Why CO2 isn't the Only Problem 

Where are you from?

you got another one at ca. 01:21 Love your stuff! It just keeps getting better and better! :D

CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is impossible. It also breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. However, the climate is changing. This is because of deliberate geoengineering programmes, in particular ozone thinning away from the poles. Though largely unreported ozone thinning effect is directly observable, this summer you can see a unnaturally bright sun just as we did last year. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared. (Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, ripple patterns caused by HAARP installations, bizarre and unnatural cloud formations). Climate change is a programme to force change in accordance with the implementation of Agenda 21 /2030. Current events demonstrate this transition is well underway and will involve massive population cull through injected nanotech (re transhumanist programme). Agenda 21 also sees the permanent loss of all property rights with the introduction of universal basic income (ref NESARA/GESARA) and has/is being promoted by The World Economic Forum. 'You will own nothing and you will be happy' WEF In a depopulated world the surviving brainwashed and controlled population will be confined to mega cities. Carbon limits will be used to restrict consumption and liberty. Meanwhile the re-greened wilderness will be the exclusive playground of the ultra rich elite posing as conservationists. The CO2 hoax amounts to the theft of the world and the enslavement of humanity by a parasitic few. Welcome to the future! _________ I have included a debunking of 'accumulated heat' as it is so often used to explain how trace elements, so called 'greenhouse gasses', can warm the planet. Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is. When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case. NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect. As I have just explained, this is totally impossible and fundamentally violates all the laws of thermodynamics. That respected scientists should support such uneducated, unthinking nonsense is disturbing and only reflects that in terms of being able to think clearly about a subject they have no facility or inclination. These are the Dark Ages of science. Belief has outweighed logic or any critical thought. It tells us that we should not unquestioningly accept anything we are told, that experts can be fools. (NB: be aware of attempts to discard thermodynamics by talking about biology. Eg. 'It only takes a drop of arsenic to kill a person.' This would be somewhat desperate, muddled thinking. Clearly biological processes based on the reaction of a cell are not the same as the laws of physics/thermodynamics).

Continued... There are also many other basic contradictions in the CO2 climate hoax (eg that CO2 is highly soluble and is washed out extremely quickly in rainfall; that CO2 levels fluctuate drastically seasonally showing on earth with its high rainfall CO2 is not a gas that accumulates; that climate change models deliberately ignore infrared in direct sunlight were they to do so the whole hypothesis falls apart as it means 50% incoming heat energy captured by CO2 will be lost (radiated) back out to space; that the anything that captures energy from direct sunlight will reduce surface temps - this is why clouds immediately reduce surface temps; that the earth loses heat extremely quickly as shown by the fact nights are always colder; that heat cannot be trapped in oceans as described as they are more 'energy dense' than the adjacent air, rather if oceans are becoming warmer it can only be from direct sunlight; that increasing biomass increases CO2 because it increases the carbon in cycle; that correlation is not causation, otherwise it could be said daisies cause hot temperatures because there are more daisies when it is warm; that there is extremely dodgy Victorian science/politics behind Ice Ages which is never questioned or examined - eg mammoths despite claims otherwise are not adapted to cold but rather appear to be cold temperate animals similar to highland cattle, their blood is not antifreeze as claimed, they have no sebaceous glands, hair is long but sparse - even yaks being hairier, mammoth remains as far south as Mexico; that Milankovitch Cycles mean that the Southern Hemisphere is currently in the middle of it's Great Ice Age; that the hypothesis that burning of forest subsequent to Ice Ages resulted in warming is logically inconsistent as 'no new carbon' has been introduced into cycle this all being carbon already in cycle and in any case would be washed out almost immediately; that CO2 levels are at a geological low; that the oxygen cycle is intertwined with the carbon cycle and dependent on it; that life is carbon based and CO2 is essential; that a halving of CO2 levels would result in the extinction of nearly all plant species - problematic as it in turn means theorised measures of atmospheric CO2 during Ice Ages are unlikely to be correct - contrary there was a proliferation of megafauna; that alarmingly, plants already struggle to get enough CO2 for growth which is why farmers will often increase CO2 in greenhouses to promote yields; that the so called 'proofs' showing CO2 is able to capture radiant heat energy only prove the opposite and how very minor this is - that atmospheric concentrations of 0.04% CO2 thermal effect would be far too fractional to even be measured; that comparisons to other planets eg Venus/Mars prove CO2 does not capture the proportion of energy claimed and maybe this is why these comparisons are done less and less; that in order to explain vastly higher concentrations of CO2 in the geological past the sun is deemed to have increased its output this despite losing solar mass (gravitational mass) as fuel, this in turn meaning that the orbits of all the planets are all moving away from the sun - such hypothesis where solar activity is used to exactly compensate for holes in the CO2 climate theory is to ignore other evidential explanations of stars such as the 'electric universe theory'; that the geological archive shows periods of millions of years when CO2 and temperature were heading in opposite directions... etc). The green industry is extremely big business pushed by the same multinationals involved in fossil fuels. In that respect their so called 'opposition' is a theatrical pretence for public consumption. Indeed if the petrochemical industry wanted to debunk CO2 climate change they could very easily pointing out that such narratives are in direct violation of the established laws of thermodynamics or basic common sense... yet they do not. It should be pointed out that the green agenda is the mainstream - promoted by media and corporate interest, Extinction Rebellion an elaborate Deep State psyop funded by George Soros and founded by Gail Bradbrook a corporate/Deep State stooge who previously liaised with the UK cabinet to push 5G with local authorities. Green policies are a method to promote 'hyper capitalism', taxes, insane industries (eg electric cars, wind farms, carbon capture etc) and the confiscation of basic freedoms. Dependent on rare earth metals that are incredibly destructive to the environment and polluting these 'green' industries/electric vehicles and energy production actually are far worse than fossil fuels. THERE IS NO SAVING IN CO2 PRODUCTION. Neither are these rare earth materials present in sufficient quantities to mean anything other than rationing of the services associated with their use and necessitate vastly reduced human population (ref Iron Mountain Report, Agenda21, Wildlands Project, WEF Great Reset etc). In short the green revolution/sustainability represents the exact opposite, it is the accelerated trashing of the planet for corporate greed and corporations have been very successful in mobilizing the public behind this scam. The carbon hoax is the theft of the world by an hyper wealthy elite who care very little about the environment and see the human race as idiots to be kept in ignorance and contained. The damaging effects of green energy were highlighted by Ukcolumn news service on 25th Jan 2021 (see UKcolumn dot org). I am aware that this information will be hard to assimilate. Nobody likes to think they are being duped and led into supporting the destruction of the very things they care about. The figures quoted in this comment are all checkable so please do check. ____________ Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including: Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. Contradictory statements that are not supported. Condescension, abuse and accusation. I have put this information out because it is important. I am aware most will choose to dismiss it. I have no interest in arguing online. All the necessary info is there in my comment for others to confirm or reject. Thinking is difficult, it requires effort.

it's not underrated. It's avoided for bitter truth

Agreed

Hey bro

True as far as standard chemical diagramming is concerned, but even a double bond is a probability cloud and can "wiggle" --- hence, CO2's GHG properties, and CH4's even greater GHG problem.

@@aletheiai doesn't it spend a lot of its time in O(+) # C - O(-) or switched, # being a tripple bond. Should that not inhibit most of the spontaneous bending?

@@ax6356 If CO2 had a bend, wouldn't it be polar to some degree?

​@@Tore_Lund Why yes, it would. although to uphold the bend ideally we would need some more orbitals around that middle atom, as is the case for sulfur. SO2 should have a bend. if you're wondering how: sulfur's electrons can reach into higher orbitals (d), so they don't quite need to follow the octet rule you may were led to believe in.

@@ax6356 WoV! Thank you. There is always more to chemistry, than my Highschool rules of thumb! (If CO2 was polar, pulling it out of thin air would be easy!)

