I wouldn't call the "Climate Change / Global Warming" a scam it's just some people that have an agenda they want to push, and have decided to make this the statistics that they quote to further their cause. But one thing you never see is the CO2 change expressed as a percentage. Then they would have to say that CO2 increased from 0.0250% to 0.0417%. Not too many people would get too excited about those statistics. But if you say that CO2 went from 250ppm to 417ppm it sounds list a lot, but it isn't really compared to the total. What about Argon?? At 9,340 ppm which is 22 times the CO2 concentration. I guess that doesn't matter, only CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth . .
hm. those scientists are not daft. if one of them proves that global warming is bs, their funding goes out their triice-isolated villa window .they know which side of the bread is buttered.
The difference in this regard is that CO2 belongs to the so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs). Also methane. All those have in common that they can absorb a certain portion of the infrared spectrum. Argon cannot. When doing that they absorb energy (sun) in form of heat since infrared radiation is heat radiation. So far so good. That is scientifically reasonable. But now to derive that CO2 is mainly responsible for the global warming....is merely and simply a hypothesis only. There are enough facts that rather falsify that hypothesis. Two of those facts are that steam is far more GHG and analyses of ice core drilling demonstrate that the temperature raised first and the CO2 level afterwards! This propagates that increase of CO2 is not a cause, it is an effect of global warming. By that the argument of 'it is man made' (anthropogenic CO2 emission) also becomes weaker. Fact is that we have a global warming period. To what extent it is anthropogenic is the question. Do not forget that we also are ATM within a very impulsive sun cycle. Since I live I never saw Northern Lights here with my bare eyes (49th latitude)....until last May.
interesting.the truth is, it even fluctuated over the past millennium; we had that little ice age, which lasted from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century.. so if some demagogue starts yelling that soon we may have to swim for it. i am not over worried.. and apart from that, we mere mortals last only a moment under the sun; compared to the planet. i am 73;my statistical life span ends at 80..we should not start to behave like megalomaniacs; it is ὕβρις, i feel. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris]
To reduce a complex natural matter to one factor and then to politicise it.....this is the way green socialists enforce their narratives and their green idea. They declare one 'evil' and all those fighting against that one evil are 'green' and by that good people. All the others are bad people and they need to be 'enlightened'. We have to decrease CO2, CO2 is evil. Once this has been 'established' companies can jump on this bandwagon. "We have reduced our CO2 emission by x percent"....and by that they sell that as a measure to have saved the environment. Science is far more controversial. It is undisputed that we have global warming. But it is very controversial if you try to figure to what extend it is CO2 related and by that man made. Also those green activists try to sell their idea of what is 'normal'... I mean which average temperature on earth is 'normal'? ...which CO2 level is normal? There are actually other things that are really important: Climate is changing all the time and it ever had! The question is how fast is it changing and can we (humans) adapt to it (in time)? And: Fossile fuels are limited! Can we -as long as they are available- move to alternative energies? It is always a question of how things accelerate and if we (humans) can deal with it.
Very interesting indeed. However my own personal view is it Man Made. (I'm not scientist at all all) Just my Opinion. Cheers Scorpion_Blue
There are even scientists who think that it is man made, you are not alone. As being said it's a controversial topic. And there are different colors of 'it is man made'. A very drastic one: "Without humans there would be no global warming ATM at all...AKA Humans are solely responsible." to "Humans contribute to global warming." Well, my opinion is that natural cycles like sun cycles and Milankovitch cycles are by far more responsible / contribute a lot more to climate than we 'little' humans by raising a trace gas some ppms higher. We pollute our environment a lot that's rather 'our' crime. (Waste in oceans, exploiting nature etc,,etc...)
"Even"? Most scientists and most studies back it up. You can forget about "left/green" - that's science for ya, including the fossil fuel paid studies/scientists who predicted it rather precisely, so the owners buried the report... Now, go nit-pick as to how much it's "us"...
even Zarathustra played with fire, gorski. and prometheus too... and now we got a global warming problem..
No, they don't. It's the same as the COVID vaccine studies, they also really didn't back up what has been said / asserted by a majority of 'scientists'. The biggest absurdity was the assertion that vaccinated people cannot infect others. Those CO2/climate studies are not designed to do so at all. The climate models cannot perform that, they all do not even include steam / clouds to simulate. It's all about the interpretation of individuals. If you take the time and go over such studies you'll get that there is a high statistical uncertainty, because those models are crude. You find conclusions of CO2 responsibility between 10% and 85%, whereas it is not differentiated between fossile CO2 emission and CO2 level in general. No serious scientist would stick to one drastic side (no human influence / mainly human influence) without statistical significance, hence I said "even". Those who are very sure at their opinion are rather politicians. And I see here more bias from the green/socialist side than from the oil lobby since most universities still get funds to support green projects. I bet there will be a cooling period in the future since those natural cycles have far more power than the human CO2 influence.
Same goes for abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution (mutation and selection adding new enough information for biological innovations), etc.
Why do you do that to yourself?!? https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/ Even fossil fuel scientists disagree with that nonsense... https://www.britannica.com/science/global-warming "global warming, the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries. Climate scientists have since the mid-20th century gathered detailed observations of various weather phenomena (such as temperatures, precipitation, and storms) and of related influences on climate (such as ocean currents and the atmosphere’s chemical composition). These data indicate that Earth’s climate has changed over almost every conceivable timescale since the beginning of geologic time and that human activities since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution have a growing influence over the pace and extent of present-day climate change. Giving voice to a growing conviction of most of the scientific community, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), published in 2021, noted that the best estimate of the increase in global average surface temperature between 1850 and 2019 was 1.07 °C (1.9 °F). An IPCC special report produced in 2018 noted that human beings and their activities have been responsible for a worldwide average temperature increase between 0.8 and 1.2 °C (1.4 and 2.2 °F) since preindustrial times, and most of the warming over the second half of the 20th century could be attributed to human activities." https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...xists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause "We know this warming is largely caused by human activities because the key role that carbon dioxide plays in maintaining Earth’s natural greenhouse effect has been understood since the mid-1800s. Unless it is offset by some equally large cooling influence, more atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to warmer surface temperatures. Since 1800, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 410 ppm in 2019. We know from both its rapid increase and its isotopic “fingerprint” that the source of this new carbon dioxide is fossil fuels, and not natural sources like forest fires, volcanoes, or outgassing from the ocean." https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed. “We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author." So, go on, tell us all about it...
As being said. I have made my own research. Besides of that the environment (media / science / politics) is still poisoned as it was at COVID. You cannot expect objective reporting / conclusions nor you can expect unbiased study design. The narrative / interests behind still dominate the output / result. I found values between 15% and 85% whereas without outliers it's about 25-60% This superlative alone should make you being skeptical...from a statistical perspective alone. You only get such a significance when dropping some studies. This is called Gaussian distribution. People should learn from the COVID study interpretation manipulations. AKA 95%+ efficacy and real benefits. I think global warming consists of a natural part and a man made part. The man made part is the smaller part though. The time when the natural part vanishes or turns into the opposite we get a cooling period again. Well, it's my opinion. I don't fall for that 99.9%+ study I always check studies myself as I did at COVID. Focusing on CO2 alone makes people blind. Since then all other factors that have an influence on climate are ignored. Especially steam / cloud formations. Simplifying a complex matter, distilling one evil. Another parallel to COVID is the prediction of an apocalypse if 'we' do not do what the 'enlightened ones' say. Cannot get why people fall the second time..it's the very same mechanism just reappearing in another form. CO2 emission will continue because we globally in summary cannot stop, that is a fact. And guess what? Global warming will stop anyway some time in the future.
how many ice ages and warming has this planet gone through and how many more will it go through in the future without our help ? are we effecting the climate as much as some people imply ?
