Climate Crisis IS a Conspiracy. All to steal money from working people. Get real. I fell for it last century. We should have been underwater by now according to predictions back then. I now know it is all about the money and power.
Remember : ice strongly absorbs UV light and melts. The UV Levels here at NZ have been increading 10% year on year. The electromagnetic coupling directly effects the jet stream. (Which is weak and wavey) This directly causes weather anomalies. Yes the sun drives the climate; not plant food.
CDN What are you talking about "no conspiracy theories" ? There is a massive conspiracy with multi nationals colluding to hide "the truth" about CO2 and other so called green house gases.
I went to college with someone who ended up going to work for NOAA on satellite instrument calibration. Back around 2000 when I asked about the data, the reply was, "The data is good. What they do with it afterwards is just wrong." This was referring to how the data is "adjusted" to deliberately make today look warmer and the past look cooler. I asked why not say something about it, and my acquaintance said anyone that did so would end up getting fired. This fully supports the positions in the video.
One inconsistency should be enough to invalidate any theory. There are so many flaws it is absurd that anyone would consider the validity of the argument. But here we are.
"Now that result doesn't mean we at CDN get to cherry pick the result we like and say 'Aha! We have proven that the sun causes all climate change. But neither can the alarmists go 'Aha! We have proven that the sun causes none if it.' And the trouble is, they do". Can't you just go with that? That would be rational, don't you think? Nothing was pulverized here.
@@thegeneralist7527 science needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Without this, scientists fall into the realm of faith and religion. As it is, mainstream climate studies are filled with faith in questionable science, especially those that rely on flawed climate models that can’t even verify the past, but are bandied as proof of climate future.
When I first became interested in global warming aka climate change, not knowing anything about the controversy, I asked in an online forum about solar effects. Since I was inundated with abuse for even raising the issue, I immediately became suspicious of the climate change zealots. Abuse instead of a reasoned response indicated to me that the zealots’ arguments were, if not completely false, very weak or ideologically motivated.
There's a saying among lawyers - If the facts support you, argue the facts; if the law supports you, argue the law; if neither of those is the case, muddy the water. I take muddy the water to mean divert attention from, or undermine the other two in any way possible. In this case you can substitute scientific principals for the law and it applies just the same. If you keep this saying in mind it becomes easy to spot which of the three positions someone is arguing from.
In general, anyone who resorts to ad hominems when asked to defend their position, is not worth listening to. Even if their position was valid, the person would obviously not actually understand it.
As an ex academic myself, I know researchers are strongly driven to find results that lead to more funding. Saying “it’s just the sun” means your funding is done.
Exactly. Same corruption in many branches of academy, especially economics. Rubber stamp govt programs and your funding continues, mount any real criticism and your funding disappears
Im willing to beat U R not a scientist or an Engineer... This pretend argument that its all money or caused by the sun have been a long campaign of denial backed by Big Oil.... Measuring the sun accurately has been done for over 150 yrs and it varies by +/- 0.3C... NASA can verify this... To measure the Sun's output someone only needs 3 things a glass of water, a thermometer and an umbrella.... Stop spreading fake news
So many scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have built their careers on anthropogenic warming that we’ll never get an honest assessment on this topic.
Well said Sir Reptitious , The same scientists, bureaucrats and polititians also have a vested intrest in continuing the flow of funding . As ever, follow the money .
To say that the main source of all energy coming into a system doesn’t affect that system fundamentally if it varies just seems to be the height of denial. Of course the Sun affects the climate.
Just don't forget that it's not only a sum of energy, it's also how it's delivered. Direct radiation (photon) which arguably stands for most of the energy, as in Watts. But there's also solar wind (charged particles), affecting clouding.
There is an experiment that can be done on this claim. We get some 7 year olds to go outside on sunny days and cloudy days and at night. Then record their opinions on whether or not it felt warmer. I suggest that we might discover a very strong consensus.
@@benchapple1583 sadly farm land near us is awash with solar panels the extra heat island effect these generate hugely offsets any benefit from the energy they generate. Likely better to have just left them as fields.
@@shaunluckham1418 then you have to look at if that field was growing agriculture it would be removing co2 from the atmosphere helping their net zero BS. Also we’re heading into a worldwide food problem meaning we have less agricultural land to grow food because they are covered in massive solar fields that sometimes work.
Our planet was much warmer in the past, then it got cooler and now it's getting warmer again. Our Earth has been going through this cycle for a very long time.
A few years ago a radio announcer on our national broadcaster was finishing an interview with a long range weather forecaster. The announcer asked about climate change. You could almost hear the announcer’s brain freeze when the forecaster said he did not believe in man made climate change and said that changes were almost all due to solar activity. I could feel the dread that the announcer was feeling for the sin of speaking to a heretic.
The implication is that the 🌞 is burning hotter than predicted. Let me spell this out: the nuclear reaction is not modeled accurately. One may wonder if the 🌞 is going to become a red giant much more quickly than forecast. Meaning, it will still not be a red giant any time soon, but it will heat up faster than forecast, and nothing we can do will help that. Human are eventually doomed, but when?
@@paulh3935 No, actually indeed for gathering fossil fuels --- the imprisoned workers just gotta pay CO2 taxes to do their forced labour. .......... that way, they save the climate, mkaaaaaay?! ¯\_( ᐛ )_/¯
When Skylab was launched in 73 its primary mission goals were long term human physiology in microgravity. And Solar observation. One of the results of Solar observations was that solar output was increasing causing the atmosphere to expand. This expansion also contributed to Skylabs orbit decaying faster than expected. Also Skylab was originally supposed to have a maneuvering section but Congress axed it.
I can remember my climatology professor in college explaining that the smog (pollution) in the Los Angeles basin had more to do with geography than it did with automobiles. It seems that even 300-400 years ago, that region was called "the valley of the smokes" by the indigenous people because the smoke from their campfires would rise from 500 to about 1,000 feet, and just stay there, due to the natural atmospheric inversion in the valley. In his words, "Some areas are just prone to smog, and some will never have smog." But still, people move to the desert, and then complain about the heat. 🤣
Remove CO2 nothing will happen. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and 6 decades ago it was just under 0.03% of the atmosphere. I think we are hovering around 422PPMv (Parts Per Million by volume) of CO2 in the atmosphere (in the northern hemisphere) In millions that would look like this: 0,000,422 As a percentage: 000.0422% Before the 60s the the estimated CO2 concentration was 280ppmv. If we had removed the 0.028% of CO2 which as far as we know would be basically 100% of CO2 [back in the 60s], you think the world would "freeze"? This isn't how gasses work. [The same could be said if we removed all CO2 from the atmosphere now even by volume. Just jettison the CO2 this time *INCLUDING* the volume of the atmosphere that the current 422PPMv represents, into space, the temperatures at the surface wouldn't decrease by much.]
@@VariantAEC Remove CO2 and this planet will die very quickly. All plant life is 100% dependent on CO2 whereby chlorophyll and sunlight (photosynthesis) split the CO2 into carbohydrates from carbon and release O2 into the atmosphere. So plants and no oxygen. The estimated minimum CO2 level is 180ppm after which the planet starts to die.
@DOOM GRIFTER there was a super interesting interview between Matthew Lacroix and Randall Carlson where they mention possibility for planet 9 to with its ~13k yrs orbit to cause the sun to go micronova on a regular cycle.
Eyes Open, No Fear TBH I take all info with a pinch of salt regardless of source, same with Diamond 'Keep Calm it's Boomtime', but if anything 'trust the science' and its cancel culture has taught me in the pandemic it is to keep an open mind...and for starters, I just can't believe there's no solar forcing of the climate. I think things are more complex and interconnected than than we're being told.
Quotation from Albert Einstein: "Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: It is character." 😀 Thank you for lifting scientists with solid character!
💖 that quotation, glad to see someone else beat me to it. Aside: The reason that this thought of Einstein's is so little known, is that it is not something he said in public, or even amongst colleagues. It is from a response he sent to a private letter written by a grad student seeking advice.
"When everyone's thinking the same, someone's not thinking "George S Patton. Ask 10 scientists about a highly complex system that isn't political you'll get 20 different answers. The fact that so many seem to be marching to the same drummer, tells you there's a drummer.
If the IPCC experts are now saying that the Sun is not the biggest influencer on everything that happens on Earth, I think it’s fair to totally ignore them & treat them as the fools that are proving themselves to be.
I'm a ham radio operator. Solar activity is directly related to radio wave propagation. The solar cycle in the late 80s and early 90s was the strongest I've ever seen in my decades of being licensed.
Nope Jack but surely most. Volcanics have an influence as well. All the Gasses given off by the planet play a part in our Climatic temperature changes . Volcanoes and Geothermal Areas effect our planet well beyond man’s industrial footprint, sure we need to clean up our act but we won’t resolve the main climate influencers … unless we seriously want to throw the planet out of whack
If I say that humans cause warming I get to keep my job, be hailed as a hero, and respected by my "peers". If I say the sun causes all the changes I lose my job, be vilified constantly, and rejected by my "peers". Hmmm which should I do???
I remember THAT being the comeback to someone saying something stupid. Put slightly another way: "Yes, No, Maybe So" The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Oh how i wish everyone i know would take the time to watch this. I am fighting a very lonely battle trying to change the beliefs they have aquired off tv and so called climate scientists. Thank you for all you do.
I love this channel. Gives you facts and information instead of ranting. Even admits here that we need to look at the data, not go "aha, the sun is at fault" but instead points out that the information is inconclusive and we can't make massive, incredibly expensive (and wasteful and money-laundering) programs based on incomplete information. But once money gets involved that's when brains go out the window, sadly.
