Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Ocean Heat Source 05: Adiabatic compression doesn’t explain the deep ocean warming observation. Test type: Empirical, an audit of the Johnson 2026 data product and calculation workflow. The idea is basically this..as water sinks, the pressure rises and warms its in situ temperature a little, even without adding heat....

stephXskystory's profile picture

Stephanie Buchanan

2,236 subscribers

25,660 views • 20 hours ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

A peer-reviewed study finds that most of the temperature rise observed over the past century in the US isn't from greenhouse gases, but instead from roads, buildings and parking lots. By comparing raw US temperature data from stations in areas with different population densities, the study found that 65% of the warming since 1895 is explained by the urban heat island effect, and another 8% by urban growth into once-rural areas. That's nearly three quarters of the warming, with no CO2 involved. Crucially, NOAA's adjusted data hides this effect. Homogenization smooths it out, a process the study's author, Dr Roy Spencer, calls "urban blending." It's not "global warming," it's urbanization.
0:44

A peer-reviewed study finds that most of the temperature rise observed over the past century in the US isn't from greenhouse gases, but instead from roads, buildings and parking lots. By comparing raw US temperature data from stations in areas with different population densities, the study found that 65% of the warming since 1895 is explained by the urban heat island effect, and another 8% by urban growth into once-rural areas. That's nearly three quarters of the warming, with no CO2 involved. Crucially, NOAA's adjusted data hides this effect. Homogenization smooths it out, a process the study's author, Dr Roy Spencer, calls "urban blending." It's not "global warming," it's urbanization.

Electroverse

32,691 views • 9 days ago

The Guardian claims ocean warming is causing a 'staggering' collapse in marine life, but the study it cites actually shows the opposite. When a year is warmer, fish biomass is found to increase - by as much as 24%. When years turn colder, biomass falls - by around 15%. That is the observed data. To preserve the climate narrative, however, the authors then abandon real year-to-year results and switch to a modeled decadal trend. The model assigns warming a negative effect and reports a decline. That decline is not observed. It is modeled. The authors go on to admit they cannot separate temperature effects from overfishing, which is the primary, well-known driver of fish declines worldwide. Since fishing pressure is not included, the model loads losses onto temperature by default. Even though, as per the study's own data, warmer years mean more fish. The collapse exists only in the model. And the headlines.
0:50

The Guardian claims ocean warming is causing a 'staggering' collapse in marine life, but the study it cites actually shows the opposite. When a year is warmer, fish biomass is found to increase - by as much as 24%. When years turn colder, biomass falls - by around 15%. That is the observed data. To preserve the climate narrative, however, the authors then abandon real year-to-year results and switch to a modeled decadal trend. The model assigns warming a negative effect and reports a decline. That decline is not observed. It is modeled. The authors go on to admit they cannot separate temperature effects from overfishing, which is the primary, well-known driver of fish declines worldwide. Since fishing pressure is not included, the model loads losses onto temperature by default. Even though, as per the study's own data, warmer years mean more fish. The collapse exists only in the model. And the headlines.

Electroverse

13,304 views • 5 months ago

Elon Musk: You can transform Mars into an Earth-like planet, just warm it up. There’s a fast way and a slow way. The fast way is to drop thermonuclear weapons over the poles Mars is cold and hostile because it lacks a thick atmosphere. To make it more Earth-like, the first requirement is simple in theory: warm the planet. If enough heat is added, frozen carbon dioxide at the poles could sublimate into the atmosphere, increasing pressure and strengthening the greenhouse effect. This could trigger a feedback loop where warming releases more gas, leading to further warming.
0:24

Elon Musk: You can transform Mars into an Earth-like planet, just warm it up. There’s a fast way and a slow way. The fast way is to drop thermonuclear weapons over the poles Mars is cold and hostile because it lacks a thick atmosphere. To make it more Earth-like, the first requirement is simple in theory: warm the planet. If enough heat is added, frozen carbon dioxide at the poles could sublimate into the atmosphere, increasing pressure and strengthening the greenhouse effect. This could trigger a feedback loop where warming releases more gas, leading to further warming.

