At a panel of experts in the US Congress on climate change, a farmer asks a simple question: What % of the atmosphere is CO2? The panelists panic and start babbling like school children:
- 5%?
- I will follow you: 5%?
- 7%?
- 8%?
- 5%?
- I will follow you: 5%?
- 7%?
- 8%?
The farmer says the exact figure: 0.04%. And that it has increased from 0.03% in a few decades.
To be more exact, the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 0.042% and has increased by 0.01% in the last 60 years (from 0.032%).
To be more exact, the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 0.042% and has increased by 0.01% in the last 60 years (from 0.032%).
The reality is that no one has explained what is the physical mechanism by which a trace increase, 0.000167% per year, for which man is responsible for 5%, 0.000008% /year, of a gas that is already an atmospheric trace, can cause global warming.
MEPs & MPs of all countries should ask this simple question: Is there any paper that scientifically proves that an increase of 0.000167% /year, of which man is responsible for only 0.000008% /year, of a gas that is an atmospheric trace, can cause global warming?
It doesn't exist
It doesn't exist
This does not mean that there is no global warming, which is evident at least locally, as in the mountains of central Spain (close to Madrid, but far to the northwest, where the winds come from and therefore far away from the city effect).
“No one has ever proven that CO2 human emissions drive global warming. If so, it would also have to be shown that natural CO2, 97% of total, don’t drive global warming. There would be endless citation. Instead, there is obfuscation and deafening silence.”
quadrant.org.au
quadrant.org.au
Sources:
CO2 increase of 0.01% in 60+years, from 320 ppm to 417 ppm (from 0.032% to 0.0417%)
gml.noaa.gov
Human emissions reduction of ~5% during pandemic:
weforum.org
Human emissions ~4% in the carbon cycle:
#Fast_and_slow_cycles" target="_blank" rel="noopener" onclick="event.stopPropagation()">en.wikipedia.org
essd.copernicus.org
CO2 increase of 0.01% in 60+years, from 320 ppm to 417 ppm (from 0.032% to 0.0417%)
gml.noaa.gov
Human emissions reduction of ~5% during pandemic:
weforum.org
Human emissions ~4% in the carbon cycle:
#Fast_and_slow_cycles" target="_blank" rel="noopener" onclick="event.stopPropagation()">en.wikipedia.org
essd.copernicus.org
Central England Yearly Average Temperature 1678-2022 (Celsius degrees):
Between 1698 and 1736, in 38 years, 10y avg temperature went up 2.06 degrees, without industry CO2.
Between 1987 and 2022, in 35 years, 10y avg temperature went up 1.27 degrees, due to industry CO2?
Between 1698 and 1736, in 38 years, 10y avg temperature went up 2.06 degrees, without industry CO2.
Between 1987 and 2022, in 35 years, 10y avg temperature went up 1.27 degrees, due to industry CO2?
Red curve: CO2 concentration from Antarctic cores.
Black curve: Temperature from 72 proxies published in a famous 2013 Science paper for the past 11k years
science.org
Data are expressed in standard deviations from the average for each proxy. There is no correlation.
Black curve: Temperature from 72 proxies published in a famous 2013 Science paper for the past 11k years
science.org
Data are expressed in standard deviations from the average for each proxy. There is no correlation.
There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature also in a broader picture
Source: Javier Vinós: Searching for Natural Climate Change | Tom Nelson Podcast #70
youtu.be
Source: Javier Vinós: Searching for Natural Climate Change | Tom Nelson Podcast #70
youtu.be
Andy May: "The Northern Hemisphere (NH) cooled much more than the rest of the world during the Holocene"
Source: clintel.org
Source: clintel.org
“If we spent $50 tr to become CO2 neutral by 2050 in the USA, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” “You don't know do you? You just want us to spend $50 tr, and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce temperatures.
Niels Bohr Institute. Reconstruction of Greenland temp over the last 8k years based on the ice core. For thousands of years temp was 2.5 higher than today. "We have started to measure the temperature at the coldest time in the last 8000 years"
See video: youtu.be
See video: youtu.be
The Niels Bohr Institute belongs to the University of Copenhagen. It focuses on scientific investigations in geophysics, particle physics, quantum mechanics, biophysics, and nanotechnology. It was founded in 1921 by Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize winner, father of quantum physics.
The Institute has recently reconstructed (again) the Greenland temperatures of the last 10,000 years, analyzing its 3 kilometers of ice sheet. Like sedimentary layers, each ice layer contains a lot of information about the past.