I'm currently reading an atmospheric science textbook from 1979, second edition 1982. It's actually scientific and historical. I'd estimate this started falling out of fashion in the 90s. Even in other topics, I find that science books in the the 70s are the best, and starting around mid- to late-90s everything started looking like they came from a cookie cutter. And that's without politics.
Two reasons I can think of for that are: 1)science becoming popular, allowing more science “fans” in that weren’t gifted in the ability to model reality in their minds, so they just regurgitate 2) politicians realized that scientists were becoming the new arbiters of truth (over priests, etc.)
@@KeithStrang Follow the science! Yeah, ok, science actually (has to) follows the money just as in even research funds and the "desired results" of those investors, ... ..... but just be a gud boooiiiii now and follow dat science, okeeehhh? ( シ) __
As an engineer if I want to bracket the effects of the Sun on Earth's climate I would look what would happen to Earth if the Sun had turned cold like an ice ball; would Earth stay the same, get hotter or get colder. Then I would do the same if the Sun got 100% hotter. Of course the argument here is that the satellite sensor got more sensitive over time, tit is a long shot. Now who is the denier. In my engineering experience sensor get less sensitive with age and not more sensitive. And the suspicion of this claim is that after that period time the sensor went back to work at the global warmist's desire, huh. PS. Global warmist: a person must have all of the following traits: 1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet. 2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence. 3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case." 4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change. 5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause.
When politicians and bankers started sounding the "climate change" alarms everyone including the scientists and academics should have started questioning the everything on the subject. Then again when did the bankers, politicians, scientists and other academics solve any problem? Never!
I'd add to your list along those lines of our spending billions, that may or may not work to stop climate change - they may in fact make it worse with our obsession with so-called renewables that aren't as "renewable" as they claim to be - given the carbon credits they've already spent in their creation, which is conveniently never factored in - we're to believe these windmills and solar panels just appear out of thin air presumably, and which there's not enough rare minerals in the whole world to meet our future demands. And) we need fossil fuels to mine and produce them, and with the resulting energy loss due to their inefficiency compared to using the high kilowatt energy source (fossil fuels) - might it be better to simply use the high density fossil fuel energy source in the first place? Even with the massive subsidies renewables are competing unfairly in the market so their real price alludes to their hunger for resources. Solar and wind have their place in certain applications but due to all these factors mentioned they're not going to "save us", we may in fact be wasting a load of time and resources on a white elephant (given they're not very recyclable either).
@markspc1 The people you are alluding to are afflicted with the Climate Delusion. This is the false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous. They could also be described as primitive Earth worshiping zealots. The current mean surface temperature of Earth (15 degrees centigrade) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (415ppm) are suboptimal . A modest increase in both would have the net beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia.
I saw a newspaper article quoting nasa quite a few years ago which stated that the dry ice caps on Mars were abnormaly shrinking at the same time as earth's ice caps were. This would certainly suggest a solar effect.
@@reaality3860 "It," the stray hyphen, is very humanizing. Prove to me you know what a dangling participle is. I do appreciate your drawing attention to potential errors.
A simple translation of Ronan Connolly’s word salad: “ We didn’t have the data we wanted, so we just made stuff up that agreed with our preconceptions.”
The Grant money is to make fluff to support the political argument. Heck, I was able to see on the Hawaii Observatory CO2 data, that they admitted that during the LOCKDOWNS for the pandemic that there was no perceptible change in the increase in the CO2 levels. Frustratedly, they admitted that. If you want proof, please go look it up, it is out there. I had the links, but on other computer and they likely still have it on their website.
And he can't because it's absolute rubbish. His criticism is essentially NOAA has better satellites now than they did 10 years ago and they should abandon all of the new data and keep the old. He's lying through his teeth.
It is is interesting to hear an opinion that actually considers the fact that the sun may not be a rigidly thermostatically controlled heat source. This idea would appear to be considered a major heresy in modern scientific thinking.
I did calculations years ago (and am currently redoing them) which showed that the difference in energy received by the sun between the peak of an 11-year cycle and its minimal value was on the order of 10.000 times the energy that we humans produce globally.
That's cool man, but I guess you know by yourself that figure doesn't really mean much with respect to climate change. Our energy consumption itself is not the issue. It is rather the by-products like greenhouse gases, but also aerosols that act kind of like catalysts either for warming or cooling.
@@mightymo8351 It's relevant to the discussion where "temperature jumps" are coming from: if it's not from the sun (slowly fluctuating), not from CO2 (constantly rising & ppms very apparently disconnected from all human activity), not from methane etc. & aerosols, and not the direct output from human activity, it must be an energy exchange between atmosphere, sea water, kinetic energy in ocean currents & the polar ice caps. So, yes, a small number but an important piece of the puzzle to make sure we get the complete picture and don't end up with a simplistic belief system again.
@@f.d.6667 sure. Eventually anything can be relevant in case of a complex, nonlinear system. That's why all of these parameters are put into various models that provide respective simulation data. What usually is not done - simply bc. it is not helpful - is stating a relation between two quantities that is supposed to appear as large as possible to ridicule the concept of the smaller one having a considerable net effect at all. Btw, i am not saying Lokai did that. I don't know what his point was. It just reminded me of this kind of annoying behavior.
@@mightymo8351 "That's cool man, but I guess you know by yourself that figure doesn't really mean much with respect to climate change. Our energy consumption itself is not the issue. It is rather the by-products like greenhouse gases, but also aerosols that act kind of like catalysts either for warming or cooling." CO2 is not a primary driver for our climate cycles. There is absolutely no proof for that claim.
As with many other things like gender, race, health our biggest problem is that we have a thing called corruption. If people were true to themselves and others, would honor values like honesty, faith and respected the ten commandments we wouldn't be in such a mess as a society.
Climate Change has become big, big business and there are way to much people, organisations, politicians and commercial companies making big money from it. Add that to corruption and social media harassment and the picture is clear.
Tree ring reconstructions of temperatures have a systematic error in them. Tree rings get thicker as the weather in a specific year is warmer, yes, but they also get thicker if there is more CO2 in the air. If a specific medieval tree ring is just as thick as a modern-day tree ring, the medieval one is from temperature alone, while the modern-day is from temperature plus CO2 fertilization effect. So if you calibrate tree ring thickness to temperature, and don't compensate for the CO2 fertilization effect, you get an artificial hockey stick graph in which the pre-industrial era seems colder than it was in reality. I've looked at some published peer-reviewed papers on tree ring reconstructions of the climate. NONE of them compensate for the CO2 fertilization effect.
Tree rings don't get thicker in warm years otherwise they would grow huge during droughts. It's the rainfall and sunlight combined that's responsible for photosynthesis. Warm isn't a factor. Unless you're talking about temps cold enough or hot enough to kill the leaves.
@@woodspirit98 I've taken a look at the various papers that try to reconstruct temperature with tree rings. They straight convert tree ring thickness to temperature. While several other factors like rainfall must play a role, you could argue that many of them middle out over time. But CO2 fertilization does not, as it is known that CO2 now is higher than it was in the pre-industrial area. And it is also known that tree rings grow thicker with higher CO2, although the effective rate may vary.
In order to determine the climate sensitivity of an Earth like planet to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration you would have to find 100 close earth analog planets and double the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in 50 and use other 50 as controls and observe them for several decades. With complex multifaceted nonlinear phenomena like the earth’s climate, computer models are a poor substitute for controlled prospective experiments. They reflect the biases and knowledge gaps of the programmers and amplify errors over time.
Thank you. Similar blind spots can be revealed to the public eye in pretty much every politically and financially invested topic. Relevant factors are being left out of the conversation, leading ever deeper into the pathological behavior patterns that are (too) easily manipulated with. Maximizing unnecessary risks and destroying the foundations of a functional society (and science).
Excellent article John. Really interesting even for a lay person of maybe average intelligence like me. I try to keep an open mind as much as possible, but when politicians (aka Liar's Inc) start refusing to answer any inconvenient questions my natural skepticism just gets a solar powered boost of heat. Keep up the good work done by you and the team.
Little ice age, and medieval warm period, for instance. These are now out of favor. "They were localized" and other diminishers. For 200 years Britan was able to grow grapes and make wine, but not now... and now every dumb storm 8s a sign of human-caused global warming? Yep. That's called "propaganda".
way back in the '80's i was working on a mathematical modeling project explaining causes of the el nino effect. i graphed all the temperature and drought data from tree rings back to the little ice age and overlayed the sunspot frequency data and there was a near perfect correlation. that doesn't prove causation, but it sure was a good fit!
Correct. This was already done at the University of Arizona way back when I was a teenager. Dr. Damon did this. The connection between Arizona droughts and sun spot activity was very much discussed at the UofA back then. My father was at the center of this discussion being the solar observatory creator on Kitt Peak.
Have a friend working on ENSO, he thinks they have a tidal model, I'm still skeptical. I get a new paper every year or so by someone asking me to check to see if they're right, but when I hindcast they're all just a bit off. I think he's onto something but there's going to be more to it than overlaying the lunar elliptical cycle.
I think a better word than "feeling pressured" to conform to the IPPC's agenda, I think a better word is boarder line "intimidated"; since IPPC conveniently manipulates conclusions by eliminating some data which indicates a different conclusion. So the big question is: what is the real goal? 99.9% of the time it's power & money consolidation- history bears this out, nobody intimidates somebody to accept the truth, it stands on it's own merits.
several top scientists who disagreed with the ipcc were purged : chris landsea , nils morner and others . it’s strictly my way or the highway with the ipcc .