SMX 🇺🇸

370,895 views • 7 months ago

THE CORRELATION OF TEMPERATURE TO CO2 IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE ARE TOLD: TEMPERATURE CHANGE LEADS TO CO2 CHANGE, NOT VICEVERSA: CO2 lags earth temperature changes by 800 years, not the other way round. The CO2 causing Climate Change narrative is a hoax, climate change causes CO2 change instead, because it is emitted by the ocean, which acts as a temperature dependent carbon sink. SCIENTIFIC PROOF CO2 IS NOT THE CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III | Science "We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
2:19

THE CORRELATION OF TEMPERATURE TO CO2 IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE ARE TOLD: TEMPERATURE CHANGE LEADS TO CO2 CHANGE, NOT VICEVERSA: CO2 lags earth temperature changes by 800 years, not the other way round. The CO2 causing Climate Change narrative is a hoax, climate change causes CO2 change instead, because it is emitted by the ocean, which acts as a temperature dependent carbon sink. SCIENTIFIC PROOF CO2 IS NOT THE CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III | Science "We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."

Robin Monotti

112,709 views • 1 year ago

Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist and WEF agenda contributor: "And so often when I speak of climate change, I don't call it global warming, because as individuals, we don't experience the average temperature of the planet. But what I do call it is global weirding." "Because wherever people live, they recognize that something is weird. You can talk to almost anyone. can say, if you live here, do you feel the weather is weird? And they will say yes. Scientists have predicted this. We've known for a long time that climate change is loading the weather dice against us." "We've known that as the average temperature of the planet increases, heat waves will become more intense, the heat wave season will be extended. Heavy downpours will become more frequent, and flood risk will increase in many places." "The intensity of tropical storms, including cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, will increase. And droughts, like the one being experienced in Syria right now, which would not be a drought if it were not for human-induced warming, would become more intense."
0:57

Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist and WEF agenda contributor: "And so often when I speak of climate change, I don't call it global warming, because as individuals, we don't experience the average temperature of the planet. But what I do call it is global weirding." "Because wherever people live, they recognize that something is weird. You can talk to almost anyone. can say, if you live here, do you feel the weather is weird? And they will say yes. Scientists have predicted this. We've known for a long time that climate change is loading the weather dice against us." "We've known that as the average temperature of the planet increases, heat waves will become more intense, the heat wave season will be extended. Heavy downpours will become more frequent, and flood risk will increase in many places." "The intensity of tropical storms, including cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, will increase. And droughts, like the one being experienced in Syria right now, which would not be a drought if it were not for human-induced warming, would become more intense."

Camus

50,067 views • 11 months ago

Professor Emeritus Dr. Ian Plimer calls it "the great CO2 fraud." For decades we have been told that human CO2 drives global warming but Plimer points out: "No one has ever demonstrated that human emissions drive temperature." Ice cores show the opposite of the narrative. "Temperature rises first," says Plimer, "and only centuries later does CO2 follow." For more than 200 years chemistry has shown that CO2 is the gas of life, not a pollutant and not a threat. The planet is far greener today because of higher atmospheric CO2 levels, and crop yields are breaking records. According to Plimer 'runaway warming' is not science, it is propaganda built on inversion and fear.
0:39

Professor Emeritus Dr. Ian Plimer calls it "the great CO2 fraud." For decades we have been told that human CO2 drives global warming but Plimer points out: "No one has ever demonstrated that human emissions drive temperature." Ice cores show the opposite of the narrative. "Temperature rises first," says Plimer, "and only centuries later does CO2 follow." For more than 200 years chemistry has shown that CO2 is the gas of life, not a pollutant and not a threat. The planet is far greener today because of higher atmospheric CO2 levels, and crop yields are breaking records. According to Plimer 'runaway warming' is not science, it is propaganda built on inversion and fear.

Electroverse

27,231 views • 4 months ago

Professor Emeritus Dr. Ian Plimer: The Great CO₂ Fraud Dr. Ian Plimer dismantles the core myth of climate alarmism — that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. He argues that no one has ever demonstrated this causal link. If CO₂ truly drove temperature, then why do the 97% of natural emissions not cause the same effect? Plimer calls it what it is: a scientific fraud from day one. For over two centuries, chemistry has shown that CO₂ is the “gas of life,” not a pollutant or planet-killer. Ice core records reveal that temperature rises first, and only centuries later, CO₂ levels follow — proving the inverse of the mainstream narrative. According to Plimer, the story of “runaway global warming” is not science — it’s propaganda built on inversion and fear.
1:10

Professor Emeritus Dr. Ian Plimer: The Great CO₂ Fraud Dr. Ian Plimer dismantles the core myth of climate alarmism — that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. He argues that no one has ever demonstrated this causal link. If CO₂ truly drove temperature, then why do the 97% of natural emissions not cause the same effect? Plimer calls it what it is: a scientific fraud from day one. For over two centuries, chemistry has shown that CO₂ is the “gas of life,” not a pollutant or planet-killer. Ice core records reveal that temperature rises first, and only centuries later, CO₂ levels follow — proving the inverse of the mainstream narrative. According to Plimer, the story of “runaway global warming” is not science — it’s propaganda built on inversion and fear.

Camus

19,003 views • 9 months ago

Here's Elon Musk explaining how we could warm up Mars. “Nuking Mars, I was a little flippant about that. But I think it's a really decent idea. It's hard to convey in 30 seconds on The Late Show. The sun is a nuclear explosion, a fusion explosion. So if you wanted to add energy to Mars, to warm it up, the source of almost all energy in the universe is fusion. What I was really talking about is creating two little suns, two pulsing suns above the North and South Pole of Mars. That would warm the poles up enough so that the frozen CO2 would gasify and densify the atmosphere. Some of the water would also heat up, and you'd have more water vapor and CO2 in the Martian atmosphere, which in that case is good because the CO2 ends up warming Mars up. And so you get a positive cycle of warming on Mars.” Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit, October 8, 2015.
1:03

Here's Elon Musk explaining how we could warm up Mars. “Nuking Mars, I was a little flippant about that. But I think it's a really decent idea. It's hard to convey in 30 seconds on The Late Show. The sun is a nuclear explosion, a fusion explosion. So if you wanted to add energy to Mars, to warm it up, the source of almost all energy in the universe is fusion. What I was really talking about is creating two little suns, two pulsing suns above the North and South Pole of Mars. That would warm the poles up enough so that the frozen CO2 would gasify and densify the atmosphere. Some of the water would also heat up, and you'd have more water vapor and CO2 in the Martian atmosphere, which in that case is good because the CO2 ends up warming Mars up. And so you get a positive cycle of warming on Mars.” Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit, October 8, 2015.

ELON CLIPS

42,068 views • 1 month ago

ABC News’ chief meteorologist, Ginger Zee, had an interesting skit last week on adjustments made to U.S. temperature data by government scientists. 💬 “They change and adjust things all the time, but they don’t hide any of that. They do it because that is how you do science.” And, that is somewhat true, although I do take issue with her statement “That is how you do science.” That is very broad and ambiguous, and not always the case. Sometimes, it’s necessary for scientists to make adjustments to data for quality control purposes. For example, you cannot fairly compare the raw number of named tropical storms or hurricanes in the Atlantic basin last year to the total count in 1851 when the HURDAT2 record begins because a lot of storms that either didn’t make landfall or steamroll unfortunate ships that crossed in their path were missed before we had satellite monitoring. So, scientists have to adjust counts in the past upward with a “best guess” so that a fair comparison can be made to recent tallies. And, with the urban heat island effects, the changes in instrumentation with time and station location changes, it is very reasonable to assume that adjustments need to be made to temperature data as they can introduce spurious trends in the time series. Ginger Zee does make it a point to emphasize that later in the ABC News segment. The adjustments to temperature data, however, are what is responsible for almost all of the observed warming since 1895 in the U.S. While I’m not convinced that “fraud” is going on, I’m also not convinced that their “pairwise homogenization” scheme removes the urban heat island effect from the GHCNd data, or even documented warming from increased population density in rural areas, which may explain most of the warming both in the U.S. and globally as opposed to radiative forcing from carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Dr. Roy Spencer makes a good case for this here, and as of last year, was writing a paper on it with colleagues Dr. John Christy and Dr. Danny Braswell. I don’t think it has yet been published, as I can’t find it online. But, here’s a blog article from Spencer’s site detailing their work and preliminary findings. 🔗 I too, plan to look into this soon.
1:09

ABC News’ chief meteorologist, Ginger Zee, had an interesting skit last week on adjustments made to U.S. temperature data by government scientists. 💬 “They change and adjust things all the time, but they don’t hide any of that. They do it because that is how you do science.” And, that is somewhat true, although I do take issue with her statement “That is how you do science.” That is very broad and ambiguous, and not always the case. Sometimes, it’s necessary for scientists to make adjustments to data for quality control purposes. For example, you cannot fairly compare the raw number of named tropical storms or hurricanes in the Atlantic basin last year to the total count in 1851 when the HURDAT2 record begins because a lot of storms that either didn’t make landfall or steamroll unfortunate ships that crossed in their path were missed before we had satellite monitoring. So, scientists have to adjust counts in the past upward with a “best guess” so that a fair comparison can be made to recent tallies. And, with the urban heat island effects, the changes in instrumentation with time and station location changes, it is very reasonable to assume that adjustments need to be made to temperature data as they can introduce spurious trends in the time series. Ginger Zee does make it a point to emphasize that later in the ABC News segment. The adjustments to temperature data, however, are what is responsible for almost all of the observed warming since 1895 in the U.S. While I’m not convinced that “fraud” is going on, I’m also not convinced that their “pairwise homogenization” scheme removes the urban heat island effect from the GHCNd data, or even documented warming from increased population density in rural areas, which may explain most of the warming both in the U.S. and globally as opposed to radiative forcing from carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Dr. Roy Spencer makes a good case for this here, and as of last year, was writing a paper on it with colleagues Dr. John Christy and Dr. Danny Braswell. I don’t think it has yet been published, as I can’t find it online. But, here’s a blog article from Spencer’s site detailing their work and preliminary findings. 🔗 I too, plan to look into this soon.

Chris Martz

20,230 views • 1 year ago

"The whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing," Dr. Willie Soon told Tucker Carlson. He says he's 90% sure the sun, not carbon dioxide, is causing climate change and that the climate czars are so out of their minds that they are misleading the public. "I really find that the whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing, which means we should do nothing about it. Just go on and live life and adapt to it." This message will never make the TV news. You should probably share it for others to see.
1:35

"The whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing," Dr. Willie Soon told Tucker Carlson. He says he's 90% sure the sun, not carbon dioxide, is causing climate change and that the climate czars are so out of their minds that they are misleading the public. "I really find that the whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing, which means we should do nothing about it. Just go on and live life and adapt to it." This message will never make the TV news. You should probably share it for others to see.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

776,452 views • 2 years ago

🚨 CLIMATE SCIENTIST REVEALS THE TRUTH! 🌍 CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PROBLEM…“In my training carbon dioxide and it’s rise or fall could explain everything that had EVER happened in our climatic history!”. The truth is that carbon dioxide has a logarithmic relationship with temperature, and as CO2 increases it has LESS of a warming effect. We are already at 99% of its saturation point, which means no matter how much more carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere, the Earth will NOT warm significantly in response. This makes the man-made climate argument, frankly, fall on it’s arse 🫡
0:24

