New reports paint sobering picture of progress on climate change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 окт 2022
- A report focuses on the planet's vital signs-sea ice decline, forest loss and severe weather events. Scientists say they have set records or are at extreme levels.
Read more: www.kgw.com/article/tech/scie...
Subscribe: / kgwnews8
Watch the latest KGW newscast: www.kgw.com/watch
Get the KGW app: kgw.com/appredirect
Mississippi River is drying up. If you're not prepping, good luck is all I have to say.
Chicks that get near you dry up too. Is that CO2 global warming or you?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
And you're talking non-science bullshit again. A river drying up isn't proof of anything.
All girls I've been with never had that issue. I'm sure you had that problem by looking at your profile pic.
@@NashHinton I must have nailed that one right on the head. You're so triggered you responded to your own post.
We don't have time to convince everyone.
Of what caused it, or what the appropriate course of action is?
You would prefer to just bully YOUR way?
@@peterbelanger4094 Both you fool.
IF you actually believe in real science there is plenty of time.
I agree. Guillotines are coming regardless.
Another Reign of Terror is likely when people realize rivers are drying up, can't feed their families.
Of course, it's possible the rich, oil tycoons, start nuclear war to distract the peasants.
Especially with oil companies still being allowed to spread lies
IF the change from 350 to 400 is so devastating, why was the period when co2 was over 2000 so proliferate with life.
Because the sun was smaller and cooler back then.
And it won't be 400. It will be 6000 ppm by 2100 when considering tipping points like melting permafrost.
@@NashHinton Not significantly so. It has only been a few million years since it was at that level. With a couple exceptions, the earth was the same temperature more or less for hundreds of millions of years.
@@NashHinton We do not have enough carbon in the fossil fuels to reach that level. No one has even pretended that it will reach that level. The predictions are that it will be about 1000 ppm and history shows that is not enough to cause a problem for humanity.
@@roberthicks1612 Nope. Multiple mass extinction events occurred in earth's history because of rapid warming caused by co2. Permian Mass Extinction and PETM. And the last time the earth was at 6000 ppm was when life didn't exist during the Hadean Period. Now imagine what it will be when the sun is hotter today.
WASF
In the mid 1990s the idea that human caused carbon dioxide emissions might be the cause of global warming ran into a dead end when the findings of a early 1990s report had not been discredited after a few years that concluded global averages temperatures due to human caused CO2 emissions had reasonably raised earth's temperatures by 1/100°C which made it impossible from the know effects of CO2 to be the cause of global warming at 1.1°C. All serious investigation into global warming by the mid 1990s had turned away from it being caused by non condensing greenhouse gasses. Then in the late 1990s the United Nations Panel on Climate Change became obsessed with human caused carbon dioxide emissions..
Earth's greenhouse effect is due to tropospheric water vapor at over 99% to a low of 97% as its primary agent. The dominance of tropospheric water vapor's greenhouse gas effect doesn't allow enough leverage for any other greenhouse gasses even totaled together to change the greenhouse effect enough be the cause of global warming at 1.1°C. Even if the non condensing greenhouse gasses concentration in earth's were to quadruple they would not be able to raise global temperatures an average of 1.1°C.
The International Panel on Climate Change reports are very transparent and clear they took their air samples from 20,000 meters considerably into the stratosphere where water vapor is near zero and outside the troposphere where the greenhouse effect takes place in earth's atmosphere. Because the IPCC reports are vary clear and transparent to the educated reader they took their date from outside the troposphere if there were to be a legal case made IPCC could not be given a conviction of fraud because they were very transparent that their data on air samples was from 20,000 meters where an educated reader would know to take their conclusions with that in mind.
Glad you did your research, most people don't. I did some too. average global temperature fell from 1945 to 1979, 1998 to 2015 and 2016 to now, all the while atm. CO2 shot up like a rocket, so there's 3 times the hypothesis failed in less than a century. There's also anecdotal evidence like this. : The Washington Post - November 2, 1922 "Report on Global Warming." Same story a century ago, no CO2 and no polar bears, "seals" were endangered back then and of course, it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Polar bear hunting is legal again because there were too many, not too little.
@@ricktd6891 I'd recommend you read the IPCC report(s) if you can find it, to be well read on the subject. It is not all that long and you can skip over the differential equation description on temperature forcing flux, which is a generalized description I'm calling it. The reason this math section is not of relevance is carbon dioxide is can be legitimately generalized as just another greenhouse gas so all the other greenhouse gasses will to a large part greatly have this same behavior especially water vapor, so looking at carbon dioxide's greenhouse gas effect as a ratio to the total for all greenhouse gasses shows it to be of very little significants to the earth's greenhouse atmospheric effect. This is even more so for the other non condensing greenhouse gasses such as methane. These gasses may have other effects that can affect global average temperatures other than their greenhouse gas effect. It is unlikely that any of those effects are unknown in 2022 and if they were significant they'd almost certainly be wildly distributed.
@@douglasengle2704 Are you not getting this? The IPCC is a fraud, just like CO2 caused catastrophic global warming.
@@douglasengle2704 Do you know the Earth is historically cold right now, not historically hot like they claimed?
@@douglasengle2704 Do you know atm. CO2 is historically low right now, not historically high like they claimed?
blah blah blah blah Don't look up.
Yep. Humans chose extinction within 20 years.
Obsession over such matters as "climate change" is tantamount to subscribing to the orthodoxy and mindset of a religious cult.
True Believers demand you accept as "fact"" that the prospect of nuclear annihilation pales in comparison to planetary matters human beings have little or no control over.
You are correct.👍
Why not both?
Hey Neal... 1820 Fourier calculated that without atmospheric heat retention earth would be a ball of ice, correctly hypothesized that gases in atmosphere trapped heat. 1850's discovery CO2 absorbs energy by multiple scientists proved Fourier's hypothesis. 1899 Swedish physicist calculates how much heat is retained per percentage of greenhouse gases, his calculations still relatively accurate. 1958 Keeling measures atmospheric CO2 PPM a process that continues to this day. 1970 scientists measure PPM gases over historical time establishing 280ppm as baseline at beginning of industrial revolution. 1978 Exxon's own scientists wrote to management the above facts cannot be disputed. Today there's 420 PPM. Annually we add 51 billion tons of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. The heat gain is equivalent to heat released by detonating five Hiroshima type nuclear bombs every second since 1996. Again, there's no dispute as it's measured through space and ground observation. Now unless the Theocratic Supreme Judicial Junta can somehow strike down the laws of physics we're going to have to throw on some gloves, help figure out how to un-fuck the future.
@@drybizcuit1914 On account so much of the Green propaganda is a grift, that's why.
@@TheBuriedLedeR What a stupid claim devoid of evidence.
No wonder you feel "bullied" by people that know so much more than you do.