2% that comes from us has no impact, see what nuclear physicist Murry Salby has found out how a little more co2 affects the climate, from 280 to 400 ppm it is only 0.6% or less than 0.15 degree c. if you bothered to look at ice cores, you would see that co2 lags at least 650 years after the temperatures both up and down, it is not co2 that controls but is controlled by the heat, and that doesn't change the climate, the sun does with its heat and the warm ocean currents, look at ice cores from Greenland with the Younger Dryas 12,850 years ago, it was triggered by two particularly large astorids that came down in the north of the usa and moved the globe's pivot point 2.5 - 3,000 km from around hudson bay up to where it is now, the same happened with the south pole, but there we see no effect in the vostok glacier, it was too far away from where a change happened on the edge of antarctica under southwest australia, the sudden change explain the major climate changes in North America, South South America, on west antarctica which suddenly got snow, siberia and in australia but no change in south africa or alaska/east siberia at the bering strait because they were on the side of that displacement, the sudden climate change caused the ice masses of North America to melt quickly in the 2000 years, today it would be as if you were moving from several 100 km north of the Canadian border down to Texas in seconds, the fresh water mostly flowed into the gulf of mexico which caused the gulf currents to change direction, it can be seen on a cross section of south usa, there is a depression from florida to texas and it is created by that melt water, another ran down through the hudson valley where there was a 3 km thick glacier, it was at least 250 km wide because long island is a moraine and 200 km north to south, it continued inland across the now strait created by meltwater, the rest evaporated and came down over Scandinavia as snow, it clearly shows that it is the sun and the warm ocean currents that control the climate and not co2, co2 in the atmosphere is a product of temperature changes made by ocean currents and the sun + Milanković bicycles, for plankton, I can read, you know nothing about it, 300,000 whales have been slaughtered around the South Pole, it has wreaked havoc on the ecosystem down there, each whale must have 3 tons of krill a day, that's 900,000 tons a day x with 365 days, that is 328,500,000 tons per year that are not eaten, 2 years later there are 100 + x as many because they breed and need food, their food is a special plankton species and they eradicate it every year so they die in large quantities of hunger, precisely because the 300,000 whales are missing, many of them do not have time to breed before they die, but there is still hunger because there are far too many, the researchers found this out by catching plankton and counting them, the dead drift with wind and current into the same bays every year and where they are broken down by bacteria that inhale oxygen and exhale co2, their excrement passes through enzymes and makes new plant nutrition and the c atoms into methane, that methane builds up and breaks down ozone and is the cause of the ozone hole discovered by researchers in the 1990s when they wanted to verify the claims that it was CFC gases that were converted by UV light into chlorine that broke down ozone, their question was how can uv come down from the start when ozone blocks it and how can uv form new molecules when it can only break down molecules, they found out that it was man-made but due to the lack of whales and their food chain which man had destroyed so there were far too many krill what is still there in the spring, they sailed into the bays where it looked like red crushed ice but was a thick layer of dead krill, underneath it looked like snow from the scales from the krill that fell down, bacteria and enzymes cannot convert them, they took samples from the seabed where they could count the layers of scales like tree rings and see that it had started a few years after whaling had started, you don't get fewer krill because there are fewer whales, on the contrary, the scientists tried to spread 40,000 tons of artificial fertilizer around the South Pole, the following year they came in the summer and caught plankton again, the kind of krill that don't eat there were more, but the kind that krill does eat was gone again, I saw the films and pictures down there from sometime in the early 00s, later it was found out that it was dypont who had made the fraud with cfc gases because their world patent was about to expire and they were ready with a new cooling gas to replace with the world patent on, what do you think will happen by removing some of the co2 in the sea with alkaline product mixed in the sea, co2 will fall and there must be 10 x as much as in the air so the ph is 7.3 to 8.3 because otherwise they can most fish and aquatic plants do not live, and it will change if you put alkaline in the sea btw, there are records from 1812 to 1961 with how much co2 was in the atmosphere and it was up to 445 ppm in 1822 and again over 430 in 1945,

