Can you guess how much CO2 is responsible for humanity?
Can you guess how much CO2 is responsible for humanity?
Global warming and climate change alarmists insist on "dangerously high" levels of man-made CO2 output. So, how much are they? The answer w ...
.
Global warming Y climate change alarmists insist on the "dangerously high" levels of CO2 output made by man. So, how much are they? The answer will leave you impressed.by Makia Freemanguest writer
HumansAreFree.comYou would think that the levels of CO2 output made by man must be very high, given all the relentless propaganda of the feelings of guilt that feed us on how humanity is the cause of global warming. The agenda to push AGW (Global Anthropogenic Global Warming) or man-made global warming began around the 1980s and has been gaining momentum for decades, fooling many people along the way.
However, despite all the publicity it has received, it has not yet been able to clarify 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 quite high or at least significant, right? The answer may surprise you ... and give a new meaning to the term. deception of global warming.
Levels of CO2 output made by man ... Out of the mouth of the IPCC
One of the difficult things about determining the truth in the climate change debate is that there are so many different sets of measurements. What do you trust? How can you tell the truth when one side uses a data set to prove its point, and the other side uses another set of data to prove its point (diametrically opposite)?
To avoid this dilemma, we will get the numbers directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, using the data of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As you can imagine, the IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political one, with a very clear bias towards the promotion of AGW and the alarmism of climate change.
It's your job to bring the AGW agenda to the public, even though they disguise that with claims that "provide rigorous and balanced scientific information".
This is what Wim Rost had to say in his article IPCC ≠ SCIENCE ↔ IPCC = GOVERNMENT:
"The IPCC is government and not science. And the IPCC workers prepare the work in accordance with the standards and procedures established by the IPCC.
"To be a scientist you have to follow the scientific method. The use of many scientists to fill important parts of the IPCC reports does not mean that everything is science. A report is just a report. In this case, an IPCC report. And the IPCC is (inter-) government.
"The scientists involved can produce their own scientific papers on their own specialized part of science, but a small group of writers write the summaries and conclusions for the IPCC. And the IPCC is the government. ...
"The stated mission of the IPCC is not to discover what explains climate change, but to assess" the risk of human-induced climate change ".
"Consequently, there is almost no discussion in his extensive reports of other theories on climate change. Policymakers and journalists understood that the AGW theory was the only credible theory of climate change, and the sponsors and spokesmen of the IPCC had no incentive to correct the error. "
CO2 in the atmosphere
Here are the simple facts. The atmosphere of the Earth is composed of the following gases at the following levels:
Nitrogen (N) - 78%
Oxygen (O) - 21%
Argon (Ar) - 0.9%
Gases trace - 0.1%
So far so good. CO2 is a gas in concentrations so small that it has not yet entered the image. So, the next step is to break down the composition of the trace gases (which are also the greenhouse gases) in our atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O): 95% of the trace gases / 0.95% of the general atmosphere
Carbon dioxide (CO2): 3-4% of trace gases / 0.03 or 0.04% of the general atmosphere
Neon (Ne): 0.1% of trace gases / 0.001% of the general atmosphere
There are also some gases in small concentrations, such as helium (He), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3), as well as halogenated gases (CFCs) released by mankind that have damaged ozone.
Water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas, but the IPCC decides to ignore it! Take a look at these tables below, where you can see that water vapor is excluded from the percentages. The IPCC and other proponents of the AGW claim that they need to exclude water vapor from their calculations because it varies greatly from one region to another.
Yes, it varies a lot throughout the Earth, but excluding from its calculations the largest greenhouse gas (and also a massive temperature driver) because it is inconvenient or varies too much is very deceptive and unscientific.
A typical pie chart of one used by the IPCC and AGW proponents. Water vapor, in spite of being the great gas and the tracking gas, is simply ignored and omitted.The contribution of humanity to CO2 levels
To recapitulate: trace gases are 0.1% of the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide constitutes 3-4% of these trace gases, so CO2 is 3-4% of 0.1%. To simplify, let's call it 3%, so that CO2 comprises 0.003% of the atmosphere.
That's pretty small, but we can not stop there, because the next question is: how much of this is caused by human activity? The IPCC has conflicting data sets 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):
Human-made CO2 output levels (IPCC data since 2001)
Human-made CO2 output levels (IPCC data of AR4, 2007)
Regardless of the data set you use, the IPCC data shows that the CO2 output levels made by man are ~ 3%. How do you find out this? The 2001 data shows the total amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere (119 + 88 + 6.3 = 213.3) and the human portion at 6.3. Divide 6.3 by 213.3 and get 2.95%.The 2007 data shows the total amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere (29 + 439 + 332 = 800) and the human portion as 29. Divide 29 by 800 and get 3.63%.
Artificial CO2: 3% of 3% of 0.1%
So here is the final result. According to the IPCC's own data, man-made CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the Earth's total atmosphere. That's 0.000009%! That's 9 millionths.
CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a small and insignificant gas, but somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that it has sprung up in what some state is a US $ 1.5 billion industry..
The IPCC can not deal with water vapor
The IPCC is basically stuck in water vapor. Actually, you can not measure it, because the variability around the world is so high, the H2O vapor changes so quickly and takes place over a variety of different landscapes / topographies. There are too many variables to calculate to produce a good model. So he simply shuffles it aside and declares that he has "no confidence".
Here is exactly what the IPCC says:
"The modeling of the vertical structure of water vapor is subject to greater uncertainty since the moisture profile is governed by a variety of processes ... due to the great variability and the relatively short data records, the confidence in the Stratospheric H2O vapor trends are low. "
It does not fit the IPCC's agenda to really immerse itself and better understand the role of water vapor as the key greenhouse gas that drives climate temperature. It is much easier to simply pretend that it does not exist and focus only on the small amount of CO2 in the environment instead.
The CO2 made by man: a massive detour
The idea that the levels of CO2 output made by man is a big problem, in the scheme of all the ecological problems of the Earth, is a giant deception. It diverts environmentalists' attention from the real problems that need to be addressed. 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 fumigation of barium, aluminum and strontium throughout our body, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of self-aware synthetic fibers that cause Morgellons disease, in line with the Synthetic agenda NWO? What about the unstoppable environmental genetic contamination caused by the release of GMOs?
What about pollution of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides such as glyphosate and atrazine, poisons such as dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical waste? Why do people waste their energy in 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL problems that confront us as a species?
The respected theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said:
"The potentially damaging climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated ... the benefits clearly outweigh the possible harm."
Final thoughts
Despite all the politicians, celebrities and soul scientists for the sale that AGW has recruited for their cause, there is no real basis for scaremongering.
At the top, those that push the deception of man-made global warming know what Is a gotcha, so instead of focusing on the facts, they appeal to emotion with False images of hungry polar bears. (to awaken anger) and underwater cities (to arouse fear).
The truth is that the Green movement has been hijacked for a long time by the same manipulators of the NWO who helped ruin the environment in the first place, through their ownership of the oil, chemical and pharmaceutical multinationals.
These manipulators trust that the average person is too busy or lazy to verify the facts or think critically. They promote scientific illiteracy through their control of MSM, the educational curriculum and their many think tanks.
Finally, if you dare, delve into the birth of the modern environmental movement, and you will be surprised to discover how deeply it is permeated with eugenics and depopulation. It is time to realize that those who promote this gigantic scam are not interested in saving the environment, but in depopulating it.
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario