Actually, It Is Less Than.a Carbon Thumbprint!

Can You Guess How Much CO2 is Mankind Responsible For?

Global warming and climate change alarmists harp on about “dangerously high” manmade CO2 output levels. So how much are they? The answer will shock you.
by Makia Freeman, guest writer,
HumansAreFree.com

You would think manmade CO2 output levels must be sky-high, given all the relentless guilt-tripping propaganda we are fed about how humanity is the cause of global warming. The agenda to push AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or manmade global warming started around the 1980s and has been gaining momentum for decades, fooling many people along the way.

Yet, despite all the publicity it has gotten, it has still failed to make clear 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 pretty high or at least significant, right? The answer may shock you … and give new meaning to the term global warming hoax.

Manmade CO2 Output Levels … Straight out of the IPCC’s Mouth

One of the difficult things about ascertaining the truth in the climate change debate is that there are so many different sets of measurements. Which one do you trust? How can you tell the truth when one side uses one set of data to prove its point, and the other side uses another set of data to prove its (diametrically opposed) point?

To bypass this dilemma, we are going to get the figures straight of the horse’s mouth so to speak by using data from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The IPCC is not a scientific body as you may imagine but rather a political one with a very clear bias towards promoting AGW and climate change alarmism.

It’s their job to push the AGW agenda onto the public, even though they disguise that with claims that they “provide rigorous and balanced scientific information.”

Here’s what Wim Rost had to say in his article IPCC ≠ SCIENCE ↔ IPCC = GOVERNMENT:

“IPCC is government and not science. And the workers of the IPCC prepare the work in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the IPCC.

“In order to be scientific the scientific method has to be adhered. The use of many scientists to fill important parts of IPCC reports does not mean that everything is science. A report is just a report. In this case, a report from the IPCC. And the IPCC is (inter-) government.

“Scientists involved can produce their own scientific papers about their own specialised part of science, but a small group of writers writes the summaries and the conclusions – for the IPCC. And IPCC is government. …

“The IPCC’s stated mission is not to discover what accounts for climate change, but to assess “the risk of human-induced climate change.”

“Consequently, there is almost no discussion in its lengthy reports of other theories of climate change. Policymakers and journalists took this to mean the AGW theory was the only credible theory of climate change, and the IPCC’s sponsors and spokespersons had no incentive to correct the mistake.”

CO2 in the Atmosphere

Here are the simple facts. Earth’s atmosphere consists of the following gases at the following levels:

Nitrogen (N) – 78%

Oxygen (O) – 21%

Argon (Ar) – 0.9%

Trace Gases – 0.1%

So far, so good. CO2 is a gas in such small concentrations that it hasn’t yet entered the picture. So, the next step is to break down the composition of trace gases (which are also the greenhouse gases) in our atmosphere:

Water Vapor (H2O) – 95% of trace gases / 0.95% of overall atmosphere

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 3-4% of trace gases / 0.03 or 0.04% of overall atmosphere

Neon (Ne) – 0.1% of trace gases / 0.001% of overall atmosphere

There are also some gases at tiny concentrations, including helium (He), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3), as well as halogenated gases (CFCs) released by mankind which have damaged ozone.

Water vapor is far and away the largest greenhouse gas, but the IPCC chooses to ignore it! Check out these tables below where you can see that water vapor is excluded from the percentages. The IPCC and other AGW proponents claim they need to exclude water vapor from their calculations because it varies so much from region to region.

Yes, it does vary greatly all over the Earth, but to just exclude the largest greenhouse gas (and a massive driver of temperature too) from your calculations because it’s inconvenient or varies too much is grossly misleading and unscientific.

A pie chart typical of one used by the IPCC and AGW proponents. Water vapor, despite being the overwhelmingly largest greeenhouse and trace gas, is simply ignored and omitted.

Humanity’s Contribution to CO2 Levels

To recap: trace gases are 0.1% of the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide makes up 3-4% of these trace gases, so therefore CO2 is 3-4% of 0.1%. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call it 3%, so CO2 comprises 0.003% of the atmosphere.