The TSI shown at 5:30 exactly matches the temperature increases and declines given in Environment Canada's Your Environment web site. I've done detailed temperature analysis on a dozen rural locations throughout Western and Northern Canada and the same pattern emerges. Warming from late 1800's through to 1950. Cooling from 1950 to 1970 and then warming again from 1970 until today (although there has been very little warming in the past 10n years).
The sun is going into Grand Solar Minimum so I suspect cooling will be the order for the next 50 or more years. But NASA LOL says cooling will be minimal due to (drum roll) CO2. So ahem are they saying then CO2 is a benefit or bad for not making us freeze to death.
Let's see, in 2012 we had days where the temp hit 104 degrees, solar mass ejections we were being warned on news, solar flare warnings, communication breakdown warnings, and 2yrs ago we were still getting temps over 100 degrees. 2022 we have yet to have temps over 95 degrees(solar minimum cycle).
TSI isn't everything its only part of the story, there is also the solar wind, CMEs, solar flares, charge particles, magnetic field interactions all this effect our climate but is left off in saying its just the static TSI...
So basically, some of these scientists are pretty much like the accountant-job applicants interviewed by the IPCC, they hired the one that answered the question: 'How much is 2+2?' with 'How much do YOU want it to be?'
I agree, CMEs have a BIG effect on the earth's magnetosphere which in turn effects our jet streams, ocean currents, etc making the weather go haywire! The title "climate change" is absolutely BS trying to add yet another "fear" into society for the benefit of who knows? 04/06/2022
@@bruceblosser384 plenty of recently published papers referenced by SuspiciousObservers - just look it up. Increased intensity of tropical weather systems has been shown to perfectly correlate with the arrival of solar particles, propagation being all but instantaneous.
good question, we dont, mainly because ice core are the worst proxy for reconstructing co2. Because they are inaccurate and you get means of timesteps of thousands of years preventing you to see shorter time scales changes, that exist, because we see them in reconstructions from stomata of plant leaves, much more accurate and time-precise. Some stomata reconstruction show spikes of 500 ppm in the 1800s.
We’ve been documenting weather for only 300 years or so, so for us to say we understand weather patterns of a planet that’s over 4 billion years old is laughable. As far as we know we’re going through a weather pattern that’s a 10000 year swing
yes, and somehow, the "scientists" are able to tell me that temperatures from 100 years ago were wrong and it was actually colder than what they reported. Maybe these people own a Delorean or something to "know" this.
@@stapleman007 Don't know if u r being sarcastic but the fact is that science discovered the Ozone layer in 1957. So because the knew of the ozone layer and hole for about 25 years, they freaked out and said the end was near. The fact Earth is billions of years old, yet they think they know best because of 25 years of observation. Now they go by CO2 in tree rings when it has been proven in recent years, rings don't necessarily coincide with CO2\heat. Hey, like the scientist told congress- they don't send him money if he says everything is fine.
Of course, this assumes that the surface temperature record is accurate to begin with (which it's not). The real entertaining part is that no matter what temperatures you plug into their 'correction' algorithm, you come out with a warming trend in the last 100 years.
I'm old and I could swear to seeing the sun change its color since I was a kid from white with a slight buttery yellow tinge, to silvery white with no yellow tinge. I also notice the sun heating surfaces more and becoming more dangerous to be exposed to. Even in recent years hearing about UVC readings which didn't happen in the past. Couple this with changes in the solar system that reflect an increase in solar irradiance, and it adds up.
What everyone fails to mention is the amount of energy received by the Earth from the Birkeland Currents that stream in through the poles. These can be seen as the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis. When they are invisible they are in Dark Mode, when they are visible they are in Glow Mode and you definitely don't want to see them in Arc Mode.
Your statement "it makes the general public suspicious", unfortunately not hardly enough of the general public go beyond what late night entertainers tell them.
Ocean cycles also have a lot to do in this mix, but their changes to climate can occur many years after solar activity as they're a huge buffer and have cycles lasting decades.
No one said that solar variability is the only factor here. Ah whatever, I'll agree with this only because ocean currents are more largely effected by the topology of the sea floor and the spin of the Earth and less so by temperature. Even so the oceans at least need to be unfrozen to move and without the heat from the sun much of the oceans could be completely frozen down to the the Marianas Trench (except where immediately exposed to volcanic activity). I don't think Earth has the mass to have liquid water in our oceans if we were the equivalent of a lightyear away or further from a star like our own sun. As per usual I think when we do land craft on other planets in the solar system, we will discover that cryo-volcanos are powered by regular volcanoes deep under the surface of sheets of ice. Pluto won't have oceans of liquid water only pockets.
It’s interesting to note the recent discovery regarding the Sahara Desert’s age. Apparently North Africa was wet only 5,000 years ago. The desert manifested as the Earth warmed up. There is too much money at stake in the carbon credit monetary manipulations.
Those credits are going to be our slaves shackles if the WEF gets it's way. I don't understand how so many people don't realize how much ideological contagion there is in all of this, and how much good old fashioned lust for power. People just keep on thinking it's all dispassionately based on entirely ingenuous, objective "science" and that's that. Disturbing.
You should look into the effect of the strength of the magnetic poles. Supposedly it's weakening and getting ready to flip. And that force shunts large amounts of solar energy out through the poles.
Oh dear, no... Funny thing though, right now the south pole is receiving zero solar energy- where is the energy "leaking out from"? The earth emits IR just as does every body in the universe based on temperature^4 so the colder regions of the planet have a much lower energy radiation rate than the higher temperature regions.
Oh ... I feel like solar will influence a lot of temperature and we might be better off trying to make energy cheap to weather those changes... If we're not going into an ice age we're coming out of an ice age
Data integrity is a huge issue, and demonstrates multiple examples of “climate scientists” simply changing the data to match their hypothesis. The Smoothed Sun Spot number being another example where the goal was to erase any link between solar activity and the medieval warm period, and the little ice age. Proxy measures should never be simply taken as accurate. Especialy when localized measurments are available.
@@garyha2650 Sure, but that has as much effect as CO2 in my opinion. When there is a massive amount of energy released from a solar flare, the TSI actually drops. The energy from coronal holes isn't accounted for. The solar wind isn't accounted for. About 90% of the energy the earth and other planets receive isn't accounted for and is then put on the side of AGW.
@@garyha2650 no, it’s not 50% infrared. It’s protons and electrons surging into the planet via magnetic flux lines to the sun. It’s x-rays and other bombardment from solar flares. It’s coronal mass ejected at our planet. It’s the solar wind containing every element in the periodic table, and it’s corresponding impact on the magnetosphere. If you look at the TSI data during the last major solar event, it shows a DECREASE in output. Energy from the sun in every measure jumped on orders of magnitude, yet the TSI dropped, leaving US responsible for the effects in “climate models” ASIDE from the sun, our magnetosphere is waning at an alarming rate. This means even the ambient radiation from space makes it deeper into our system as an added, unknown and unaccounted for variable. Us, our actions and all our CO2 are INCONSEQUENTIAL in the big picture. Sorry if this dents your view of humanity and it’s brilliance.
Welp, the fight is certainly fierce, you can bring some scientific ammunition saying, umm, here, sir, you may use against our enemies? And they slice you in half with their light saber declaring a win :D
Because corruption is on another level nowadays and so systemic that there is no room for real science in mainstream.Powers to be are going to get their agenda moving through this kind of distortions and more we stay passive, the more they advance and truth is getting even harder to see. This is going on globally and almost in every part of society. Open your eyes and free your mind. Its all there to see it. If you dare...
The sun is only one part of the story. The other equally important part is what the oceans do with that absorbed energy from the sun. The story is always truly about the solar/ocean connection. That is the primary driver of the climate.
That is true that the sun is part of it, another large part of it is the serious decline of our magnetosphere and the subsequent increase of cosmic rays and radiation from the sun penetrating further into the atmosphere.
One thing that I have noticed about the weather, I live in So Cal, it used to be that we would get a 3 week heat wave and then a 3 week break on the weather,(high pressure Zone) and since I work outside heavy construction I was in tune with he weather. The last 10 years it has been Thurs thru Sunday heat wave, Mon thru Weds. break in the heat, and this pattern repeated itself for years. Our heat always starts on July 4 and breaks on Halloween 90% of the time.
What I failed to mention in my earlier comment is that the earth's crust itself is affected by lunar gravity tides to a lesser degree than earth's ocean tides, but, because of more precise GPS measurements from improved technology we can now measure earth-tide very precisely. It doesn't take much movement within the crust to generate huge amounts of energy especially around fault lines, even the relatively inactive ones. Therefore the sun is most definitely NOT the only source of energy affecting earth's surface, oceans, and atmosphere. Check out the data (search hard but it's there) yourself. Don't blindly take my (or anyone else's) word for it. Isn't modern "science" indeed locked into an outdated religious stance that it keeps senselessly adhering to? That stance runs deeper and from longer ago than you realize.
True but...the sun is 99% in charge of our climate. No sun, no 'climate' and no 'earth' actually. The sun isn't this yellow ball in the sky, it is GIGANTIC compared to the earth. Sun spots are larger than the earth, a lot larger. The inner planets of the solar system are tiny specks compared to the size of the local star, our sun.
Don't accept the hypothesis supported by observations, modify the observations to fit the narrative. Is PMOD's chief researcher named Winston Smith, by any chance?
