Comments by "ub2bn" (@ub2bn) on "TED"
channel.
-
2
-
Hi, 410 ppm represents 0.041 % of the atmosphere, not a 0.41% increase in co2. (also, notice the extra zero/decimal place). That is an increase from 0.028 % of the atmosphere (280 ppm) over approx. 270 years, (1750 - 2020), so an actual increase of 130 ppm, or an extra 0.013% of the atmosphere.
0.041 % ÷ 0.028 % = a 46 % increase in co2 levels. ( not to be confused with 46 % of the atmosphere ). Add to that, the widely accepted, well known fact that increasing co2 gives diminishing returns. So, for example, a doubling of co2, ( or a 100 % increase in co2 levels ), will only result in approx. 1*C temp rise. So, even at 560 ppm, (2× 280 ppm), or 0.056 % of the atmosphere, temps would rise only 1*C. We have seen an approx. 1.4*C increase, over that 270 years, indicating there are (many) other factors at play.... Hope this helps. ; )
2
-
@garyha2650 we are all products of our environment. (and i am not convinced we are the first round of homosapiens to build advanced societies on this planet... but that's a whole other discussion). as we discover new 'dying' species, we also discover many more new living and thriving species we were not yet aware of. the alarmist camp is, of course, very one sided on this, focusing only the natural extinction process... the result of natural climate change... simple cause and affect.
back to your earlier comment, agw definitely qualifies as a cult. i'm pretty well versed in fundamental christianity, as well as several other christian cults, but i have focused more attention on scientology, as of late. the similarity in "tactics" is undeniable. just look up ron hubbard's fair game policy, to start. i have long thought scientology has been a social engineering project in the making. they have had the support of several administrations, and are now worth billions. the whole damned thing is scripted.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garyha2650 not to nit pick, but i believe you meant to say "an increase TO 0.041%... not an increase OF 0.041%.
Yes, alarmists love showing pictures of land surface ice breaking off into the ocean... as if that is some new phenomenon. The simple fact is it's all part of a much larger, and much more complicated system, and to some degree or another, it is being renewed continually. But they claim this "ancient" ice is "gone forever, never to return"... and yet the polar ice caps are still there. And they always fail to mention the vast majority of sea ice is under the water's surface, out of view, thus making the sea ice look significantly less than it actually is. I generally ignore any and all close up shots, seeing as they can easily be taken out of context... the same way they love to bog us down with minute details, and charts, and figures... usually all taken out of their much broader context, in order to confuse the unsuspecting viewer. It's all quite pathetic, in my humble opinion.
I watched a video yesterday that first mentioned ice studies at the polar regions (plural), but then it focused only on the arctic ice cap shrinking, and conveniently failed to show the antarctic ice sheet, which was actually growing at the same time... very deceptive.
You raise an interesting question, though; one I had not considered. How do they know when there was no ice at the poles? What are the indicators?
1