That’s pretty damn small, but we can’t stop there, because the next question to ask is: how much of this is caused by human activity? The IPCC has conflicting sets of data 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):

Manmade CO2 output levels (IPCC data from 2001)
Manmade CO2 output levels (IPCC data from AR4, 2007)

No matter which set of data you use, the IPCC data shows that manmade CO2 output levels are ~3%. How do you figure this out? The 2001 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (119 + 88 + 6.3 = 213.3) and the human portion as 6.3. Divide 6.3 by 213.3 and you get 2.95%.

The 2007 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (29 + 439 + 332 = 800) and the human portion as 29. Divide 29 by 800 and you get 3.63%.

Manmade CO2: 3% of 3% of 0.1%

So here’s the bottom line. According to the IPCC’s own data, manmade CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 0.000009%! That’s 9 millionths.

CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a tiny and insignificant gas, yet somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that is has sprouted into what some state is a US$1.5 trillion industry.

The IPCC Can’t Deal with Water Vapor

The IPCC is basically stuck on water vapor. It can’t actually measure it, since the variability across the world is so high, H2O vapor changes so quickly, and it takes place above a variety of different landscapes/topographies. There are too many variables to calculate to produce a good model. So it just shuffles it to the side and states it has no “confidence.”

Here’s exactly what the IPCC says:

“Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes … because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low.”

It doesn’t suit the IPCC’s agenda to really dive in and better understand the role of water vapor as the key greenhouse gas driving climate temperature. It’s far easier to just pretend it doesn’t exist and only focus on the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere instead.

Manmade CO2: A Massive Diversion

The idea that manmade CO2 output levels is a big problem, in the scheme of all of Earth’s eco problems, is a giant hoax. It diverts environmentalists’ attention away from the true issues that need addressing. 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 chemtrail spraying of barium, aluminum and strontium all over us, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of synthetic self-aware fibers that cause Morgellons’ Disease, in line with the NWO synthetic agenda? What about unstoppable environmental genetic pollution caused by the release of GMOs?

What about the contamination of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, poisons like dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues? Why are people wasting their energy on 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have real MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL issues facing us as a species?

Respected theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson said:

“The possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated … the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

Final Thoughts

Despite all the politicians, celebrities and soul-for-sale scientists AGW has recruited to its cause, there is no real basis for the fearmongering.

At the very top, those pushing the manmade global warming hoax know that it’s a scam, so rather than focusing on the facts, they appeal to emotion with fake images of starving polar bears (to arouse anger) and underwater cities (to arouse fear).

The truth is that the green movement has long been hijacked by the very same NWO manipulators who helped to ruin the environment in the first place, through their ownership of oil, chemical and pharmaceutical multinational corporations.

These manipulators rely on the average person being too busy or lazy to check the facts or think critically. They promote scientific illiteracy via their control of the MSM, the educational curriculum and their numerous think tanks.

Finally – if you dare – dig into the birth of the modern environmental movement, and you may be shocked to find how deeply it is steeped in eugenics and depopulation. It’s time to realize that those pushing this gigantic scam aren’t interesting in saving the environment – but rather depopulating it.

From:    http://humansarefree.com/2018/10/can-you-guess-how-much-co2-is-mankind.html

No CO2, No Beer

Beer Shortage Looms in Europe As CO2 Supply Dwindles

Beer Shortage Looms in Europe As CO2 Supply Dwindles

Beer drinkers in Europe could soon find that their favorite pub’s taps have run dry.

Credit: Shutterstock

Forget the conundrum of whether your glass is half-empty or half-full — pretty soon, plenty of beer glasses in the United Kingdom may not have anything in them at all.

Soda drinkers won’t have much to toast with, either. And it’s all due to a severe disruption in the European supply chain of industrial, food-grade carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas that lends the beverages their fizz, gas industry website Gasworld reported on June 19.

The CO2 shortage isn’t just affecting beverages — it’s also serving up a generous helping of trouble for meat production in Europe. Carbon dioxide is used in meat packaging to slow the growth of microbes and preserve the meat’s color and freshness, and in slaughterhouses, CO2 is used to stun animals prior to killing them, representatives of the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) reported in a statement released June 21.