We'll said and all too true.... these do good initiative's should have been considered and implemented year's ago.... too late now, just see what Prof Peter Wadham as had to say in a recent docu on RU-vid 'Arctic Apocalypse' makes the IPCC report tame and notably sanitised to make people think something can be done about it.

That seems like quite a big and complex topic, I think it would be hard to fit into a video. But I agree, the topic is really interesting!

I think one of the biggest problem is that 2 of the main economies in Europe, Germany and Italy, have a very old population unlike USA. Obviously the problem is more complex but I think this is one of the main "issue"

@@ildile8248 That'll be a problem in like 20 years when they retire

@@ildile8248 The two biggest economies in the EU are Germany and France. Most of the countries have the aging population problem anyway, including France, so it still applies anyway.

@@Azati Those people are already retired, that why the economic growth is hampered now, in 20 years the problem is solved because those people have died by then.

Not a great solution to a leaking gas pipeline or tank. Kaboom.

That's called flaring, but it still causes CO2. Better to not loose the methane at all and sell it so less if it is burned in total. EDIT: I've heard that some other pollutants emerge from this practice, but I'm not entirely sure.

He implied that by saying, "agricultural emissions" and showing footage of a cow eating. Interestingly, there are ways to control these emissions. Certain types of feeds reduce methane in bovine burps. Additionally, all or nearly all methane from manure can be captured and stored if it's placed in a specially designed silo built for the purpose.

But did u know that Methane is only a resident for 10 years ? Because of the amount of Oxygen in our atmosphere it oxidises and thats the reason it can NEVER build up, so its NOT as bigger problem as stated. Water Vapour or clouds are much more of a greenhouse gas than Methane or C02

​@budbud2509 100 years, not 10. Furthermore, it degrades into CO2. That's also why it makes sense to focus on it. It's an easier problem to solve and we don't need methane capture to solve it.

Funny in grade 9 physics 1970 when we filled the bell jar with methane and air and placed it in the sunlight for 30 minutes it was full of CO2 and water vapor? And when we purged our new 12-inch high pressure gas main, we had to do it on sunny com day sor the sunlight would convert the Gas to CO2.

and it is so hot outside right now... if only someone could figure out where that heat came from...

@@sizanogreen9900 I wasn't talking about solar. Unless you meant fusion in which case... well we ain't there yet.

@@meneither3834 well, either way solar and wind are still vastly underutilized. Same might be true for nuclear, but a one sided aproach won't be good either way.

@@sizanogreen9900 True.

Okay more coal and oil it is then

Reduce rapidly and see human life reduce rapidly also .

Why ? out or 31 units of CO2 released into the atmosphere 30 are completely natural . Therefore 96% of all CO2 cannot be stopped even if we went to zero CO2 and we lost that 4% that man actually makes it would not effect it very much

0,657 kg/m³ half the density of air. However, if it is leaking from a pressure tank, the temperature can be significantly lower and so its boyancy.

@@Tore_Lund You are also right, what depends on pressure difference.

Even if it makes up less than a percentage of our atmosphere, the consequences of such a small quantity are massive, especially considering since the start of the industrial revolution, co2 quantity in the atmosphere has risen 47% along side other gasses

Finally a climate change denier that keeps to the facts, though missing the point still.

@@muddywisconsin Hi Muddy! Co2 past 400ppm means almost nothing to temperature. But it means a lot for the production of food. Water vapor is THE climate gas. Take a look at this: www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2021/4/5/how-near-saturation-of-co2-limits-future-global-warming-74 Look at the graph: Radiation transmitted to the atmosphere and the graph showing Co2 difference between 400 and 800ppm. This is from more than a hundred years ago. Max Planck and Karl Karl Schwarzschild did the science. When life on earth really exploded it was 7000ppm Co2. In a living room maximum limits of Co2 is set to 2700ppm. A child with a face mask has up to 27000ppm Co2 in the lungs. That is why it is not recommended they use face masks.

@@Tore_Lund Tore! Det kan umulig være noen som benekter klima? All den tid det er vær vi snakker om? Hva skaper været?

@@arnehofoss9109 Du förstod min lite sarkastiska ton?