@@RaghuMurtugudde no, no and no, why do you want co2 to be absorbed into the water, why do you have to change the natural, it is not our fossil that causes co2 to rise, the 3.2% that comes from us has no impact, see what nuclear physicist Murry Salby has found out how a little more co2 affects the climate, from 280 to 400 ppm it is only 0.6% or less than 0.15 degree c. if you bothered to look at ice cores, you would see that co2 lags at least 650 years after the temperatures both up and down, it is not co2 that controls but is controlled by the heat, and that doesn't change the climate, the sun does with its heat and the warm ocean currents, look at ice cores from Greenland with the Younger Dryas 12,850 years ago, it was triggered by two particularly large astorids that came down in the north of the usa and moved the globe's pivot point 2.5 - 3,000 km from around hudson bay up to where it is now, the same happened with the south pole, but there we see no effect in the vostok glacier, it was too far away from where a change happened on the edge of antarctica under southwest australia, the sudden change explain the major climate changes in North America, South South America, on west antarctica which suddenly got snow, siberia and in australia but no change in south africa or alaska/east siberia at the bering strait because they were on the side of that displacement, the sudden climate change caused the ice masses of North America to melt quickly in the 2000 years, today it would be as if you were moving from several 100 km north of the Canadian border down to Texas in seconds, the fresh water mostly flowed into the gulf of mexico which caused the gulf currents to change direction, it can be seen on a cross section of south usa, there is a depression from florida to texas and it is created by that melt water, another ran down through the hudson valley where there was a 3 km thick glacier, it was at least 250 km wide because long island is a moraine and 200 km north to south, it continued inland across the now strait created by meltwater, the rest evaporated and came down over Scandinavia as snow, it clearly shows that it is the sun and the warm ocean currents that control the climate and not co2, co2 in the atmosphere is a product of temperature changes made by ocean currents and the sun + Milanković bicycles,

@@RaghuMurtugudde for plankton, I can read, you know nothing about it, 300,000 whales have been slaughtered around the South Pole, it has wreaked havoc on the ecosystem down there, each whale must have 3 tons of krill a day, that's 900,000 tons a day x with 365 days, that is 328,500,000 tons per year that are not eaten, 2 years later there are 100 + x as many because they breed and need food, their food is a special plankton species and they eradicate it every year so they die in large quantities of hunger, precisely because the 300,000 whales are missing, many of them do not have time to breed before they die, but there is still hunger because there are far too many, the researchers found this out by catching plankton and counting them, the dead drift with wind and current into the same bays every year and where they are broken down by bacteria that inhale oxygen and exhale co2, their excrement passes through enzymes and makes new plant nutrition and the c atoms into methane, that methane builds up and breaks down ozone and is the cause of the ozone hole discovered by researchers in the 1990s when they wanted to verify the claims that it was CFC gases that were converted by UV light into chlorine that broke down ozone, their question was how can uv come down from the start when ozone blocks it and how can uv form new molecules when it can only break down molecules, they found out that it was man-made but due to the lack of whales and their food chain which man had destroyed so there were far too many krill what is still there in the spring, they sailed into the bays where it looked like red crushed ice but was a thick layer of dead krill, underneath it looked like snow from the scales from the krill that fell down, bacteria and enzymes cannot convert them, they took samples from the seabed where they could count the layers of scales like tree rings and see that it had started a few years after whaling had started, you don't get fewer krill because there are fewer whales, on the contrary, the scientists tried to spread 40,000 tons of artificial fertilizer around the South Pole, the following year they came in the summer and caught plankton again, the kind of krill that don't eat there were more, but the kind that krill does eat was gone again, I saw the films and pictures down there from sometime in the early 00s, later it was found out that it was dypont who had made the fraud with cfc gases because their world patent was about to expire and they were ready with a new cooling gas to replace with the world patent on, what do you think will happen by removing some of the co2 in the sea with alkaline product mixed in the sea, co2 will fall and there must be 10 x as much as in the air so the ph is 7.3 to 8.3 because otherwise they can most fish and aquatic plants do not live, and it will change if you put alkaline in the sea btw, there are records from 1812 to 1961 with how much co2 was in the atmosphere and it was up to 445 ppm in 1822 and again over 430 in 1945,

We have to move as much carbon as possible away from the atmosphere to reduce the warming. And all the co-benefits make these no-regret solutions. Like damping cyclones, filtering nutrients, enhancing habitats for marine ecosystems, providing livelihoods and ecotourism. Thank you.

@@RaghuMurtugudde Ah, ok. Well, that's just a dogma. There is no scientific proof that CO2 causas global warming. They only come up with assumptions Based on models and correlations. That's - again - not a proof but only a result of some mathematical calculations.

I am not talking about doom but solutions. All the best. Mother Nature doesn’t care about our opinions anyway.

Thank you.

Hmmm. Thank you for pointing that out. But I have to see whether youtube decides that or I can choose.

@@RaghuMurtugudde I did not mean youtube, I meant your website. I tired to visit it but turned back because of that.

Oh, that one has been put to sleep unfortunately. I am in India now so the sysadm refused to let me keep it😀

@@RaghuMurtugudde Someone might be using it for illicit purposes. I would recommend you remove the link to it. I'm not on expert in these topics, but I've seen lots of stuff ever since I got hooked in by the famous Code Red infection about 2 decades ago. Thanks for replying ✌

Unfortunately or fortunately, Mother Nature doesn’t respond to opinions.

Plants scavenge CO2 from the atmosphere until there is not enough left for them to survive. That's your equilibrium - a barren lifeless desert. Not the solution i would prefer.

@@seanburke424 "Plants scavenge CO2 from the atmosphere until there is not enough left for them to survive. " Right. Because 420 ppm of CO2 is not enough for plants so all the forests on planet Earth are now dead. Got it. You are uneducated, I have a Ph.D. in Plant Physiology. Which of us knows more about this subject???