The trouble began with the recent closure of several industrial plants that provide liquid CO2 across northern Europe; they were shuttered “for various reasons, including maintenance and refurbishment,” affecting a number of businesses that produce or distribute food and beverages, Gavin Partington, director general at the British Soft Drinks Association, said in a statement on June 20.

BMPA officials reported on June 21 that the CO2 shortage would likely last “approximately four weeks.” In the days that followed, the flow of CO2 across northern Europe slowed to a trickle, with the U.K. the hardest hit by the CO2 scarcity. On June 26, a widely used British wholesale food and beverage company began rationing distribution of carbonated drinks, restricting businesses’ purchases to no more than 10 cases of beer and a maximum of five cases of cider or soda, CNBC reported.

Meanwhile, concerns were growing that meats, beer and carbonated beverages would disappear from British supermarket shelves “if a normal supply of CO2 is not restored as quickly as possible,” Ian Wright, a representative of the U.K.’s Food and Drink Federation (FDF) said in a statement released June 29.

CO2 that puts the fizz in your beer and soda is fundamentally the same as CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, but it must be food-grade quality. In other words, to be used in food or drink, CO2 has to be purified according to local regulations and standards, and then shown to be free of contaminants, chemist and American Chemical Society member Richard Sachleben told Live Science.

This CO2 is typically produced as a byproduct of industrial or chemical manufacturing processes, such as those used in ammonia plants. It is dissolved in liquid in sealed containers under high-pressure conditions, Sachleben explained. Once the CO2 is sealed up, it has nowhere to go until the container is opened, which is why you see fizz rising in a bottle after you open the cap and release the pressure inside, enabling the CO2 to convert to gas and escape, he said.

“As long as you maintain the pressure, carbon dioxide will stay in the liquid — if you release the pressure, it’ll release into the atmosphere,” Sachleben said.

But in case you’re wondering if the U.K. and the rest of Europe could get some relief from the CO2 shortage by siphoning CO2 from the atmosphere — that wouldn’t be a practical solution, Sachleben told Live Science.

Even with rising levels of atmospheric CO2 due to climate change, CO2 in the air is still only about 400 parts per million, and is mixed with nitrogen, oxygen and other elements. It would therefore be quite a costly and time-consuming challenge to extract and refine purified CO2 from air — at least in the amounts that are typically collected from industrial processes, he said.

Original article on Live Science.

from:    https://www.livescience.com/62968-beer-shortage-co2-supply-dwindles.html

Another Look at Global Warming

Global Warming

SUMMARY: Global warming is a theory with four components:

1. The Earth’s surface temperature is rising because of human activity, particularly industrial production and personal consumption;

2. Weather extremes we now experience are more destructive than in the past because of this warming effect;

3. If this trend is not stopped, the planet will soon be unable to sustain human life as we have known it; and

4. The solution is government management of all human activity, including the elimination of private property and personal freedom.

We reject the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming for three reasons:

1. It is based on junk science and fraud. In other words, it does not exist. The driving force behind this theory comes from politicians, bureaucrats, and those employed by institutions that depend on government funding. All of these benfit from the alleged solution to the alledged problem.

2. The proposed solution requires crushing taxation, confiscation of private property, and denial of freedom-of-choice. This is contrary to The Creed of Freedom, paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. The threat of global warming is the bedrock foundation of almost all programs on behalf of totalitarioan government based on collectivism.

Exposing the Myths

Analysis by G. Edward Griffin

Myth 1.

Leaders of the crusade against global-warming have no financial conflict-of-interest because they only care about the environment, but those who challenge their theories do so because they are paid by the fossil-fuel and nuclear-power industries.

ANALYSIS: There is no doubt that the rank-and-file, true believers in global-warming are motivated by a desire to protect the environment, but those at the top are not so naïve. They know that the specter of environmental disaster is a made-up horror story to frighten us into accepting crushing taxes and a global totalitarian system in the name of saving the planet. How do we know that? Because they say so.