Each ice sheet is a fairly accurate sample of the temperature and atmospheric composition (CO2, etc.) that existed when the snow fell. Atmospheric and climatic conditions can be reconstructed for a period of up to 120,000 years.
The Institute has reconstructed the temperature of Greenland during the current geological era, the Holocene (last 10,000 years). The Institute lays out its findings in this video released in 2022, but not widely distributed until now.
The summary is that, for three thousand years until ~5,000 years ago, the temperature remained 2.5 degrees above today. Then the temperature began to drop until around the 1st century BC, when it began to rise progressively.
It reached its next peak around the year 1000. It then declined again, and by 1250 it reached one of the Holocene lows.
The period between the year 0 (birth of Jesus Christ) and 1250 is the so-called Medieval Warming. Around the year 1000 the temperature was such that the Vikings settled in Greenland (hence the name Greenland). They grew cereals and many other things.
The temperature there then was on average at least 1.5 degrees higher than today (after current warming). When the temperature began to drop, the Vikings left Greenland around 1200. Those who did not leave Greenland died.
Greenland's temperature again rose vertically for a brief period between ~1660 and 1740 (these inferred ice measurements match the longest historical series of temperatures recorded with real thermometers in central England - see graph above in the thread)
The temperature then dropped again, reaching a 10,000-year low around 1875.
This Holocene minimum in the 19th century has been confirmed not only in Greenland, but in multiple sites in the northern hemisphere, from China to Spain and North Africa, through temperature reconstructions by different methods, carbon 14 measurements, stalactites, photos, etc.
The Niels Bohr Institute explains in its video that, indeed, there has been and is having a significant increase in temperatures during the 20th and 21st centuries, but that we are still 2.5 degrees below the temp that existed at the time of the sumerians, and 1,5 below medieval.
"The problem - he concludes - is that we are doing a very bad experiment: we have started to measure the temperature at the coldest moment in the last 10,000 years, so it is extremely difficult to know if the current warming is due to man or due to to natural processes."
Therefore, the statement that the temperature has never been as high as it is today is not true. And in view of the temperatures in Greenland and England, it is also not true that never in recent history has the temperature risen as fast as it does today.
Complex and chaotic systems like the weather are equivalent (metaphorically) to the movement of the ball in a soccer game: no one in their right mind can predict at the beginning of the game where the ball will be on the pitch in the 18th or 73rd minute.
The climate change alarmists want us to believe not only that the cause of the current warming is "undoubtedly" man, without giving the context, but also that their apocalyptic predictions, that lacks scientific basis, about evolution over the next hundred years are correct.
And of course they want to convince us without disclosing the long historical series of temperature, obtained by researchers. The clear strategy is to once again feed anxiety and the state of fear of society, to impose its agenda (starting with higher taxes and... fewer children)
Be that as it may, as public opinion tends to confuse climate with the environment, we can take advantage of the current quasi-religious "crusade" that is being imposed on us against climate change to make society aware of the importance of preserving biodiversity.
It is imperative to improve our production systems to reduce pollution, not in terms of CO2 emissions, but of other gases, chemical residues and pesticides that are very harmful to biodiversity (CO2 is not) and have nothing to do with the climate.
But we cannot accept false arguments such as the reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to fight the battle for biodiversity. In any field, the resort to lies, insistently and obfuscating any other testimony, demonstrates the existence of a hidden agenda.
Society is perfectly capable of understanding that satraps like Saddam Hussein must be overthrown without embarrassingly lying about their alleged weapons of mass destruction...
Below is some historical anecdotal information from Madrid that is consistent with the statement of the Neils Bohr Institute that, beginning to measure the temperature at the end of the 19th century, we have begun to measure it at the coldest moment in the last many centuries:
In the 16th century, the kings of Spain organized ice skating sessions in Madrid, in the Casa de Campo ponds. The scenes were similar to Flemish winter pictures in Bruges or Ghent. And in the 19th century the king Alfonso XII built the Casa de los Patines.
lacasadecampo.es
lacasadecampo.es
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, creator of the campaign against whaling in the 70s (a program that managed to put an end to this practice), explains that current climate change is not due to man, and contextualizes the increase in temp and CO2 youtu.be
Professor William Happer (Princeton): "For most of geological history CO2 levels have been 2x/3x higher than today." (…) "A 100% increase in CO2 [achievable at the current rate in about a hundred years] only decreases radiation from Earth to space by 1%."
youtu.be
youtu.be
Loading suggestions...