🚨 CLIMATE SCIENTIST REVEALS THE TRUTH! 🌍 CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PROBLEM…“In my training carbon dioxide and it’s rise or fall could explain everything that had EVER happened in our climatic history!”. The truth is that carbon dioxide has a logarithmic relationship with temperature, and as CO2 increases it has LESS of a warming effect. We are already at 99% of its saturation point, which means no matter how much more carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere, the Earth will NOT warm significantly in response. This makes the man-made climate argument, frankly, fall on it’s arse 🫡

Anika

42,475 views • 5 months ago

NASA: Warming Effects of Carbon Pollution Since the 1800s. Wait for it… Since human’s industrialized the Earth has warmed 1.5°C or 2.7°F due to the heat-trapping greenhouse gases released from the burning of fossil fuels, changes in land use, and the feedbacks of both. This may not sound like much, but the living Earth System is just as sensitive to temperature changes as your body. If your body temperature rises 2.7°F, your lethargic. Double that and your life is in danger. That’s where Earth is headed in a few decades if we don’t take collective action to slow it. #climatechange #climateaction #stem #science #Earth
0:24

NASA: Warming Effects of Carbon Pollution Since the 1800s. Wait for it… Since human’s industrialized the Earth has warmed 1.5°C or 2.7°F due to the heat-trapping greenhouse gases released from the burning of fossil fuels, changes in land use, and the feedbacks of both. This may not sound like much, but the living Earth System is just as sensitive to temperature changes as your body. If your body temperature rises 2.7°F, your lethargic. Double that and your life is in danger. That’s where Earth is headed in a few decades if we don’t take collective action to slow it. #climatechange #climateaction #stem #science #Earth

Jeff Berardelli

37,560 views • 6 days ago

Otherworldly? Sounds over the top, but from the perspective of a meteorologist that’s how out of whack this looks. It’s like nothing we’ve seen before in March. It’s so abnormal that the heat dome causing this heat may even break various records (500mb ERA-5 1950-present) for April and May too! It will likely be just as unusual as the bonkers 2021 Pacific NW heatwave. Below is a map from Tomer Burg It shows 850mb (5,000 ft) temperature records. The magenta shows where this heat will break records - Almost everywhere - through early next week. Let’s be clear: A heatwave like this was virtually impossible before global warming. Vast research shows Climate change makes EVERY heatwave more likely, more intense, larger and longer lasting. And these type of previously unheard of events are now starting to become an every few years event.
0:25

Otherworldly? Sounds over the top, but from the perspective of a meteorologist that’s how out of whack this looks. It’s like nothing we’ve seen before in March. It’s so abnormal that the heat dome causing this heat may even break various records (500mb ERA-5 1950-present) for April and May too! It will likely be just as unusual as the bonkers 2021 Pacific NW heatwave. Below is a map from Tomer Burg It shows 850mb (5,000 ft) temperature records. The magenta shows where this heat will break records - Almost everywhere - through early next week. Let’s be clear: A heatwave like this was virtually impossible before global warming. Vast research shows Climate change makes EVERY heatwave more likely, more intense, larger and longer lasting. And these type of previously unheard of events are now starting to become an every few years event.

Jeff Berardelli

66,168 views • 4 months ago

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology has been audited station by station. The report reveals that the agency has systematically erased cooling trends from the historical record, replacing them with synthetic warming. At Rutherglen, Victoria for example, raw data from 1913 to 2006 showed a cooling trend. But the Bureau's adjusted chart flips this into warming. No physical justification, just statistical sleight of hand. Comparisons at Deniliquin also reveals the tactic - how past highs have been lowered to fit the narrative. Minimums from 1910 onward here are reduced by as much as 1.8C. These edits weren't based on new evidence. They were applied decades later by opaque homogenization models. The report's author calls it the rewriting of Australia's temperature history. But it's not just happening in Australia. Climate agencies in the UK and US have also cooled the past so as to exaggerate or even fabricate modern warming trends. This manipulated data is then paraded as truth by politicians and the media with the original measurements buried.
1:05