Ottmar Edenhoffer, an official at the UN’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was a former co-chair if the IPCC Working Group III and lead author of the IPPC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. His report concluded:

One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. … One has to free one’s self from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy…. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” (Story) (Cached) (Original in German)

For an eye-opening summary of the meaning of “green” in the environmental movement (it means money), see “Climate Policy as Political Entrepreneurship”, uploaded to the University of Utah website here. (Cached)

MYTH2.
Temperatures have risen since 1998, and reports to the contrary are false.

ANALYSIS: One of the most troublesome facts challenging the theory of global warming is that, even according to UN sources and in spite of data manipulation, global temperatures have not risen since 1998. The dire predictions of increasing temperatures simply have not been validated by nature.

By 2014, this was damaging the credibility of the myth makers and causing skepticism in the public mind. Something had to be done to restore confidence in the global-warming narrative − and, with the Paris Climate Summit scheduled to begin in November of 2015, it had to be done fast in order to have an impact on the proceedings there.

In June of that year, an article appeared in Science magazine, written by a nine-man team at the Environmental Information office of the tax-funded National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This article was exactly what was needed. It said that the reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming was an error − and it had data and charts to prove it.

Because this article came with the imprimatur of NOAA, it well served the purposes of the Paris Conference. Afterward, however, it was learned that the article was politically inspired, and the authors had violated numerous principles of scientific inquiry. That was the conclusion of a former top scientist at NOAA itself, Dr John Bates who, in 2014, was awarded a gold medal by the Obama administration for his work in setting standards for producing and preserving climate data.

Bates said that all the scientific standards he had helped to establish at NOAA had been violated to produce a politically useful document at the Paris Climate Summit. The lead author of the article, Thomas Karl, had insisted on “decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global-warming pause, and rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Dr. Bates said that the NOAA team used fraudulent data, applied methods of analysis that overstated the speed of warming, relied on software that was known to be inaccurate, never submitted data for verification by others, and failed to archive the data, making it now impossible to examine. In other words, they lied and then destroyed the evidence.

MYTH3.
Global warming is caused by pollution and weather-modification programs. Therefore, it IS man-made.

2016 Nov 18 from Nikeros
To Ed Griffin:
You don’t believe that Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations involving gawd knows what, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else worldwide and on and on has no effect on the earths climate? Ok fine. I will say no more.

ANALYSIS: The anthropomorphic mantra of most global-warming proponents is that the “man-made” cause is CO2. Period. They claim that CO2 is the byproduct of industry and consumption and that it produces a “carbon footprint”. Therefore, they seek expanded government power and funding to reduce CO2. That’s the basis for all the carbon-tax and regulatory nonsense. None of these people are talking about taxing or regulating “Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else”. They talk only about CO2, the non-toxic greenhouse gas that does NOT cause global warming. The global-warming hoaxers are very good at lumping together pollution (which is real) and man-made global warming (which is not). They are countng on us to fall for the trick and fail to see that these are two entirely different issues.

from:    https://freedomforceinternational.org/position-statements/global-warming/

El Hierro Update

11/12/2011 — El Hierro LARGE undersea eruption — CO2 makes geologist sick — nearby NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP !
Posted on November 12, 2011 by sincedutch
watch RAW video of the latest El Hierro eruption here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyY9-IEo9nQ&feature=player_embedded

Screenshot below is from the pinnacle point of the undersea eruption.. this was a major event.. since the volcano vent itself is a few hundred feet below the surface of the water..

Link to story on geologist getting sick from CO2 after eruption: http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/underwater-volcano-offshore-eruptions-in-canary-islands/2g5jq7z6?cpkey=354b68a2-91c6-4841-8ba2-4aa80bfdf63c

Screenshot of geologist who was made sick by the CO2 gasses:

It is worthy to note the NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP nearby this eruption!!!!

===========================================

FYI — the AD that appears on this video is NOT from me.. this video matched “canary island broadcasting” even though its public use RAW footage.. attempting an appeal on this “3rd party” notice.. til then.. THEIR ad appears.. either that or I have to take down these great shots of El Hierro erupting etc..

sorry, could not get a lot of the photos, but if you go follow the link below (story source), you can find them:

11/12/2011 — El Hierro LARGE undersea eruption — CO2 makes geologist sick — nearby NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP !