Funny to suppose that humans started GW, or can actually do anything about it! The Sun is the source of ***ALL*** GW. If we did manage to stop GW, we would deny future expansion of humankind's arable land and warming. Mankind only inputs about 15% of total atmospheric CO2, and which total amount is approximately one-third of one percent of the entire atmosphere!!! How can less than 1% of the entire atmosphere be the only cause of GW??? IT CAN'T! WAKE UP!
CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory is 390 ppmv.
That's .039% of the atmosphere, am I wrong or is that not beneficial to half the life on Earth, and yes I'm under the assumption this video is essentially about the vilification of resource utilization.
@WoodlandRavah It's just the science. We have no political agenda. We simply said: the Earth's surface warmed by 1.5°C since 1880. We don't know – and did not say – why. Please direct your ire elsewhere. Or, better yet, don't be angry.
I'm not mad just pointing out the obvious overlooked facts, temperature swings on a planet that occupies a constantly changing universe, "Run For The Hills!" We should be preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, instead there's fear mongering about restoring conditions to their more fertile state.
["We have no political agenda."]
How do bills in the scientific community get paid?
Who is the deciding factor of who and what gets grants?
@WoodlandRavah This work specifically damped the cyclical effects within the period. To be sure there are longer term shifts, some of which are undoubtedly greater. This work could not, and did not, account for those. Nor did it suggest the 1880-to-Today shift is either beneficial or detrimental. [There was no call to "Run For" anywhere.] You may be misinformed on how science studies are funded. There are many more scientists employed by energy companies than by environmental lobbying groups.
Can we kill Al gore yet?
InsanePalmNinja 4 months ago
Funny to suppose that humans started GW, or can actually do anything about it! The Sun is the source of ***ALL*** GW. If we did manage to stop GW, we would deny future expansion of humankind's arable land and warming. Mankind only inputs about 15% of total atmospheric CO2, and which total amount is approximately one-third of one percent of the entire atmosphere!!! How can less than 1% of the entire atmosphere be the only cause of GW??? IT CAN'T! WAKE UP!
tongmaa 5 months ago
GOOD! Ice is not conducive to life.
CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory is 390 ppmv.
That's .039% of the atmosphere, am I wrong or is that not beneficial to half the life on Earth, and yes I'm under the assumption this video is essentially about the vilification of resource utilization.
WoodlandRavah 5 months ago
@WoodlandRavah It's just the science. We have no political agenda. We simply said: the Earth's surface warmed by 1.5°C since 1880. We don't know – and did not say – why. Please direct your ire elsewhere. Or, better yet, don't be angry.
VideoFromSpace 5 months ago
@VideoFromSpace
["don't be angry."]
I'm not mad just pointing out the obvious overlooked facts, temperature swings on a planet that occupies a constantly changing universe, "Run For The Hills!" We should be preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, instead there's fear mongering about restoring conditions to their more fertile state.
["We have no political agenda."]
How do bills in the scientific community get paid?
Who is the deciding factor of who and what gets grants?
WoodlandRavah 5 months ago
@WoodlandRavah This work specifically damped the cyclical effects within the period. To be sure there are longer term shifts, some of which are undoubtedly greater. This work could not, and did not, account for those. Nor did it suggest the 1880-to-Today shift is either beneficial or detrimental. [There was no call to "Run For" anywhere.] You may be misinformed on how science studies are funded. There are many more scientists employed by energy companies than by environmental lobbying groups.
VideoFromSpace 5 months ago