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology has been audited station by station. The report reveals that the agency has systematically erased cooling trends from the historical record, replacing them with synthetic warming. At Rutherglen, Victoria for example, raw data from 1913 to 2006 showed a cooling trend. But the Bureau's adjusted chart flips this into warming. No physical justification, just statistical sleight of hand. Comparisons at Deniliquin also reveals the tactic - how past highs have been lowered to fit the narrative. Minimums from 1910 onward here are reduced by as much as 1.8C. These edits weren't based on new evidence. They were applied decades later by opaque homogenization models. The report's author calls it the rewriting of Australia's temperature history. But it's not just happening in Australia. Climate agencies in the UK and US have also cooled the past so as to exaggerate or even fabricate modern warming trends. This manipulated data is then paraded as truth by politicians and the media with the original measurements buried.

Electroverse

249,436 views • 1 month ago

Back in 1948, Swedish glaciologist Hans Ahlmann documented warming temperatures and glacier retreat from the late 1800s to the 1940s. He called the retreat "climatic improvement." Finland warmed 1.8C in that period and the growing season lengthened by up to three weeks. It was viewed as beneficial, not a crisis - a natural post-little ice age warming. In 1948, roughly 2C of warming in 50 years was considered a fluctuation and an improvement. In 2026, however, a 1C warm up in 50 years is justification for economy-wide controls, speech restrictions and trillion-dollar climate industries. Ahlmann's work dismantles the modern narrative. The planet has warmed more, naturally, even within living memory.
0:45

Back in 1948, Swedish glaciologist Hans Ahlmann documented warming temperatures and glacier retreat from the late 1800s to the 1940s. He called the retreat "climatic improvement." Finland warmed 1.8C in that period and the growing season lengthened by up to three weeks. It was viewed as beneficial, not a crisis - a natural post-little ice age warming. In 1948, roughly 2C of warming in 50 years was considered a fluctuation and an improvement. In 2026, however, a 1C warm up in 50 years is justification for economy-wide controls, speech restrictions and trillion-dollar climate industries. Ahlmann's work dismantles the modern narrative. The planet has warmed more, naturally, even within living memory.

Electroverse

27,136 views • 3 months ago

The global mean surface temperature today is only about 1C warmer than it was in 1880. This modest rise has been framed as a 'climate emergency,' yet in historical context it is trivial. Global temperatures have fluctuated by more than 10C over natural glacial cycles long before industrialization. Even during the Holocene, recent periods such as the Medieval Warm Period were far warmer than today without triggering catastrophe. The data show no runaway warming or planetary collapse. In fact, historical records reveal warmth is beneficial to humanity and to life in general. This disconnect between reality and the apocalyptic rhetoric exposes the ruse. There is no "climate crisis."
0:42

The global mean surface temperature today is only about 1C warmer than it was in 1880. This modest rise has been framed as a 'climate emergency,' yet in historical context it is trivial. Global temperatures have fluctuated by more than 10C over natural glacial cycles long before industrialization. Even during the Holocene, recent periods such as the Medieval Warm Period were far warmer than today without triggering catastrophe. The data show no runaway warming or planetary collapse. In fact, historical records reveal warmth is beneficial to humanity and to life in general. This disconnect between reality and the apocalyptic rhetoric exposes the ruse. There is no "climate crisis."

Electroverse

32,147 views • 1 month ago

Earth is getting darker and almost nobody is covering it. NASA's CERES satellites have tracked Earth's albedo since 2003. It's fallen from 29.3% → 28.7%. That 0.6% = ~0.5 W/m² of extra absorbed energy. For context, a major extra warming force — and in 2023 it spiked to 1 W/m² above the 20-year average. Why is it dropping? → Arctic sea ice is disappearing → Snow cover is declining earlier each spring → Low-level clouds over oceans are thinning White surfaces reflect sunlight. Dark ocean absorbs it. Every square meter of lost ice = more heat trapped. The feedback loop is the real problem: Fossil fuels → warming → ice melts → albedo drops → more warming → more ice melts It's self-reinforcing. And 2023–2025 shows the steepest drop in the entire record. This chart should be in every climate briefing. Data is public: The planet is losing its sunscreen in real time. #Albedo #ClimateFeedback #NASA #ClimateEmergency #CERES
1:21

Earth is getting darker and almost nobody is covering it. NASA's CERES satellites have tracked Earth's albedo since 2003. It's fallen from 29.3% → 28.7%. That 0.6% = ~0.5 W/m² of extra absorbed energy. For context, a major extra warming force — and in 2023 it spiked to 1 W/m² above the 20-year average. Why is it dropping? → Arctic sea ice is disappearing → Snow cover is declining earlier each spring → Low-level clouds over oceans are thinning White surfaces reflect sunlight. Dark ocean absorbs it. Every square meter of lost ice = more heat trapped. The feedback loop is the real problem: Fossil fuels → warming → ice melts → albedo drops → more warming → more ice melts It's self-reinforcing. And 2023–2025 shows the steepest drop in the entire record. This chart should be in every climate briefing. Data is public: The planet is losing its sunscreen in real time. #Albedo #ClimateFeedback #NASA #ClimateEmergency #CERES

Chris Gloninger, CCM, CBM

36,080 views • 5 months ago

#KeepEyesOnSudan When comparing Khartoum’s average temperatures between 2003 and 2006 with the average between 2023 and 2026, we find the temperature has risen by roughly 0.9 to 1.3 degrees Celsius. That is a striking increase against the levels of global warming, which has averaged about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade since the 1980s. At that pace, the rise of Khartoum’s temperature over the same period should have been only about 0.4 degrees Celsius. Instead, the increase Khartoum has actually recorded is 225% to 325% higher than that—meaning the city is warming far faster than the rest of the world. Many global and local factors lie behind this. But the past three years have brought exceptional conditions driven by the war, which has accelerated several of the local pressures that shape the city’s climate and push temperatures up. The widespread stripping of vegetation, the fires, the shelling, and the decay of the built environment are all unnatural forces that drive nighttime temperatures higher. They disrupt the natural cooling cycle and weaken the city’s ability to cool down after dark. As a result, the land and buildings start each day a little hotter than the day before, and the city wakes every morning to a higher baseline temperature. This builds into a cumulative cycle that makes heat waves last longer and hit harder—with direct consequences for public health, energy use, and water supplies, and a steady worsening of heat stress. This is where the Khartoum afforestation initiative matters. It is not simply a project to beautify the city, it is a new front in the fight against climate change and a effort to repair the urban environment. Studies suggest that expanding tree cover in Khartoum could lower local temperatures by around 3 to 5 degrees Celsius, while also cleaning the air, cutting dust, reducing energy use, helping the soil hold more water, and strengthening the capital’s overall resilience to heat waves. This initiative does not start from scratch. It builds on pioneering youth and community efforts that came before it, such as the “Green Khartoum” initiative and others. The proposed project aims to bring these efforts together under a single coordinating framework, in partnership with the state government, public institutions, the private sector, civil society, and volunteers—turning scattered initiatives into a broad national program to rebuild the capital’s green cover and restore its beauty. And we are coming back to you, Khartoum. Dr. Amgad Fareid Eltayeb
2:55