Obviously the sun drives nearly all earth surface temprature. The lack of sun spots in the last 20 years indicates fewer magnetic storms and lesser solar output. A lack of Sun spots and increased vocanic activity on the earth are attributed to have caused the little ice age and expansion of glaciiers; not humans; . About 1640 these influences reversed and a return tempratures similar to middel ages tempratures was resulting. We cannot predict magnetic storms on the sun nor volcanic activity on the earth. If the earth's atmosphere were represented by a 100,000 seat stadium; CO2 is only 40 seats; of that only 10 or so could be a result of human activity; and even less can be eleminated without signficant impacts on agriculture. Importantly even eliminating these does little to reduce rates of temprature increase over time. So if you are going to ignore the lack of sun spots and insist we cut CO2 - you will achieve nothing; and your doomed. You could put up man made light reflecting material to mimmick volcanic actiity; but what if you then have real volcanic activity? Just let things go and deal with it; that is what humans have survived doing for 50K years.
Thanks John for a great report. This climate science research by the experts is more like a giant pin the tail on the donkey with a big pot of money to be won. 🤡
You can always ask questions about science, you can never question a cult. Whenever someone tries to control you, the first thing you'll notice is that you cannot question their reasons...
Hi sir and so it goes on , each one trying to out do the other . I am for what it’s worth in your camp , mainly because I feel we are a thin occupying presence of the surface of the earth . Yes we clog up the surface with our man made rubbish , but we don’t really have a impact on how we burn or consume it’s recurses . I The debate that has been used by those who would advocate we humans are the destroyers of the planet are at best fanciful and at worst counter productive . The Earth is far greater than we seem able to give credit to , if we set lose the gods of war and embarked on a full nuclear war do we honestly expect the planet to cease to exist . No I’m afraid or pleased to say the Earth would just continue as always , till it is absorbed by the sun which in turn is absorbed by the rest of the universe . We are not the so called custodians of the planet , no more than the dinosaurs were who as it happened lasted 50 million years plus . Not a bad innings compared to our brief time . No all of you saviours of the planet need to realise the Earth doesn’t need us one way or the other ether with or without it will still continue doing it’s thing , so stop beating your selves up about it and in the process making the rest of our lives a misery .
In addition to cities getting warmer, there was also a total lapse in the monitoring of land use changes in the immediate vicinity of many weather monitoring stations. The lack of action to correct the new improper siting and design of stations was exacerbated by the elimination of the US Hydrologic Research station, located near Coshocton Ohio which had been run bu the US Soil Conservation service; ultimately absorbed into the US Department of Commerce. There is now no agency that could scream foul when the corruption of the US surface monitoring network. We lost a critical resource when the SCS was eliminated.
I must have missed this episode when it first aired. I first saw a video around 15 years ago that compared documented solar activity and the temperatures here on planet Earth. Now…I am older, and this video was too, but back in the day we used clear film and a projector as visual aids for teaching. Well…turns out we could stack out transparencies, and when we did it with earth temperatures and solar activity, the curves were remarkably consistent. When some things are so abundantly clear, and so simple and easy to see, it doesn’t make much sense to continue looking for a different answer. (I did not do this research or make the charts…I just saw them and the subject was sufficiently explained. Some things just make sense, and some don’t. )
My first memory is the sun in my eyes on a train and self educated in the practical usage from the early 70's. I've always heard that the sun hardly changes if at all through its cycles yet intuitively I thought the idea ridiculous. I guess I'm one who doesn't see the fence, it is hard not to consider that every fossil fuel that we extracted we burned. During the video I was perplexed as if no one ever thought that the sun might change, I have been dropped off on the wrong planet. I have done extensive research of mythology looking for a connection to the Younger Dryas Impacts Theory and it is there bigger than Dallas-Fort Worth. It has taught me that scientists have agendas, it is truly amazing from the head archeologist at Gobekli Tepe telling me there are no seven birds in a row at the site to another about how the Taurid Stream moves around the ecliptic, and an astrophysicist that thinks that the speed of our orbit is the causation of shooting stars from meteor stream debris, just static and in the way! I'm really starting to realize that the vast majority of people are corrupt, take the pollution problem back when I was a kid as an example. And they must be psychologically messed up and stuck in high school games, maybe it was all those years working solo... One thing is for sure, 'they' figured out that it is easy to sway the majority. This carbon credit thing is a shell game, btw. Try explaining impact winters to experts in solar worship, they only see diurnal and seasonal, when the universal traditions clearly show long periods of darkness as in ages of man or suns for the Mesoamericans.
When global warming and cooling has happened several times before. It's hard to blame climate change on human pollution. It's good we try to clean up. But there are so many environmental extremists who get support by governments. Let's keep things sane.
There are so many factors that can cause a global change in temperature. It's just impossible to find out, which factor is most responsible. In order to find this out, we need to switch of all the factors and switch them back on, one by one. Which is not possible.
We welcome comments. But please, no vulgarity, insults instead of arguments, or conspiracy theories. Keep it clean and sane, folks. Thanks.
Climate Crisis IS a Conspiracy. All to steal money from working people. Get real. I fell for it last century. We should have been underwater by now according to predictions back then. I now know it is all about the money and power.
I realised there was more politics than physics here when I heard a spokeswoman for NASA. She blamed the Elnino.
Remember : ice strongly absorbs UV light and melts.
The UV Levels here at NZ have been increading 10% year on year.
The electromagnetic coupling directly effects the jet stream. (Which is weak and wavey)
This directly causes weather anomalies.
Yes the sun drives the climate; not plant food.
One of the best indications of your legitimacy is the fact that you welcome discussion.
CDN
What are you talking about "no conspiracy theories" ? There is a massive conspiracy with multi nationals colluding to hide "the truth" about CO2 and other so called green house gases.
I went to college with someone who ended up going to work for NOAA on satellite instrument calibration. Back around 2000 when I asked about the data, the reply was, "The data is good. What they do with it afterwards is just wrong." This was referring to how the data is "adjusted" to deliberately make today look warmer and the past look cooler. I asked why not say something about it, and my acquaintance said anyone that did so would end up getting fired. This fully supports the positions in the video.
Solar cycles 22, 23, 24, 25 and Valentina Zharkova confirm these observations.
So lies again
I never tire of hearing anthropogenic climate change theories pulverized by facts. Thank you Mr. Robson.
One inconsistency should be enough to invalidate any theory. There are so many flaws it is absurd that anyone would consider the validity of the argument. But here we are.
"Now that result doesn't mean we at CDN get to cherry pick the result we like and say 'Aha! We have proven that the sun causes all climate change. But neither can the alarmists go 'Aha! We have proven that the sun causes none if it.' And the trouble is, they do".
Can't you just go with that? That would be rational, don't you think? Nothing was pulverized here.
@@mightymo8351 Pardon my exuberance.
@@thegeneralist7527 Agreed. Not only are we here but this flawed theory is being used to craft current energy policies.
@@thegeneralist7527 science needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Without this, scientists fall into the realm of faith and religion. As it is, mainstream climate studies are filled with faith in questionable science, especially those that rely on flawed climate models that can’t even verify the past, but are bandied as proof of climate future.
When I first became interested in global warming aka climate change, not knowing anything about the controversy, I asked in an online forum about solar effects. Since I was inundated with abuse for even raising the issue, I immediately became suspicious of the climate change zealots. Abuse instead of a reasoned response indicated to me that the zealots’ arguments were, if not completely false, very weak or ideologically motivated.
Excellent comment
There's a saying among lawyers - If the facts support you, argue the facts; if the law supports you, argue the law; if neither of those is the case, muddy the water. I take muddy the water to mean divert attention from, or undermine the other two in any way possible. In this case you can substitute scientific principals for the law and it applies just the same. If you keep this saying in mind it becomes easy to spot which of the three positions someone is arguing from.
@@horton12545 and if all else fails name calling is the order of the day, LOL!
Had a very similar experience, came to the same conclusion, and the more I learn about the subject matter, the more I see I was right.
In general, anyone who resorts to ad hominems when asked to defend their position, is not worth listening to. Even if their position was valid, the person would obviously not actually understand it.
As an ex academic myself, I know researchers are strongly driven to find results that lead to more funding. Saying “it’s just the sun” means your funding is done.
Exactly. Same corruption in many branches of academy, especially economics. Rubber stamp govt programs and your funding continues, mount any real criticism and your funding disappears
also seen the same phenomena
OUTSTANDING OBSERVATION!!!!!!!!
Im willing to beat U R not a scientist or an Engineer... This pretend argument that its all money or caused by the sun have been a long campaign of denial backed by Big Oil.... Measuring the sun accurately has been done for over 150 yrs and it varies by +/- 0.3C... NASA can verify this... To measure the Sun's output someone only needs 3 things a glass of water, a thermometer and an umbrella.... Stop spreading fake news
Academic in what field? Obviously not physics. Possibly an English major with an afinity toward poetry
So many scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have built their careers on anthropogenic warming that we’ll never get an honest assessment on this topic.
Well said Sir Reptitious , The same scientists, bureaucrats and polititians also have a vested intrest in continuing the flow of funding . As ever, follow the money .
So true. Follow the money to get the truth
To say that the main source of all energy coming into a system doesn’t affect that system fundamentally if it varies just seems to be the height of denial. Of course the Sun affects the climate.
Just don't forget that it's not only a sum of energy, it's also how it's delivered. Direct radiation (photon) which arguably stands for most of the energy, as in Watts. But there's also solar wind (charged particles), affecting clouding.
There is an experiment that can be done on this claim. We get some 7 year olds to go outside on sunny days and cloudy days and at night. Then record their opinions on whether or not it felt warmer. I suggest that we might discover a very strong consensus.
@@benchapple1583 sadly farm land near us is awash with solar panels the extra heat island effect these generate hugely offsets any benefit from the energy they generate. Likely better to have just left them as fields.