@@seanburke424 Sean, you are misinformed. I have a Ph.D. in Plant Physiology. Let me know if you want a genuine conversation of the carbon cycle and CO2 fixation by plants.

then you don't know that out of the 0.04% co2 that is in the atmosphere, only 3.2% is from fossil fuel, or 0.00016% of the atmosphere, what would a stop do, on top of trying to see what goes to a fossil free world where we have to use electricity, e.g. to get 1 ton of steel, it takes 700 kg of coal to melt the iron ore, how much steel goes into a wind turbine and we have to build 1500 of them a day to reach it in 28 years or a nuclear power plant a day and without fossil where do we get the other 6000 products we make from crude oil, they are used for asphalt, medicine, tires etc. more co2 means that plants grow faster see greenhouse gardeners with their co2 generators, of course the plants also need more nutrition but they use less water, stopping fossil fuel will change nothing on co2, on top of that we just have to use it elsewhere in the chain for power production, you can't make solar cells or wind turbines without coal, oil and gas, try to see what the nuclear physicist Murry Salby has shown how little effect co2 has on the climate from 280 to 400 there is only 0.6% more effect and plants die when co2 falls below 150 ppm if you want to see what happens if you lower co2 then see what happened in biosphere 2 in arizona at the first attempt in 91 that went by for 3 weeks every oxygen dropped from 21 to 16% a day and plants grew extremely slowly so they only got 75% of the food they should have had, i saw some of their data after the first trial, 2 trials they had them run with co2 because they installed many co2 pressure containers in there so they could keep the co2 up so plants could produce enough oxygen and food

Thank you. I am not good at identifying birds but a couple of suggestions came in.

It is only a problem if you want to look at it that way, ocean acidification is just another change for life to adapt to

@@adondc5958 He is not wrong. The first issue is the claimed drop in ocean alkalinity. Fact: You wont ever acidify the oceans. We didn't have pH before 1909 and no reliable means of measuring it electronicky before the 1970s. Until the 1990s, no one was differencing between in-situ and ex-situ measurements, and yes it makes a difference. Taking samples near the shoreline are pretty well meaningless because the natural runoff into the oceans from land can change rapidly.

@@adondc5958 no, the sea does not become acidified, it is controlled by lime/limestone, the sea's normal ph value is between 7.3 and 8.3, i.e. slightly alkaline and can change from day to day in the same place, when it gets above 8 lime absorbs co2 and forms limestone, when it gets down to 7 the limestone dissolves and releases co2 again, it is e.g. how to neutralize rainwater that has a ph value of 5-6 ph i.e. weak acid content, ph 7 is neutral, this is how our limestone mountains arose, at a time when there was up to 7000 ppm co2 in the atmosphere and much of it was dissolved in the sea, at that time the limestone mountains were under the sea and have since been pushed up by tectonic shifts

Haha, thank you. Please ask questions to your prof and s/he may do better.

Glad that they help. Please feel free to share. Thank you and best.

Thank you. Glad that they help. Please feel free to share.

Glad that they help. All the best.

Steering winds matter for where the cyclone goes and the beta gyres depend on the cyclone. Cyclones themselves can modulate the steering winds but not enough to do what you are thinking about.

Mother Nature does her thing no matter we believe or not. Science is the way to go. All the best.

I am not a tutor. I have courses on climate modeling where some of these are discussed.

Glad that they help. Feel free to share. Thanks.

Thanks.

Thank you. Feel free to share.

I am offering courses in oceanography and climate without equations and I refer to the books in the podcasts. You need to do more searches on your own. All the best.

@@RaghuMurtugudde sir then where can i refer to these courses ?

Right here on my channels.

Right here on my channels

Thanks but not sure exactly what this means.

Thanks you for the reply @@RaghuMurtugudde It means that those with money have power. Those with lots of money have lots of power. Which means we live in a Corporatocracy Empire. They own our Gvts. medias, etc. IMF says: "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion" in 2023. "Money begets power, power begets money." Exxxon knew in the 1970's. it is documented. Yes, the world does not work as we assume, at least, the human part of the world. We do understand the Physics and Evolution quite well.

Glad that they help. Feel free to share. Thanks.

Not clear what you are asking but if you are talking about cyclones then y ou will have to go to the databases that serve world cyclone info. The details may not be enough to get frequency and intensity of individual cyclones. Best.

Glad that these help. Feel free to share. Thank you.

Videos are presented as podcasts. You need to spend more time learning and see how the method I presented can be used to derive the vertical distribution of PE and KE. All the data is available as reanalysis products. Best.

@@RaghuMurtugudde thank you.

Glad that they help. Feel free to share. Thank you and best.

You cannot.

Glad that these help. Feel free to share. Thanks.

Glad that they help. Feel free to share. Thank you.