#KeepEyesOnSudan When comparing Khartoum’s average temperatures between 2003 and 2006 with the average between 2023 and 2026, we find the temperature has risen by roughly 0.9 to 1.3 degrees Celsius. That is a striking increase against the levels of global warming, which has averaged about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade since the 1980s. At that pace, the rise of Khartoum’s temperature over the same period should have been only about 0.4 degrees Celsius. Instead, the increase Khartoum has actually recorded is 225% to 325% higher than that—meaning the city is warming far faster than the rest of the world. Many global and local factors lie behind this. But the past three years have brought exceptional conditions driven by the war, which has accelerated several of the local pressures that shape the city’s climate and push temperatures up. The widespread stripping of vegetation, the fires, the shelling, and the decay of the built environment are all unnatural forces that drive nighttime temperatures higher. They disrupt the natural cooling cycle and weaken the city’s ability to cool down after dark. As a result, the land and buildings start each day a little hotter than the day before, and the city wakes every morning to a higher baseline temperature. This builds into a cumulative cycle that makes heat waves last longer and hit harder—with direct consequences for public health, energy use, and water supplies, and a steady worsening of heat stress. This is where the Khartoum afforestation initiative matters. It is not simply a project to beautify the city, it is a new front in the fight against climate change and a effort to repair the urban environment. Studies suggest that expanding tree cover in Khartoum could lower local temperatures by around 3 to 5 degrees Celsius, while also cleaning the air, cutting dust, reducing energy use, helping the soil hold more water, and strengthening the capital’s overall resilience to heat waves. This initiative does not start from scratch. It builds on pioneering youth and community efforts that came before it, such as the “Green Khartoum” initiative and others. The proposed project aims to bring these efforts together under a single coordinating framework, in partnership with the state government, public institutions, the private sector, civil society, and volunteers—turning scattered initiatives into a broad national program to rebuild the capital’s green cover and restore its beauty. And we are coming back to you, Khartoum. Dr. Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

Amgad Fareid Eltayeb

19,175 views • 1 month ago

Time to tell the truth about the real science. The science behind “climate change” is false. As I point out in this speech the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is incredibly small and is quickly lost via convection (the wind) through the force of gravity. The idea that one CO2 molecule can heat up 10,000 N2 and O2 molecules by 1 degree and then maintain that increase in temperature is false. Assuming equal molecule weights that would require that the CO2 molecule is 10,000 degrees in order to confirm with Newton’s third law of motion or the 1st law of thermodynamics. This is clearly impossible. The temperature of the Sun is 5,700 degrees and the heat inside an internal combustion engine of a space ship is 3,000 degrees. Furthermore gases are terrible conductors of heat so it’s very difficult for gas to transfer heat to other molecules. This science of physics and in particular thermodynamics isn’t being taught in schools. It is allowing the climate alarmists to spread their false narrative about climate change which is being used to waste tens of billions of dollars on renewables which in itself is destroying our environment. Only People First has the technical understanding of the true science of heat - thermodynamics- to destroy the climate debate once and for all.
15:13

Time to tell the truth about the real science. The science behind “climate change” is false. As I point out in this speech the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is incredibly small and is quickly lost via convection (the wind) through the force of gravity. The idea that one CO2 molecule can heat up 10,000 N2 and O2 molecules by 1 degree and then maintain that increase in temperature is false. Assuming equal molecule weights that would require that the CO2 molecule is 10,000 degrees in order to confirm with Newton’s third law of motion or the 1st law of thermodynamics. This is clearly impossible. The temperature of the Sun is 5,700 degrees and the heat inside an internal combustion engine of a space ship is 3,000 degrees. Furthermore gases are terrible conductors of heat so it’s very difficult for gas to transfer heat to other molecules. This science of physics and in particular thermodynamics isn’t being taught in schools. It is allowing the climate alarmists to spread their false narrative about climate change which is being used to waste tens of billions of dollars on renewables which in itself is destroying our environment. Only People First has the technical understanding of the true science of heat - thermodynamics- to destroy the climate debate once and for all.

Senator Gerard Rennick

89,361 views • 1 year ago

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:
2:04

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:

Chris Martz

112,060 views • 2 years ago