@@shaunluckham1418 then you have to look at if that field was growing agriculture it would be removing co2 from the atmosphere helping their net zero BS.
Also we’re heading into a worldwide food problem meaning we have less agricultural land to grow food because they are covered in massive solar fields that sometimes work.
@@johanponken ALL the energy is electomagnetic from way up in the ultraviolet into the cosmic rays to way down past radio-like waves.
Our planet was much warmer in the past, then it got cooler and now it's getting warmer again. Our Earth has been going through this cycle for a very long time.
A few years ago a radio announcer on our national broadcaster was finishing an interview with a long range weather forecaster. The announcer asked about climate change. You could almost hear the announcer’s brain freeze when the forecaster said he did not believe in man made climate change and said that changes were almost all due to solar activity. I could feel the dread that the announcer was feeling for the sin of speaking to a heretic.
The implication is that the 🌞 is burning hotter than predicted. Let me spell this out: the nuclear reaction is not modeled accurately. One may wonder if the 🌞 is going to become a red giant much more quickly than forecast. Meaning, it will still not be a red giant any time soon, but it will heat up faster than forecast, and nothing we can do will help that.
Human are eventually doomed, but when?
I hope they got sent to a gulag. Obviously not a fossil fuelled one, that would be cruel!
@@paulh3935 No, actually indeed for gathering fossil fuels --- the imprisoned workers just gotta pay CO2 taxes to do their forced labour.
.......... that way, they save the climate, mkaaaaaay?! ¯\_( ᐛ )_/¯
@@paulh3935 keep buying the LIE keep drinking the Kool-Aid
@@curtisbacon7856 What lie would that be?
When Skylab was launched in 73 its primary mission goals were long term human physiology in microgravity. And Solar observation. One of the results of Solar observations was that solar output was increasing causing the atmosphere to expand. This expansion also contributed to Skylabs orbit decaying faster than expected. Also Skylab was originally supposed to have a maneuvering section but Congress axed it.
I can remember my climatology professor in college explaining that the smog (pollution) in the Los Angeles basin had more to do with geography than it did with automobiles. It seems that even 300-400 years ago, that region was called "the valley of the smokes" by the indigenous people because the smoke from their campfires would rise from 500 to about 1,000 feet, and just stay there, due to the natural atmospheric inversion in the valley. In his words, "Some areas are just prone to smog, and some will never have smog." But still, people move to the desert, and then complain about the heat. 🤣
Remove the Sun we freeze. Remove CO2 we freeze. IPCC has also stated that Climate Change is an excellent opportunity for Wealth Re distribution.
Remove CO2 nothing will happen.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and 6 decades ago it was just under 0.03% of the atmosphere.
I think we are hovering around 422PPMv (Parts Per Million by volume) of CO2 in the atmosphere (in the northern hemisphere)
In millions that would look like this: 0,000,422
As a percentage: 000.0422%
Before the 60s the the estimated CO2 concentration was 280ppmv.
If we had removed the 0.028% of CO2 which as far as we know would be basically 100% of CO2 [back in the 60s], you think the world would "freeze"?
This isn't how gasses work.
[The same could be said if we removed all CO2 from the atmosphere now even by volume. Just jettison the CO2 this time *INCLUDING* the volume of the atmosphere that the current 422PPMv represents, into space, the temperatures at the surface wouldn't decrease by much.]
@@VariantAEC Remove CO2 and this planet will die very quickly.
All plant life is 100% dependent on CO2 whereby chlorophyll and sunlight (photosynthesis) split the CO2 into carbohydrates from carbon and release O2 into the atmosphere. So plants and no oxygen. The estimated minimum CO2 level is 180ppm after which the planet starts to die.
or simple climate change=communism
@@TheTigerOC
That's all well and good, I was pointing out that CO2, strictly as a GHG, is really ineffective.
@@VariantAEC Remove CO2 and nothing will happen? If you call all plant life ceasing to exist "nothing"...
As a suspicious observer I'm loving this one.
Samehere.
Suspicious observer? Suspicious of what? The mainstream narrative, me hopes.
th-cam.com/video/SGv7thKnUjs/w-d-xo.html
Suspiciousobserver
@DOOM GRIFTER there was a super interesting interview between Matthew Lacroix and Randall Carlson where they mention possibility for planet 9 to with its ~13k yrs orbit to cause the sun to go micronova on a regular cycle.
Eyes Open, No Fear
TBH I take all info with a pinch of salt regardless of source, same with Diamond 'Keep Calm it's Boomtime', but if anything 'trust the science' and its cancel culture has taught me in the pandemic it is to keep an open mind...and for starters, I just can't believe there's no solar forcing of the climate. I think things are more complex and interconnected than than we're being told.
Been telling this to people for years.
TH-cam is pushing propaganda below the video, how corrupt it is. Disgusting.
Quotation from Albert Einstein: "Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: It is character."
😀 Thank you for lifting scientists with solid character!
💖 that quotation, glad to see someone else beat me to it.
Aside: The reason that this thought of Einstein's is so little known, is that it is not something he said in public, or even amongst colleagues. It is from a response he sent to a private letter written by a grad student seeking advice.
"When everyone's thinking the same, someone's not thinking "George S Patton. Ask 10 scientists about a highly complex system that isn't political you'll get 20 different answers. The fact that so many seem to be marching to the same drummer, tells you there's a drummer.
If the IPCC experts are now saying that the Sun is not the biggest influencer on everything that happens on Earth, I think it’s fair to totally ignore them & treat them as the fools that are proving themselves to be.
Those IPCC guys are just laughable
They are just bureaucrats. They make decisions in committees.
I'm a ham radio operator.
Solar activity is directly related to radio wave propagation.
The solar cycle in the late 80s and early 90s was the strongest I've ever seen in my decades of being licensed.
THANKS FOR THAT INFO
Solar cycles 21, 22, 23, 24, and the present cycle 25 seem to confirm that
"The sun can explain all of the global warming, or none of it, or somewhere in between." Climate science in a nutshell.
Or a onion
Haha, yep. A lot of ideas all trying to compete in a sea of noise. There is enough noise to allow any hypothesis to compete.
Nope Jack but surely most. Volcanics have an influence as well. All the Gasses given off by the planet play a part in our Climatic temperature changes . Volcanoes and Geothermal Areas effect our planet well beyond man’s industrial footprint, sure we need to clean up our act but we won’t resolve the main climate influencers … unless we seriously want to throw the planet out of whack
If I say that humans cause warming I get to keep my job, be hailed as a hero, and respected by my "peers". If I say the sun causes all the changes I lose my job, be vilified constantly, and rejected by my "peers". Hmmm which should I do???
I remember THAT being the comeback to someone saying something stupid. Put slightly another way: "Yes, No, Maybe So"
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Oh how i wish everyone i know would take the time to watch this. I am fighting a very lonely battle trying to change the beliefs they have aquired off tv and so called climate scientists. Thank you for all you do.
Keep the faith
KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT WE WILL WIN OF COURSE THE SUN IS STILL BUSY
good luck battling the the cult of climate change.
I love this channel. Gives you facts and information instead of ranting. Even admits here that we need to look at the data, not go "aha, the sun is at fault" but instead points out that the information is inconclusive and we can't make massive, incredibly expensive (and wasteful and money-laundering) programs based on incomplete information.
But once money gets involved that's when brains go out the window, sadly.
"brains go out the window," or we could say, "good character goes out the window."
I'm currently reading an atmospheric science textbook from 1979, second edition 1982. It's actually scientific and historical. I'd estimate this started falling out of fashion in the 90s. Even in other topics, I find that science books in the the 70s are the best, and starting around mid- to late-90s everything started looking like they came from a cookie cutter. And that's without politics.
Two reasons I can think of for that are: 1)science becoming popular, allowing more science “fans” in that weren’t gifted in the ability to model reality in their minds, so they just regurgitate 2) politicians realized that scientists were becoming the new arbiters of truth (over priests, etc.)
@@KeithStrang Follow the science!
Yeah, ok, science actually (has to) follows the money just as in even research funds and the "desired results" of those investors, ...
..... but just be a gud boooiiiii now and follow dat science, okeeehhh? ( シ) __
It was before there was money to be made. Read Blood and Gore.
I AGREE 100 PERCENT WITH YOU
As an engineer if I want to bracket the effects of the Sun on Earth's climate I would look what would happen to Earth if the Sun had turned cold like an ice ball; would Earth stay the same, get hotter or get colder.
Then I would do the same if the Sun got 100% hotter.
Of course the argument here is that the satellite sensor got more sensitive over time, tit is a long shot. Now who is the denier.
In my engineering experience sensor get less sensitive with age and not more sensitive.
And the suspicion of this claim is that after that period time the sensor went back to work at the global warmist's desire, huh.
PS. Global warmist: a person must have all of the following traits:
1) An absolute belief that humans are primarily or even completely responsible for causing a mass climate change which will raise the average temperature of the planet.
2) Will not entertain the idea that it is possible that natural phenomena may cause climate change, regardless of any evidence.
3) Believes it is a good thing to throw billions upon billions of dollars at an idea that may or may not work to stop climate change, "just in case."
4) Believes that natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are an indirect result of humankind's actions to cause climate change.
5) Shouts down, puts down, and insults anyone whose beliefs run contrary to their own, rather than having intelligent discourse. A zealot for their cause.
A kindred spirit.
When politicians and bankers started sounding the "climate change" alarms everyone including the scientists and academics should have started questioning the everything on the subject.
Then again when did the bankers, politicians, scientists and other academics solve any problem? Never!
you sir, are clearly an engineer. Your accuracy is uncanny.
I'd add to your list along those lines of our spending billions, that may or may not work to stop climate change - they may in fact make it worse with our obsession with so-called renewables that aren't as "renewable" as they claim to be - given the carbon credits they've already spent in their creation, which is conveniently never factored in - we're to believe these windmills and solar panels just appear out of thin air presumably, and which there's not enough rare minerals in the whole world to meet our future demands.
And) we need fossil fuels to mine and produce them, and with the resulting energy loss due to their inefficiency compared to using the high kilowatt energy source (fossil fuels) - might it be better to simply use the high density fossil fuel energy source in the first place? Even with the massive subsidies renewables are competing unfairly in the market so their real price alludes to their hunger for resources. Solar and wind have their place in certain applications but due to all these factors mentioned they're not going to "save us", we may in fact be wasting a load of time and resources on a white elephant (given they're not very recyclable either).
@markspc1 The people you are alluding to are afflicted with the Climate Delusion. This is the false and delusional belief that mans effects on the earth’s climate are significant and dangerous. They could also be described as primitive Earth worshiping zealots.
The current mean surface temperature of Earth (15 degrees centigrade) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (415ppm) are suboptimal .
A modest increase in both would have the net beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields (main effect) reduced winter heating costs and fewer deaths from hypothermia.
What an absolutely brilliant presentation. Thanks so much, I hope that you can keep them coming.
I saw a newspaper article quoting nasa quite a few years ago which stated that the dry ice caps on Mars were abnormaly shrinking at the same time as earth's ice caps were. This would certainly suggest a solar effect.
This TH-cam video presents nothing less-than reality.
You've got a stray hyphen in there for some reason. It's very humanizing, though, and nobody likes an (edited) tag. :)
@@KalonOrdona2, Spell-check error, but a stray hyphen is better than a dangling participle.
@@reaality3860 "It," the stray hyphen, is very humanizing. Prove to me you know what a dangling participle is.
I do appreciate your drawing attention to potential errors.
While studying horticulture over 20 years ago, the answers which got you and an A+ for why climate changes A: the suns quest for thermal equilibrium
A simple translation of Ronan Connolly’s word salad: “ We didn’t have the data we wanted, so we just made stuff up that agreed with our preconceptions.”
“Averaged out” just the selected peaks or anomalies
The Grant money is to make fluff to support the political argument.
Heck, I was able to see on the Hawaii Observatory CO2 data, that they admitted that during the LOCKDOWNS for the pandemic that there was no perceptible change in the increase in the CO2 levels.
Frustratedly, they admitted that. If you want proof, please go look it up, it is out there. I had the links, but on other computer and they likely still have it on their website.
Yup, this is bogus.
It's good that they're honest about their dishonesty.
Didn't really pay attention did you.
Instead of just videos, the critics should make a detailed data analysis, modelling, and verification and publish this.
And he can't because it's absolute rubbish. His criticism is essentially NOAA has better satellites now than they did 10 years ago and they should abandon all of the new data and keep the old.
He's lying through his teeth.
It is is interesting to hear an opinion that actually considers the fact that the sun may not be a rigidly thermostatically controlled heat source. This idea would appear to be considered a major heresy in modern scientific thinking.
I did calculations years ago (and am currently redoing them) which showed that the difference in energy received by the sun between the peak of an 11-year cycle and its minimal value was on the order of 10.000 times the energy that we humans produce globally.
That's cool man, but I guess you know by yourself that figure doesn't really mean much with respect to climate change. Our energy consumption itself is not the issue. It is rather the by-products like greenhouse gases, but also aerosols that act kind of like catalysts either for warming or cooling.
@@mightymo8351 proofs of what you say are non-existent. It's all null-hypothesis
@@mightymo8351 It's relevant to the discussion where "temperature jumps" are coming from: if it's not from the sun (slowly fluctuating), not from CO2 (constantly rising & ppms very apparently disconnected from all human activity), not from methane etc. & aerosols, and not the direct output from human activity, it must be an energy exchange between atmosphere, sea water, kinetic energy in ocean currents & the polar ice caps. So, yes, a small number but an important piece of the puzzle to make sure we get the complete picture and don't end up with a simplistic belief system again.
@@f.d.6667 sure. Eventually anything can be relevant in case of a complex, nonlinear system. That's why all of these parameters are put into various models that provide respective simulation data. What usually is not done - simply bc. it is not helpful - is stating a relation between two quantities that is supposed to appear as large as possible to ridicule the concept of the smaller one having a considerable net effect at all.
Btw, i am not saying Lokai did that. I don't know what his point was. It just reminded me of this kind of annoying behavior.
@@mightymo8351 "That's cool man, but I guess you know by yourself that figure doesn't really mean much with respect to climate change. Our energy consumption itself is not the issue. It is rather the by-products like greenhouse gases, but also aerosols that act kind of like catalysts either for warming or cooling."
CO2 is not a primary driver for our climate cycles. There is absolutely no proof for that claim.
As with many other things like gender, race, health our biggest problem is that we have a thing called corruption.
If people were true to themselves and others, would honor values like honesty, faith and respected the ten commandments we wouldn't be in such a mess as a society.
Climate Change has become big, big business and there are way to much people, organisations, politicians and commercial companies making big money from it.
Add that to corruption and social media harassment and the picture is clear.
Lets all fly in gas guzzling and CO2 spewing privage jets to Davos - so we can tell all others to use less gas and petrol.......
The Law was not given to us that we might keep it - rather The Law was given to us to show us we are incapable of keeping it.
Tree ring reconstructions of temperatures have a systematic error in them. Tree rings get thicker as the weather in a specific year is warmer, yes, but they also get thicker if there is more CO2 in the air. If a specific medieval tree ring is just as thick as a modern-day tree ring, the medieval one is from temperature alone, while the modern-day is from temperature plus CO2 fertilization effect. So if you calibrate tree ring thickness to temperature, and don't compensate for the CO2 fertilization effect, you get an artificial hockey stick graph in which the pre-industrial era seems colder than it was in reality. I've looked at some published peer-reviewed papers on tree ring reconstructions of the climate. NONE of them compensate for the CO2 fertilization effect.
Tree rings don't get thicker in warm years otherwise they would grow huge during droughts. It's the rainfall and sunlight combined that's responsible for photosynthesis. Warm isn't a factor. Unless you're talking about temps cold enough or hot enough to kill the leaves.
@@woodspirit98 I've taken a look at the various papers that try to reconstruct temperature with tree rings. They straight convert tree ring thickness to temperature. While several other factors like rainfall must play a role, you could argue that many of them middle out over time. But CO2 fertilization does not, as it is known that CO2 now is higher than it was in the pre-industrial area. And it is also known that tree rings grow thicker with higher CO2, although the effective rate may vary.
It's also influenced by how much rain there was in a particular year, but they ignore that too.
In order to determine the climate sensitivity of an Earth like planet to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration you would have to find 100 close earth analog planets and double the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in 50 and use other 50 as controls and observe them for several decades.
With complex multifaceted nonlinear phenomena like the earth’s climate, computer models are a poor substitute for controlled prospective experiments. They reflect the biases and knowledge gaps of the programmers and amplify errors over time.
Tree rings also reflect how much rain falls and snow conditions.
Thank you.
Similar blind spots can be revealed to the public eye in pretty much every politically and financially invested topic.
Relevant factors are being left out of the conversation, leading ever deeper into the pathological behavior patterns that are (too) easily manipulated with.
Maximizing unnecessary risks and destroying the foundations of a functional society (and science).
I find it hilarious that somehow we have removed the sun from the greenhouse effect.
Excellent article John. Really interesting even for a lay person of maybe average intelligence like me. I try to keep an open mind as much as possible, but when politicians (aka Liar's Inc) start refusing to answer any inconvenient questions my natural skepticism just gets a solar powered boost of heat. Keep up the good work done by you and the team.
Little ice age, and medieval warm period, for instance. These are now out of favor. "They were localized" and other diminishers. For 200 years Britan was able to grow grapes and make wine, but not now... and now every dumb storm 8s a sign of human-caused global warming?
Yep. That's called "propaganda".
way back in the '80's i was working on a mathematical modeling project explaining causes of the el nino effect. i graphed all the temperature and drought data from tree rings back to the little ice age and overlayed the sunspot frequency data and there was a near perfect correlation. that doesn't prove causation, but it sure was a good fit!
Correct. This was already done at the University of Arizona way back when I was a teenager. Dr. Damon did this. The connection between Arizona droughts and sun spot activity was very much discussed at the UofA back then. My father was at the center of this discussion being the solar observatory creator on Kitt Peak.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 never heard of it. i guess people can have indepenent ideas.
@@RangerCaptain11A There were no 'climate scientists' back then there were astronomers and geologists who talked with each other and did research.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 right. i was there.
Have a friend working on ENSO, he thinks they have a tidal model, I'm still skeptical. I get a new paper every year or so by someone asking me to check to see if they're right, but when I hindcast they're all just a bit off.
I think he's onto something but there's going to be more to it than overlaying the lunar elliptical cycle.
I think a better word than "feeling pressured" to conform to the IPPC's agenda, I think a better word is boarder line "intimidated"; since IPPC conveniently manipulates conclusions by eliminating some data which indicates a different conclusion. So the big question is: what is the real goal? 99.9% of the time it's power & money consolidation- history bears this out, nobody intimidates somebody to accept the truth, it stands on it's own merits.