Look above. If this doesn't make anyone think, then you're following AfD and alike - blindly, to your shame!!! Yen, where are the big studies proving that it's primarily or only Milanković we should be listening to, that it's the "cosmos" that is the "major part"?!? None! You know why? Because there are no absolutes in Science. So, any old fool can try to make himself "notorious" for the hell of it, by misusing Milanković... But guess what: not even the Exxon scientists do that any more!!! So, yeah, sure, there is no alarm at all, just carry on, utterly immaturely, irresponsibly, let's fcuk up this only Earth that we have - for our kids, why don't we?!?
thats more than enough,pinky; look above to where it says serious discussion instead of political discussion yourself please.i really dunno how you manage to confuse the two, considering that you are trained by a scientific university..
Gorski, my opinion about the topic is one thing. What we should learn from it another, not what you think! It is actually NOT different to your idea. We (humans) have to go for alternative energies. 'My' reason is far simpler, we have to go for alternative energies because fossile fuels are limited! It makes no sense to frame me or somebody else who criticizes climate studies the way they are. It is just my opinion. What matters IS what people think is the right way to deal with nature in the future. The question is not what Milanković contributes to it. The point is that a complex matter gets reduced to one factor! The point is that all those models do ignore all natural parameters and cycles (even cloud formations since they are too complex to simulate) which ever were powerful enough to have changed the Earth's climate, especially when Earth was without us all the time. My way of thinking is even more positive and optimistic than those apocalyptic models. We will not manage to reduce CO2 globally in that way those CO2 models seemingly do demand. And if those come true which assign an extreme role to C02 we are lost! The transition to alternative energies has to be made with reason, step by step. And you first have to care for and build the reliable alternative and then one can switch off the original. And to manage the transition to renewable energies we have to do an additional step. Since we do not get nuclear fusion short term we have to research on new fission plants which do not produce long lasting nuclear waste. This also reduces CO2 at first place, since fission plants are CO2 neutral. The transition does not work if people do not or cannot go with it. A brainless transition AKA put solar panels and wind turbines everywhere and destroy all nuclear plants as fast as you can does not work, at least not here in Germany.
It was more than enough from you, noddy, a long time ago - but it doesn't matter to you, so why should it matter to me what you say/want?!? AfD of true left/green?!? Nah, Yen, the difference is OBVIOUS and DRASTIC, in fact ESSENTIAL!!! AfD and learning, taking others into consideration, "brain" as such - oh, please, give me a break... P.S. the debate is not "reduced to one factor" but "focused on the factor WE CAN CONTROL" - OUR IMPACT AND CUMULATIVE ACTIVITY WITH LONG LASTING AND SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES!!! Get it right, FCOL, it's NO GAME!!! P.P.S. I agree re. the nukes, that it was too fast and premature, that we were not ready. But they should be phased out, the way they are right now. Strategically it was/is the right decision, tactically it was played badly...
The 'fact' that one can control a factor plays actually no role. What matters is the role of the factor itself within a complex system. Besides of that it's actually questionable if 'we' can control the CO2 factor at all, my 'name' is not AfD, it's 'Yen'. Even if a particular nation reduces CO2 to the level that is considered to be safe according to those studies, it is pointless as long as the global level does not change.
As Trump says, it is a hoax sponsored by China. They sure ain't cutting their emissions. President Donald Trump states that climate change is a hoax or an exaggeration. Trump claims that China is responsible for creating the concept of climate change to harm the US economy. One area that often gets overlooked is the environmental impact of private jets. Private jets, in particular, are a notable source of emissions. A single private jet flight can produce up to 20 times more emissions per passenger than a commercial flight. The fact that many world leaders and delegates travel to climate conferences like the Conference of the Parties (COP) on private jets has been criticized as hypocritical. The shipping industry is another major contributor to emissions, accounting for around 2.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The industry's reliance on heavy fuel oil (HFO), also known as "bunker fuel" is a significant factor in these emissions. HFO is a cheap but dirty fuel that produces high levels of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. My two cents.