WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

755

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

(German) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HaU4kYk21Q

Description: What can CO2 actually do in relation to the climate? Klaus-Eckart Puls investigates this question on the basis of original IPCC reports. He notes that - and this restriction must be allowed if one believes in a real greenhouse effect at all - the theoretical value of the so-called climate sensitivity ECS is often given by the IPCC as 1.2 °C (with a doubling of the CO2 concentration), while the MPI in Hamburg assumes it to be even smaller for reality, namely "only a few tenths of a degree". But as recent research on the ECS value shows, also the theory for the determination of this value is tending to go further downwards with larger and larger leaps. However, in order to produce a noticeable, even dangerous appearing warming effect at all, a drastic amplification of its effect via the water vapor must be assumed. However, this cannot be proven anywhere in reality. One must therefore assume that water vapor - presumably thanks to the formation of clouds - has a dampening, but not an intensifying influence. CO2, in any case, cannot by itself cause "dangerous" warming. Even more dramatically, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, according to measurements, has decreased significantly over the last 40 years. This means that the determining influence of water vapor is steadily decreasing. This is the reason for the IPCC's confession, which it has made with the footnote on the indeterminacy (in reality, its rapid reduction) of the ECS value. Thus this means that all models for this reason alone must calculate wrongly! Much worse is only that this is named nowhere outside of this hidden footnote. Rather the exact opposite is constantly further maintained.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[–] 0 pt (edited )

People are either on one side or the other of this issue. I don't see people switching sides, but maybe they are. Both sides cite "science". What's the truth? It's usually in the middle. Of course humans affect the climate, so does a butterfly. It is clear though that if you look at history, Mother Nature fucks with things much more than we could. The problem really is, how will White people survive regardless of the crisis, whether it's changing weather, commie infiltration, our own softness, or whatever? Put another way, the crises will arise, but will we be ready to survive them?