These people are, in fact, nutjob doomsday cultists
Now scientists say BREATHING is bad for the environment: Gases we exhale contribute to 0.1% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions https://t.co/SfCugnVOXV pic.twitter.com/w1QO59mtd2
— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) December 13, 2023
From the link
Whether it’s eating less meat or cycling instead of driving, humans can do many things to help prevent climate change.
Unfortunately, breathing less isn’t one of them.
That might be a problem, as a new study claims the gases in air exhaled from human lungs is fueling global warming.
Methane and nitrous oxide in the air we exhale makes up to 0.1 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say.
And that’s not even accounting for the gas we release from burps and farts, or emissions that come from our skin without us noticing. (snip)
‘Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming,’ Dr Cowan and colleagues say.
‘We would urge caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.’
Yeah, and? What do they want us to do about it? They sort of recommend a less meat heavy diet, but, that would make barely any change. We know what the climate cult really wants, which is why they have been pushing depopulation, especially by pushing contraception and abortion in 3rd world areas, particularly with black and brown people. (photo from Mark The Shark)
It’s an observation, not a recommendation. Wouldn’t be better for conservatives if Big Donnie stopped all scientific investigations in the United States? All scientists do is muck up your beliefs and religions, and they are part of the global communist plot to control white Christian conservatives, in cahoots with the media, religious bosses, corporations, governments, universities, libs, Dems etc.
Who’s in charge of the global commie plot??
Anyway, for millenia, animals (including us human beans) have stayed in equilibrium with our plantae and protista brothers and sisters with regard to carbon dioxide and oxygen!! It’s a cycle. Plants and algae take in environmental CO2 and using the sun’s visible light energy, convert it into organic molecules (carbohydrates), releasing oxygen in the process (about half of emitted oxygen comes from the oceans)! Animals consume the carbohydrates, and other animals eat the animals that eat the carbs, with all the consumers disassembling the carbs releasing CO2 and using the generated energy. The Sun keeps it all going. BTW, Prochlorococcus sp. are the most abundant living creatures on Earth, cyanobacteria responsible for some 20% of the Earth’s O2 output.
As long as we keep the Earth’s environment sound (especially the oceans) and reduce our burning of fossil fuels, we’ll be OK.
On the other hand, Russia, China and North Korea have ordered their women to start having MORE babies.
Sorry J, but the comments were stopped on the other article. As far as NTZ, please call when you find errors in the papers. As far as Dr. Keeling (spelling?), all that shows is CO2 levels rising. No one has disputed that, but thanks
60.8º F and sunny, on December 14th, in eastern Kentucky! How can I not love
global warmingclimate change?Culling these pieces of shit would reduce CO2 by a considerable amount.
For Zach-Loeb 2021: “Earth’s energy balance is relatively small…this trend is primarily due to an increase in solar radiation associated with decreased clouds”. A decrease in clouds is not what one would expect with increased water vapor, which would allegedly cause more clouds.
I have said this from day one. If you believe the hoax, then the best way to reduce carbon is to have liberals stop breathing. This would result in less carbon and we would be free of the constant crap being put out by these mentally deranged people. But the way things are going, I feel we are going to have a civil war with same result.
“It didnt directly observe downwelling radiation” . Correct, it didn’t . It “observed” data that came from a model.
Semantics-yes. The Feldman study didn’t take into account clouds, so the effect of clouds was…discounted. True. The Feldman study is based on an imaginary world with no clouds, and no measured, or observed, or modeled effect of that 10% increase. What did that 10% increase do? We don’t know. In the real world clouds can have more effect than a hundred fold increase in CO2. ( Ramanathon, 1989). So in the real world that alleged 10% increase in Feldman would be more than offset by clouds.
“You apparently agreed that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in heat at the surface”.
Good one-I never disagreed that ghg dont keep the planet warmer. I said no cause-effect evidence that man’s (anthropogenic) CO2 is causing this warming. And of course Feldman doesn’t show an increase in temperature at the surface.
“Khmeliniskii contradicted by Feldman.” Nope-Feldman (2015) contradicted by Khmeliniskii (2023).
Wang 2002-found it right away. There may be many Wangs, but not Wang 2002. “1985-1998 a decrease in reflected shortwave radiation, meaning an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the earth. This can easily explain the warming during this period”.
Song 2016-“when all gh effect contributers were considered..there was a declining overall
gh effect trend 2003-2014. The increasing trend in gh effect forcing is only realized in an imaginary world with only anthropogenic ghg forcing and no clouds.
Dubal 2021 CERES satellite observations “conflict with the assumption further warming originates mainly by LW radiation capture caused by ghg”.
So, still no cause-effect evidence that I mentioned earlier, unless one bases their “evidence” on a make-believe world with no clouds. Otherwise, other factors overwhelm any alleged CO2 forcings
THOUSANDS of migrants wait in Mexico to board a train to U.S. – Video
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2023/12/thousands-of-migrants-wait-in-mexico-to.html