I think this bit of information has pushed me over the edge, absolutely killed off what respect I had for the science of global warming as ascribed to human causes.
Oh I'll be long dead before any of those actions become necessary to survive. Though, I have advised my children to consider where their future, and the futures of the grandchildren, lay. Northern New England, northern west coast, Canada are options. Scandinavia is another.
Re: Do 41 failed scientific predictions of climate doom suggest a credibility problem?
Breitbart is not a source. It is an alt-reich conspiracy rag known to lie through its teeth.
Your list contains many shoot from the hip exaggerated pontifications by those unqualified to make them.
This is a list of borderline not-really-science predictions exaggerated upon and formulated to be an embarrassment to climate science presented for those too weak-minded to know science from political rhetoric. Like you. Breitbart is preaching BS to its own anti-science choir using smoke, mirrors, lies and exaggeration just to inflame their alt-reich political crowd.
Your list in particular, and Breitbart in general, is rejected as a source for anything political let alone anything science. Might as well use the KKK as a source on race relations.
The last couple minutes are sponsor ads, as one can expect from YouTube, but the rest of this presentation might be helpful for you because, while it leaves out a whole lot of the details of the connections between greenhouse gasses and warming, it gives an American level of extended sound bite with accurate information.
Re: Leaf decay huge percentage of CO2 in atmosphere
I don't know how that 98% is figured but it would be part of the CO2 that is released from natural sources. My info is that plant decomp is about 30% of the natural sources.
About 87% of the human part of our CO2 is from Big Carbon.
The last numbers I can find says the earth will not be able to support life after 1 billion years. That means the temperature has to be rising now. But they will rise faster as time progresses.
All very true, almost. In about 500m years this orb will be a bit toasty for human comfort as the oceans begin to evaporate from the increased solar gain. From there it gets worse while this beautiful blue ocean world of ours becomes a Venus v.2.0. Add another 6b years and our long dead planet may be orbiting well within the corona of a red giant star, but not for too long as the Earth is stripped layer by layer like an onion of all its matter.
Of course we have looked at sun cycles and the sun's properties to see if this is in any way responsible for the warming we see today. Here is a good article.
The sun's influence is too variable. The variations do affect our planet's climate but we have to look over a span of hundreds of millennia to see even the slightest effect. And we can see the effects both up and down.
Right now, and for many millions of years in the future, so the science indicates, solar radiation is a negligible player and is as apt to lessen our solar heat gain as increase it over spans of hundreds of thousands of years.
So, no, solar activity is not/will not be a contributor to our global warming problem in the next 10,000 years and, yes, solar activity will burn us up bad ... eventually.
In the meantime the question is whether we do anything to lessen our coming man-made apocalypse or if we just kill so much more of our future population.
Physically, it could be done. A largish asteroid on a 10k year orbit passing about 30k km from the Earth could be used to gently nudge the planet out into a farther orbit from Sol over many millions of years.
The problem is the investment of time and technology required to keep the asteroid on path and not, like, crash into us, would need to be constant over those millions of years and you just know the System Interplanetary Senate would cut off funding in favor of capital gains tax cuts for the 1% when the Inner Planet Republican Party came to power.
Besides, Earth would by then just be a useless chunk of hot rock with a dwindling population when all that hydrocarbon on Jupiter was just sitting there waiting to be mined and sold to the Asteroid communities.
Even though they have a friend in the Oval Office the folks at Big Carbon are upset because the agenda that bought and paid for is not being implemented in the administration.
Seems the Trump folks are too incompetent to implement the Big Carbon policies properly and keep getting the regulatory hurdles all wrong.
quote:CO2, CH4 and N2O are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes as well as human activities (use of fossil fuels, industrial production, etc). The fluorinated gases on the other hand, are created and emitted almost exclusively through human activities.
Since the Industrial Revolution, which began in the 18th century, human activities have been a major source of all forcing greenhouse gases. Human activities have led to a sharp and dangerous increase of these gases within the Earth's atmosphere, so much so that the growth of all forcing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is now directly controlled by humans.
Carbon Dioxide
quote:Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.
This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as are produced by natural sources.4 This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any.
quote:42.84 percent of all naturally produced carbon dioxide emissions come from ocean-atmosphere exchange. Other important natural sources include plant and animal respiration (28.56%) as well as soil respiration and decomposition (28.56%).4 16 A minor amount is also created by volcanic eruptions (0.03%).17 18
87 percent of all human-produced carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil. The remainder results from the clearing of forests and other land use changes (9%), as well as some industrial processes such as cement manufacturing (4%).1
Methane
quote:The methane produced by natural sources is completely offset by natural methane sinks. This has been so for thousands of years. Before the influence of humans, methane levels were quite steady because of this natural balance. Today, human-related sources create the majority of total methane emissions. This has upset the natural balance that existed before the Industrial Revolution.
The main natural sources include wetlands, termites and the oceans. Natural sources create 36% of methane emissions. Human sources include landfills and livestock farming. But the most important source being the production, transportation and use of fossil fuels. Human-related sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for 64% of the total.1
quote:Methane levels have more than doubled over the last 150 years. This is because of human activities like fossil fuel use and intensive farming.2 Before the Industrial Revolution, natural sinks kept methane levels in a safe range.
Humans are creating methane emissions a lot faster than the Earth can remove them. Which has increased global methane levels. During the last 800,000 years, methane concentrations have always varied between 350-800 ppb. Since the Industrial Revolution, methane levels have become much higher. So much so that they are now 2.5 times larger.3 4
The real scientific evidence is in the notes. Too much for this treatment. If you want them they are in the document.
™ Version 4.2