Severe repression. Anyone talking about sun spot activity controlling our temperatures is punished.
border* (borderline or border-line)
Sincerely, your friendly-neighborhood oughtto-correct :)
several top scientists who disagreed with the ipcc were purged : chris landsea , nils morner and others . it’s strictly my way or the highway with the ipcc .
'3 Replies' you say, TH-cam. *Where are the other two?*
Anyways:
Brilliant observation. "...nobody intimidates somebody to accept the truth, it stands on its own merits."
As always jon great job. It's amazing how the very thing that generates energy has been dismissed.
" I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned!" : R Feynman
The TSI shown at 5:30 exactly matches the temperature increases and declines given in Environment Canada's Your Environment web site. I've done detailed temperature analysis on a dozen rural locations throughout Western and Northern Canada and the same pattern emerges. Warming from late 1800's through to 1950. Cooling from 1950 to 1970 and then warming again from 1970 until today (although there has been very little warming in the past 10n years).
The sun is going into Grand Solar Minimum so I suspect cooling will be the order for the next 50 or more years. But NASA LOL says cooling will be minimal due to (drum roll) CO2. So ahem are they saying then CO2 is a benefit or bad for not making us freeze to death.
Cooling from 1950 to 1970? I would have thought it was more like 1945 to 1975 or thereabouts.
Let's see, in 2012 we had days where the temp hit 104 degrees, solar mass ejections we were being warned on news, solar flare warnings, communication breakdown warnings, and 2yrs ago we were still getting temps over 100 degrees. 2022 we have yet to have temps over 95 degrees(solar minimum cycle).
TSI isn't everything its only part of the story, there is also the solar wind, CMEs, solar flares, charge particles, magnetic field interactions all this effect our climate but is left off in saying its just the static TSI...
So basically, some of these scientists are pretty much like the accountant-job applicants interviewed by the IPCC, they hired the one that answered the question: 'How much is 2+2?' with 'How much do YOU want it to be?'
There's are no policy changes that can be made if the sun changing brightness is responsible for temperature.
IT ISN'T!
One thing is 100% accurate 100% of the time...garbage in garbage out.
Yes, It is the primary driving force behind our climate.
I once told the IRS I applied a "series of adjustments" to my tax calculations. That was just before I went to prison. Probably just a coincidence.
🤣
You also need to measure the high energy ejections from the sun. CME’s can have immediate impacts on climate, ie: weather
Maybe - but according to what data do you assert this claim? Certainly not something I ever heard about!
I agree, CMEs have a BIG effect on the earth's magnetosphere which in turn effects our jet streams, ocean currents, etc making the weather go haywire! The title "climate change" is absolutely BS trying to add yet another "fear" into society for the benefit of who knows? 04/06/2022
@@bruceblosser384 plenty of recently published papers referenced by SuspiciousObservers - just look it up. Increased intensity of tropical weather systems has been shown to perfectly correlate with the arrival of solar particles, propagation being all but instantaneous.
I was wondering. How do we know that the amount of Co2 in ice cores is actually the same amount that was in the atmosphere?
There are air bubbles in the ice.
Assumed only
@@barryphipps9442 It is measured in the air bubbles, not assumed. BTW, did you vote for Joe Biden ?
good question, we dont, mainly because ice core are the worst proxy for reconstructing co2. Because they are inaccurate and you get means of timesteps of thousands of years preventing you to see shorter time scales changes, that exist, because we see them in reconstructions from stomata of plant leaves, much more accurate and time-precise.
Some stomata reconstruction show spikes of 500 ppm in the 1800s.
Don't look at the sun. Or the surviving Challenger astro nots... Yep - look it up, just not directly with your eyes open..
We’ve been documenting weather for only 300 years or so, so for us to say we understand weather patterns of a planet that’s over 4 billion years old is laughable. As far as we know we’re going through a weather pattern that’s a 10000 year swing
The IPPC is presenting us with a perfect example of Confirmation Bias.
I am thankful for truth from CDN
Me too ! It’s so convenient !
All rise... hymn number 24.
@@Stealthbong so deep
@@anonymous.youtuber love me some koolaid, they give out the best about the 3rd booster
Don't forget that NOAA recently "corrected" decades of temperature data and, by doing so, conveniently made the recent pause in warming disappear.
yes, and somehow, the "scientists" are able to tell me that temperatures from 100 years ago were wrong and it was actually colder than what they reported. Maybe these people own a Delorean or something to "know" this.
@@h.mandelene3279 and where did all the ozone hole data from before 1980 come from? Oh wait, it doesn't exist.
@@stapleman007 Don't know if u r being sarcastic but the fact is that science discovered the Ozone layer in 1957. So because the knew of the ozone layer and hole for about 25 years, they freaked out and said the end was near.
The fact Earth is billions of years old, yet they think they know best because of 25 years of observation. Now they go by CO2 in tree rings when it has been proven in recent years, rings don't necessarily coincide with CO2\heat.
Hey, like the scientist told congress- they don't send him money if he says everything is fine.
Of course, this assumes that the surface temperature record is accurate to begin with (which it's not). The real entertaining part is that no matter what temperatures you plug into their 'correction' algorithm, you come out with a warming trend in the last 100 years.
I'm old and I could swear to seeing the sun change its color since I was a kid from white with a slight buttery yellow tinge, to silvery white with no yellow tinge. I also notice the sun heating surfaces more and becoming more dangerous to be exposed to. Even in recent years hearing about UVC readings which didn't happen in the past. Couple this with changes in the solar system that reflect an increase in solar irradiance, and it adds up.
Air pollution and smoke is the main cause.
Alarmists are willing to deny the existence of the Sun altogether in favor of their arrative
The sun was the one thing that assured me I've been lied to. I stare at the sun as much and as often as I can, they lied to me...
What everyone fails to mention is the amount of energy received by the Earth from the Birkeland Currents that stream in through the poles. These can be seen as the Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis. When they are invisible they are in Dark Mode, when they are visible they are in Glow Mode and you definitely don't want to see them in Arc Mode.
arc mode would be scary as fuk lol, its how (some/all?)mountains and valleys are made...might be seeing that SOON TM ;0
Hilariously TH-cam has a content warning on this video saying the UN only considers climate change is man made caused by fossil fuels
What's that massive thermonuclear reacting ball of plasma in the sky?!?! ... 🤫 Quiet! Nothing to see here. Move along!! ☀️ 🌎
It would be silly to think that the Sun wasn't the engine that drives our climate.
Your statement "it makes the general public suspicious", unfortunately not hardly enough of the general public go beyond what late night entertainers tell them.
Ocean cycles also have a lot to do in this mix, but their changes to climate can occur many years after solar activity as they're a huge buffer and have cycles lasting decades.
No one said that solar variability is the only factor here.
Ah whatever, I'll agree with this only because ocean currents are more largely effected by the topology of the sea floor and the spin of the Earth and less so by temperature.
Even so the oceans at least need to be unfrozen to move and without the heat from the sun much of the oceans could be completely frozen down to the the Marianas Trench (except where immediately exposed to volcanic activity).
I don't think Earth has the mass to have liquid water in our oceans if we were the equivalent of a lightyear away or further from a star like our own sun. As per usual I think when we do land craft on other planets in the solar system, we will discover that cryo-volcanos are powered by regular volcanoes deep under the surface of sheets of ice. Pluto won't have oceans of liquid water only pockets.
That's because of the enormous heat capacity of the oceans and the oscillations.
It’s interesting to note the recent discovery regarding the Sahara Desert’s age. Apparently North Africa was wet only 5,000 years ago. The desert manifested as the Earth warmed up. There is too much money at stake in the carbon credit monetary manipulations.
Those credits are going to be our slaves shackles if the WEF gets it's way. I don't understand how so many people don't realize how much ideological contagion there is in all of this, and how much good old fashioned lust for power. People just keep on thinking it's all dispassionately based on entirely ingenuous, objective "science" and that's that. Disturbing.
Archaeologists were taught this in the 1950/60s as pluvial periods agriculture spread
Another stellar post. ;)
The Sun drives the climate, no change required
Sea level rise is such a worry the rich are buying huge homes on the beach.
You should look into the effect of the strength of the magnetic poles. Supposedly it's weakening and getting ready to flip. And that force shunts large amounts of solar energy out through the poles.
Oh dear, no... Funny thing though, right now the south pole is receiving zero solar energy- where is the energy "leaking out from"?
The earth emits IR just as does every body in the universe based on temperature^4 so the colder regions of the planet have a much lower energy radiation rate than the higher temperature regions.
Oh ... I feel like solar will influence a lot of temperature and we might be better off trying to make energy cheap to weather those changes...
If we're not going into an ice age we're coming out of an ice age
Why does Earth then need to be in the Goldilocks Zone, if the sun has no or very little climate effect, I am asking for a friend.
Answer: Porridge
Cant believe this is even a question
Data integrity is a huge issue, and demonstrates multiple examples of “climate scientists” simply changing the data to match their hypothesis. The Smoothed Sun Spot number being another example where the goal was to erase any link between solar activity and the medieval warm period, and the little ice age.
Proxy measures should never be simply taken as accurate. Especialy when localized measurments are available.
When you only take TSI into account, you are missing the vast majority of energy from the sun.
Over 50% is infrared and isn't that part of Total Solar Irradiance?
@@garyha2650 Sure, but that has as much effect as CO2 in my opinion. When there is a massive amount of energy released from a solar flare, the TSI actually drops. The energy from coronal holes isn't accounted for. The solar wind isn't accounted for. About 90% of the energy the earth and other planets receive isn't accounted for and is then put on the side of AGW.
