Hasnt the Earth already warmed around 1 degree since pre industrial levels and thats without doubling of CO2Sort of , but if 96 % of the green house effect is due to water vapour then the feedback loop of water vapour is 24 times greater than that of CO2.
These Russian Physicists are attempting to explain why the climate models are running too hot and predict a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels will result in only 0.33 degrees of warming( including feedback).
What are the politicians of doom at the IPCC predicting ? 4 degrees ?
We are about half way to doubling , so that would mean less than 0.17 of your 1 degree was due to CO2 and 0.83 was due to natural causes.Hasnt the Earth already warmed around 1 degree since pre industrial levels and thats without doubling of CO2
I don't think there was exponential growth in CO2 in the atmosphere. At best there has been a tiny linear growth. From 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. While that may be a near doubling of CO2, it is still a very very small proportion of the air [0.04 obviously] and if you look at it as a percentage of the atmosphere the increase itself is tiny. The growth has been fairly linear, not exponential.We are about half way to doubling , so that would mean less than 0.17 of your 1 degree was due to CO2 and 0.83 was due to natural causes.
The Little Ice Age (1350-1850AD) was the coldest period of the last 10,000 years - warming started 350/400 years ago , long before fossil fuels went exponential in the 1950's
I don't think there was exponential growth in CO2 in the atmosphere. At best there has been a tiny linear growth. From 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.04%. While that may be a near doubling of CO2, it is still a very very small proportion of the air [0.04 obviously] and if you look at it as a percentage of the atmosphere the increase itself is tiny. The growth has been fairly linear, not exponential.
Natural causes like water vapour you mean ?We are about half way to doubling , so that would mean less than 0.17 of your 1 degree was due to CO2 and 0.83 was due to natural causes.
The Little Ice Age (1350-1850AD) was the coldest period of the last 10,000 years - warming started 350/400 years ago , long before fossil fuels went exponential in the 1950's
and increased solar activity , ocean currents bringing tropical waters to polar regions and reduced albedo due to less snow/ice reflecting sunlight back.Natural causes like water vapour you mean ?
I'm not a fan of Brand but at least he's thinking about stuff and seeking truth. That lady can see what's happening so good on them both for raising it. You can see her frustration with the pantomime show from our leaders. She's incredibly muddled around ruminants but is essentially making the right points, ie ruminants being blamed is fekked up. Loved her comments about our microbiome and the cow's microbiome.
Apart from solar activity all could be caused by an increase in CO2 causing an initial warmingand increased solar activity , ocean currents bringing tropical waters to polar regions and reduced albedo due to less snow/ice reflecting sunlight back.
They are often finding submerged settlements near us in The Solent, which was inhabited and farmed not so long ago. A few days ago, the papers were reporting the discovery of a former" prehistoric community" under the waves.Someone explain
if all these emissions are causing global warming and causing the seas to rise
how come there’s city’s that were built hundreds of years ago underwater and have been for long long time
this would have been a long time before most of the emissions were created
coldest antartic winter recorded this year ?and increased solar activity , ocean currents bringing tropical waters to polar regions and reduced albedo due to less snow/ice reflecting sunlight back.
coldest antartic winter recorded this year ?
Well putYou are right about the hypocrisy and pantomime. You are partly right and partly wrong about climate change, it is indeed a natural phenomenon but human activity is undoubtable having an effect. In the earths timeline our effect may be little more than noise on the graph but we are not a species that live 10,000 years, in terms of changes witnessed within in a human lifetime or two our capacity to impact on climate change is measurable and significant, so is our capacity to limit this change. I don't subscribe to the "they" conspiracies. Those in our government making legislation today are people who by and large have to also live within that same framework long after they quit the political arena. Controls governments ministers choose to impose do not just apply to the plebs but also (by and large) to themselves, to their brothers, sisters, mums and dads, children, grandchildren aunt and uncles Those shouting loudest about climate change are the scientists and researchers, they may have an interest in continued funding but there are plenty of others not receiving any such funding that peer review their studies and agree with the findings. Also lets not get too hung up about the idea of controls. It is right to push back against excessive controls but complex large society can only function when underpinned by a strong and trusted framework of controls. In a capitalist democratic society control isn't all held by a induvial or small group, it is simply part of a system. Everyone in that society is held under some degree of control, all be it that some get away with more than others. When control of a society breaks down it is known as a "failed state", its not pretty, not pleasant and not something I want my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to have to experience.
Our industry is indeed threatened, the link between cow methane and climate change is, at least during the last 30years has been greatly exaugurated by parties that want to end meat production or distract from their own industries growing methane emissions. We have to stand our ground on this.
Your notion that climate change and Covid disappear with we decide is I am afraid much like making the world disappears by covering your eyes, it is foolish childish naivety.
Fossil fuel use in isolation is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in this context is CO2, and there is some contention that even that is less relevant than some alarmists state, who way-overestimate the warming effect as proven by their ridiculously pessimistic projections to date.View attachment 999308
Fossil fuel use went exponential however CO2 in the atmosphere has risen much slower because it is buffered by the CO2 absorbing in the oceans.
They deliver the chips all over Wales and probably further south of EnglandAll this fuss about planting trees....
There's a timber lorry goes down the A9 every five minutes up here loaded with tree trunks. It goes to a huge depot in Invergordon to be converted to chips which are then burnt in the power stations to make electricity. So the trees are absorbing green house gasses to be burnt to create more greenhouse gases. Very logical, not forgetting the fuel to get it there, to power the chipping machines, etc. ....