09-19-2018, 02:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2018, 02:32 PM by Steve.)
Understanding the global carbon cycle -
Most CO2 is bound up in Earth’s core, which is why CO2 levels rise when continents move
Mainstream media would have you believe that the fluctuations in the carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are completely man-made. They insist that technological advances as well as overpopulation have driven our planet to a state of crisis – one evidenced by a rapidly warming atmosphere. However, a basic understanding of the global carbon cycle would suggest otherwise. A new study, headed by the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam, has concluded that rifting (the breaking up of the continents) greatly contributes to the higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
10-04-2018, 08:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2019, 11:14 AM by Steve.)
Guess How Much CO2 Humanity Contributes to 'Global Warming'?
(By Makia Freeman)
You would think manmade CO2 output levels must be sky-high, given all the relentless guilt-tripping propaganda we are fed about how humanity is the cause of global warming ......
You would think manmade CO2 output levels must be sky-high, given all the relentless guilt-tripping propaganda we are fed about how humanity is the cause of global warming. The agenda to push AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or manmade global warming started around the 1980s and has been gaining momentum for decades, fooling many people along the way. Yet, despite all the publicity it has gotten, it has still failed to make clear a very fundamental point: exactly how much and what percentage of carbon or specifically CO2 (carbon dioxide) does humanity contribute to the atmosphere? If man is really driving global warming (now conveniently called "climate change"), surely this level must be pretty high or at least significant, right? The answer may shock you ... and give new meaning to the term global warming hoax.
Manmade CO2 Output Levels ... Straight out of the IPCC's Mouth
One of the difficult things about ascertaining the truth in the climate change debate is that there are so many different sets of measurements. Which one do you trust? How can you tell the truth when one side using one set of data to prove its point, and the other side uses another set of data to prove its (diametrically opposed) point?
To bypass this dilemma, we are going to get the figures straight of the horse's mouth so to speak by using data from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The IPCC is not a scientific body as you may imagine but rather a political one with a very clear bias towards promoting AGW and climate change alarmism. It's their job to push the AGW agenda onto the public, even though they disguise that with claims that they "provide rigorous and balanced scientific information." Here's what Wim Rost had to say in his article IPCC ≠ SCIENCE ↔ IPCC = GOVERNMENT:
CO2 in the Atmosphere
Here are the simple facts. Earth's atmosphere consists of the following gases at the following levels:
Nitrogen (N) – 78%
Oxygen (O) – 21%
Argon (Ar) – 0.9%
Trace Gases – 0.1%
So far, so good. CO2 is a gas in such small concentrations that it hasn't yet entered the picture. So, the next step is to break down the composition of trace gases (which are also the greenhouse gases) in our atmosphere:
Water Vapor (H2O) – 95% of trace gases / 0.95% of overall atmosphere
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 3-4% of trace gases / 0.03 or 0.04% of overall atmosphere
Neon (Ne) – 0.1% of trace gases / 0.001% of overall atmosphere
There are also some gases at tiny concentrations, including helium (He), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3), as well as halogenated gases (CFCs) released by mankind which have damaged ozone.
Water vapor is far and away the largest greenhouse gas, but the IPCC chooses to ignore it! Check out these tables below where you can see that water vapor is excluded from the percentages. The IPCC and other AGW proponents claim they need to exclude water vapor from their calculations because it varies so much from region to region. Yes, it does vary greatly all over the Earth, but to just exclude the largest greenhouse gas (and a massive driver of temperature too) from your calculations because it's inconvenient or varies too much is grossly misleading and unscientific.
"IPCC is government and not science. And the workers of the IPCC prepare the work in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the IPCC.
In order to be scientific the scientific method has to be adhered. The use of many scientists to fill important parts of IPCC reports does not mean that everything is science. A report is just a report. In this case, a report from the IPCC. And the IPCC is (inter-) government. Scientists involved can produce their own scientific papers about their own specialised part of science, but a small group of writers writes the summaries and the conclusions – for the IPCC. And IPCC is government.
The IPCC’s stated mission is not to discover what accounts for climate change, but to assess “the risk of human-induced climate change.” Consequently, there is almost no discussion in its lengthy reports of other theories of climate change. Policymakers and journalists took this to mean the AGW theory was the only credible theory of climate change, and the IPCC’s sponsors and spokespersons had no incentive to correct the mistake."
Humanity's Contribution to CO2 Levels
To recap: trace gases are 0.1% of the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide makes up 3-4% of these trace gases, so therefore CO2 is 3-4% of 0.1%. For simplicity's sake, let's call it 3%, so CO2 comprises 0.003% of the atmosphere. That's pretty damn small, but we can't stop there, because the next question to ask is: how much of this is caused by human activity? The IPCC has conflicting sets of data here, but both are within a small range of each other, either 3.0% (using the 2007 figures) or 3.6% (using the 2001 figures).
No matter which set of data you use, the IPCC data shows that manmade CO2 output levels are ~3%. How do you figure this out? The 2001 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (119 + 88 + 6.3 = 213.3) and the human portion as 6.3. Divide 6.3 by 213.3 and you get 2.95%. The 2007 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (29 + 439 + 332 = 800) and the human portion as 29. Divide 29 by 800 and you get 3.63%.
Manmade CO2: 3% of 3% of 0.1%
So here's the bottom line. According to the IPCC's own data, manmade CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth's atmosphere. That's 0.000009%! That's 9 millionths. CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a tiny and insignificant gas, yet somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that is has sprouted into what some state is a US$1.5 trillion industry.
The IPCC Can't Deal with Water Vapor
The IPCC is basically stuck on water vapor. It can't actually measure it, since the variability across the world is so high, H2O vapor changes so quickly, and it takes place above a variety of different landscapes/topographies. There are too many variables to calculate to produce a good model. So it just shuffles it to the side and states it has no "confidence." Here's exactly what the IPCC says:
It doesn't suit the IPCC's agenda to really dive in and better understand the role of water vapor as the key greenhouse gas driving climate temperature. It's far easier to just pretend it doesn't exist and only focus on the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere instead.
"Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes ... because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low."
Manmade CO2: A Massive Diversion
The idea that manmade CO2 output levels is a big problem, in the scheme of all of Earth's eco problems, is a giant hoax. It diverts environmentalists' attention away from the true issues that need addressing. Does it make any logical sense to spend so much money, energy and attention on 0.000009% of CO2, when there are very palpable, tangible and dangerous threats to our environment? What about geoengineering, the aerial chemtrail spraying of barium, aluminum and strontium all over us, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of synthetic self-aware fibers that cause Morgellons' Disease, in line with the NWO synthetic agenda? What about unstoppable environmental genetic pollution caused by the release of GMOs? What about the contamination of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, poisons like dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues? Why are people wasting their energy on 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL issues facing us as a species?
Despite all the politicians, celebrities and soul-for-sale scientists AGW has recruited to its cause, there is no real basis for the fearmongering. At the very top, those pushing the manmade global warming hoax know that's its a scam, so rather than focusing on the facts, they appeal to emotion with fake images of starving polar bears (to arouse anger) and underwater cities (to arouse fear). The truth is that the green movement has long been hijacked by the very same NWO manipulators who helped to ruin the environment in the first place, through their ownership of oil, chemical and pharmaceutical multinational corporations. These manipulators rely on the average person being too busy or lazy to check the facts or think critically. They promote scientific illiteracy via their control of the MSM, the educational curriculum and their numerous think tanks.
Finally – if you dare – dig into the birth of the modern environmental movement, and you may be shocked to find how deeply it is steeped in eugenics and depopulation. It's time to realize that those pushing this gigantic scam aren't interesting in saving the environment – but rather depopulating it.
11-12-2018, 04:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-12-2018, 04:19 PM by Steve.)
Audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors
Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose.
11-15-2018, 10:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2018, 10:20 PM by Steve.)
Man-Made Global Warming is a HOAX - Piers Corbyn 7th April 2018 -
11-18-2018, 10:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-18-2018, 10:46 PM by Steve.)
Serious errors found in widely cited global warming study
- The Facts:
A study claiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed, has turned out to be false.
- Reflect On:
Many scientists within the field have been quite outspoken about the politicization of climate science, and how it's a serious problem. We see it in all fields, like the medical field, for example. Ridicule has been used to suppress discussion.
11-21-2018, 09:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2018, 07:50 PM by Steve.)
Disproofs of Man-induced Global Warming - Natural Climate Change -
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?
New satellite data from NASA show how carbon links everything on Earth -
12-05-2018, 09:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2018, 08:14 PM by Steve.)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (full movie)
The extent of global warming deception
... and the damage is not hyperbole
12-31-2018, 07:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-31-2018, 08:10 PM by Steve.)
Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 12 Years Later — None Happened!
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax...
01-03-2019, 01:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2019, 01:10 PM by Steve.)
01-13-2019, 09:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2019, 06:50 AM by Steve.)
Climate scientist retires, then declares ‘I am a skeptic’ – Offers to debate – Rejects ‘denier’ label: ‘We don’t live in medieval times’ .....
Global Warming Debunked ...
Danish Professor Henrik Svensmark is a leading physicist of cosmic radiation. At the end of last year he made a presentation at the 12th International Climate Conference in Munich, where he demonstrated that the climate is indeed modulated in large part by cloud cover, which in turn is modulated by solar activity in combination with cosmic rays....