@@garyha2650 this will help explain. th-cam.com/video/NYoOcaqCzxo/w-d-xo.html
@@garyha2650 no, it’s not 50% infrared. It’s protons and electrons surging into the planet via magnetic flux lines to the sun. It’s x-rays and other bombardment from solar flares. It’s coronal mass ejected at our planet. It’s the solar wind containing every element in the periodic table, and it’s corresponding impact on the magnetosphere. If you look at the TSI data during the last major solar event, it shows a DECREASE in output. Energy from the sun in every measure jumped on orders of magnitude, yet the TSI dropped, leaving US responsible for the effects in “climate models” ASIDE from the sun, our magnetosphere is waning at an alarming rate. This means even the ambient radiation from space makes it deeper into our system as an added, unknown and unaccounted for variable.
Us, our actions and all our CO2 are INCONSEQUENTIAL in the big picture. Sorry if this dents your view of humanity and it’s brilliance.
Welp, the fight is certainly fierce, you can bring some scientific ammunition saying, umm, here, sir, you may use against our enemies? And they slice you in half with their light saber declaring a win :D
the more I hear this stuff, the more angry I get. How can these AGW people get away with these lies?
through sheer repetition of propaganda
Because corruption is on another level nowadays and so systemic that there is no room for real science in mainstream.Powers to be are going to get their agenda moving through this kind of distortions and more we stay passive, the more they advance and truth is getting even harder to see. This is going on globally and almost in every part of society. Open your eyes and free your mind. Its all there to see it. If you dare...
Because billions upon billions of dollars are behind it, the media and entertainment promulgate the narratives, and the sheep get sheared.
The sun is only one part of the story. The other equally important part is what the oceans do with that absorbed energy from the sun. The story is always truly about the solar/ocean connection. That is the primary driver of the climate.
That is true that the sun is part of it, another large part of it is the serious decline of our magnetosphere and the subsequent increase of cosmic rays and radiation from the sun penetrating further into the atmosphere.
This all needs to be documented in a written fashion. Get in touch if you’d like help. - A retired geologist
One thing that I have noticed about the weather, I live in So Cal, it used to be that we would get a 3 week heat wave and then a 3 week break on the weather,(high pressure Zone) and since I work outside heavy construction I was in tune with he weather. The last 10 years it has been Thurs thru Sunday heat wave, Mon thru Weds. break in the heat, and this pattern repeated itself for years. Our heat always starts on July 4 and breaks on Halloween 90% of the time.
To scientissss, is it sun driving the climate?
Answer: it depends
Depends on what?
Answer: on our opinion of the moment!
Depends on who is going to disperse those funding tax dollars. Truth is not the goal. An outcome is the goal.
What I failed to mention in my earlier comment is that the earth's crust itself is affected by lunar gravity tides to a lesser degree than earth's ocean tides, but, because of more precise GPS measurements from improved technology we can now measure earth-tide very precisely. It doesn't take much movement within the crust to generate huge amounts of energy especially around fault lines, even the relatively inactive ones. Therefore the sun is most definitely NOT the only source of energy affecting earth's surface, oceans, and atmosphere. Check out the data (search hard but it's there) yourself. Don't blindly take my (or anyone else's) word for it. Isn't modern "science" indeed locked into an outdated religious stance that it keeps senselessly adhering to? That stance runs deeper and from longer ago than you realize.
True but...the sun is 99% in charge of our climate. No sun, no 'climate' and no 'earth' actually. The sun isn't this yellow ball in the sky, it is GIGANTIC compared to the earth. Sun spots are larger than the earth, a lot larger. The inner planets of the solar system are tiny specks compared to the size of the local star, our sun.
Don't accept the hypothesis supported by observations, modify the observations to fit the narrative. Is PMOD's chief researcher named Winston Smith, by any chance?
The note added to this video by TH-cam is completely false and does not agree with any of the empirical scientific studies on climate.
Simple answer: yes. There are other factors, but the sun is, to put it mildly, a big one.
Obviously the sun drives nearly all earth surface temprature. The lack of sun spots in the last 20 years indicates fewer magnetic storms and lesser solar output. A lack of Sun spots and increased vocanic activity on the earth are attributed to have caused the little ice age and expansion of glaciiers; not humans; . About 1640 these influences reversed and a return tempratures similar to middel ages tempratures was resulting. We cannot predict magnetic storms on the sun nor volcanic activity on the earth. If the earth's atmosphere were represented by a 100,000 seat stadium; CO2 is only 40 seats; of that only 10 or so could be a result of human activity; and even less can be eleminated without signficant impacts on agriculture. Importantly even eliminating these does little to reduce rates of temprature increase over time. So if you are going to ignore the lack of sun spots and insist we cut CO2 - you will achieve nothing; and your doomed. You could put up man made light reflecting material to mimmick volcanic actiity; but what if you then have real volcanic activity? Just let things go and deal with it; that is what humans have survived doing for 50K years.
You got a fact check warning from You Tube! OH no guess who they sent you too? LOL LOL LOL the UN!
Thanks John for a great report. This climate science research by the experts is more like a giant pin the tail on the donkey with a big pot of money to be won. 🤡
....and to believe I once took these Alarmists seriously. Just disgusting.
You can always ask questions about science, you can never question a cult. Whenever someone tries to control you, the first thing you'll notice is that you cannot question their reasons...
Of course it does along with earth's orbit around the sun and the eàrths tilt on its axis
Milankovitch cycles have already been 'discounted' along with solar forcing...
Hi sir and so it goes on , each one trying to out do the other . I am for what it’s worth in your camp , mainly because I feel we are a thin occupying presence of the surface of the earth . Yes we clog up the surface with our man made rubbish , but we don’t really have a impact on how we burn or consume it’s recurses . I The debate that has been used by those who would advocate we humans are the destroyers of the planet are at best fanciful and at worst counter productive . The Earth is far greater than we seem able to give credit to , if we set lose the gods of war and embarked on a full nuclear war do we honestly expect the planet to cease to exist . No I’m afraid or pleased to say
the Earth would just continue as always , till it is absorbed by the sun which in turn is absorbed by the rest of the universe . We are not the so called custodians of the planet , no more than the dinosaurs were who as it happened lasted 50 million years plus . Not a bad innings compared to our brief time . No all of you saviours of the planet need to realise the Earth doesn’t need us one way or the other ether with or without it will still continue doing it’s thing , so stop beating your selves up about it and in the process making the rest of our lives a misery .
In addition to cities getting warmer, there was also a total lapse in the monitoring of land use changes in the immediate vicinity of many weather monitoring stations. The lack of action to correct the new improper siting and design of stations was exacerbated by the elimination of the US Hydrologic Research station, located near Coshocton Ohio which had been run bu the US Soil Conservation service; ultimately absorbed into the US Department of Commerce. There is now no agency that could scream foul when the corruption of the US surface monitoring network. We lost a critical resource when the SCS was eliminated.
I must have missed this episode when it first aired. I first saw a video around 15 years ago that compared documented solar activity and the temperatures here on planet Earth. Now…I am older, and this video was too, but back in the day we used clear film and a projector as visual aids for teaching. Well…turns out we could stack out transparencies, and when we did it with earth temperatures and solar activity, the curves were remarkably consistent. When some things are so abundantly clear, and so simple and easy to see, it doesn’t make much sense to continue looking for a different answer. (I did not do this research or make the charts…I just saw them and the subject was sufficiently explained. Some things just make sense, and some don’t. )
My first memory is the sun in my eyes on a train and self educated in the practical usage from the early 70's. I've always heard that the sun hardly changes if at all through its cycles yet intuitively I thought the idea ridiculous. I guess I'm one who doesn't see the fence, it is hard not to consider that every fossil fuel that we extracted we burned. During the video I was perplexed as if no one ever thought that the sun might change, I have been dropped off on the wrong planet. I have done extensive research of mythology looking for a connection to the Younger Dryas Impacts Theory and it is there bigger than Dallas-Fort Worth. It has taught me that scientists have agendas, it is truly amazing from the head archeologist at Gobekli Tepe telling me there are no seven birds in a row at the site to another about how the Taurid Stream moves around the ecliptic, and an astrophysicist that thinks that the speed of our orbit is the causation of shooting stars from meteor stream debris, just static and in the way! I'm really starting to realize that the vast majority of people are corrupt, take the pollution problem back when I was a kid as an example. And they must be psychologically messed up and stuck in high school games, maybe it was all those years working solo... One thing is for sure, 'they' figured out that it is easy to sway the majority. This carbon credit thing is a shell game, btw. Try explaining impact winters to experts in solar worship, they only see diurnal and seasonal, when the universal traditions clearly show long periods of darkness as in ages of man or suns for the Mesoamericans.
IF the moon can effect tidal paterns ...and it does ...it makes sense that the sun affects the planet as well
I don't consider myself that smart...almost stupid really but i never fall for any bs like climate change, pandemic and whatever else this govt says.
Scientists feel the pressure to conform, otherwise they will be canceled. Same thing happen with the eugenics and the scientists that opposed it.
When global warming and cooling has happened several times before. It's hard to blame climate change on human pollution. It's good we try to clean up. But there are so many environmental extremists who get support by governments. Let's keep things sane.
Obviously, the answer is yes! We are all just along for the ride.
There are so many factors that can cause a global change in temperature. It's just impossible to find out, which factor is most responsible. In order to find this out, we need to switch of all the factors and switch them back on, one by one. Which is not possible.
Do you really expect people who can't tell the difference between men and women to be able to understand this video?
If the sun has been truly in decline since the 70's we would be feeling chilly and the government would be banning white paint.
OK without the sun what would the climate be..?
Anti establishment? Got my vote!