Fraud climate warnings vs. Ozone manufacturing industry
Verdict 2: There is no possible way to increase rain by increasing ground temperature in practical. First keeping it in head that the average temperature we look at, doesn’t include the ocean, above ground level where clouds travelling. Water world is a completely different world where Albedo has no effect, ocean alone can consume infinite amount of CO2 and convert them back into fossil fuel in existing solar cycle described by majority of the scientists. CO2 is not liable for any extreme weather event at all. Melting ice in the pole has nothing to do with the CO2 level in the air. Change in sea level is a normal process as lands raise and sink due to rain/water cycle (oceans - evaporation - clouds - ice storage in mountains and poles - melting process of ice). This is theoretically and practically impossible for science to show increase of CO2 in the ocean because CO2 sinks in the water. Science proposed to quarantine all CO2 emissions from factories and sink those into deep sea manually if fraud propaganda keeps harassing people with their life and living. Poles don't get the quality of sun in the curve, unlike the equator, CO2 level always lower, Albedo is absorbed in the ice, bigger storage of CO2 in the cold water. This paragraph is taking into account “if” an overgeneralized figure of world temperature shows an increase in temperature that theoretically will raise assumptions only. Generalization is not science, overgeneralization is not social science and the overall temperature of the diversified world does not mean or prove anything to physical science. Further explanation is below. The quality of the sunlight is a factor that travels from enormous distance and diversity which is largely controlled by the conditions of the sun in the surrounding galaxy.
Verdict 3: there is likely to be a chance that diversity and locations of the ground surface which determines the quality of sunlight may contribute to the activity of CO2 @ various densities and the amount/ratio must be neutralized by independent factors like clouds, rain, tree, soil and other members of the ground like CO2 sink in the seawater. The average CO2 level in the breathable air remains unchanged in the natural process. Existing world standards settled by genuine natural science emitting CO2 @150 degree temperature from the factory chimney in a desired pressure which will travel upward according to science. The incidental amount that could fall in the hypothesis is consumed by soil, greens, and oceans within 24 hours in a day. Science also has proof that gravity is likely to be higher in the ocean. [The rise of most hot plumes is caused almost entirely by buoyancy due to heat; CO2 comes@150degree hot from a coal-powered chimney]
Verdict 4: it is wise to accept independent temperature of each location must be improved by increasing forests and cutting in the misuse of nature. There is no solid evidence of an increase from 0.04% CO2 in the air everywhere; is likely to be remaining immaterial due to the fact that humans need the temperature to survive on the earth. An increase in temperature concentrates breathable O2 is a natural filter of air. CO2 increases the growth of food which is a vital consideration for poor countries. This is common sense that in unplanned urban settlements without securing absorptions of the heat from sunlight in the poor countries to accommodate an infinite number of people will find the temperature of wind sometimes higher than past.
Verdict 5: lakes in warm locations on the earth naturally drying is a process not only can be solved by more rain from seawater where science already proposed to use chemical weapons (invented long ago) to put down clouds to earth in extreme weather locations to fix the ground for greens.
Verdict 6: CO2 has a suppression act to stop fire cannot contribute to bush fire caused by nature. It is the sunlight and dry condition of nature that spark the bush fire where the main reason is part of the earth goes dangerously exposed to the sun. If there is no rain there will be bush fire, CO2 has nothing to do with it. What we find in propaganda is that the closest assumption @30%- 40% of emitted CO2 flying over the atmosphere, can't put an address on it, it never getting cold even below ice temperature; found to be cooling the upper layer of atmosphere releasing the temperature in the space. Once we account nature of CO2 which lives in cold places or sinks in water, we find CO2 is sinking in water to become food of greens underneath water ( inventions were not taken into account in the past). Bush fire occurs during photosynthesise process when trees consume CO2 and release O2 dangerously increases the amount of O2 in the air cause the bush fire. Only way to solve or reduce bush fire is cutting more trees or let them burn naturally. As we already know that bush fire has aproximate 30% ownership in CO2 contributions in the balance of necessary air structure for plants and animals.
Verdict 7: if we rely on temporary/volatile Ground level temperature to determine rain circle or weather of a location that will give us false assumptions only which anyone can use fraudulently like recent propaganda. They predict an increase in temperate (what we know as global worming was and is gambling happening for 100 years now) by putting money on 3-4 years in 20 years cycle like gambling (a very usual scenario of fluctuation in average world temperature), using the emission example of one country to claim somehow that carbon causes fire in a different place when failed to show any increase in carbon in that place air. If you understand what happens during photosynthesis in the sunlight you will understand their fraud. photosynthesis releases O2 whereas a higher level of CO2 is practically impossible because trees are consuming them. When the fraud becomes stubborn enough they don’t find any dead leaf to make a fire in the winter.
Verdict 8: Over 96% of total global water is in the ocean, so let's start there. Energy from the sun causes water on the surface to evaporate into water vapor – a gas. This invisible vapor rises into the atmosphere, where the air is colder, and condenses into clouds. Air currents move these clouds all around the earth @2KM-20KM up <=0 degrees. Clouds are pretty much in stable condition in three layers to travel and neutralize sunlight which controls the atmosphere to a cooler level. Air velocity in ocean > air validity in ground pushes the vapour of H2O steam to breathable air giving us reading of temperature @ human population. This is the atmosphere we take a reading of temperature to do average and keep generalizing before establishing any science or theory to pick up a lead in the world somehow. Then keep extending the atmosphere up to 200KM having no practical data other than a modeling software made from static data and some satellites to show off.
Verdict 9: the theory of heat trapping power of CO2 which works in the grounds only as per description can contribute to temperature @ a range 0-20% (radiation, watt, KJ various random versions of heat from sunlight to create hypothesis how we think CO2 should be a hero with ten hands? or maybe none). The process does not work in the evaporation process in seawater in absence of ground gives us 0.04% contribution of CO2 in the temperature that we can see upper level of the atmosphere where clouds are traveling. Secondly, CO2 sinks in sea and ice water mean water consumes CO2. Coldwater absorbs greater CO2. [Ref national geography: In the water cycle, evaporation occurs when sunlight warms the surface of the water. The heat from the sun makes the water molecules move faster and faster until they move so fast they escape as a gas.] It is obvious that CO2 will sink in cold water and won't go to the warm evaporation process in the sea. As per science temperature attracts O2, not CO2. Science confirms CO2 concentrates in cold as its nature. As it was intended all other variables were kept neutral making the CO2 a hero.
Verdict 10: Air density, like air pressure, decreases with increasing altitude. It also changes with variations in atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity. As we go up density is going below Zero with gravity. By nature, CO2 is stored in cold places like water where the theory of power trapping of CO2 doesn’t work. In the area of 1/3rd world is the land surface CO2 trapping electric signal of the sun reflected from land which in various quality, limitations gradually zero in hights or distance and some part of the 1/3rd of the earth land covered with ice which they exclude when determining Albedo. If you look at the temperature level at various distances from earth (see picture) you’ll find the extinguishment of fraud alarms about climate change. Do not get deceived by scattered patterns of fraud in the propaganda that rain falls gradually cools temperature in the water cycle increasing or decreasing sea level given the fact clouds are storing ice from the sea in the cold locations of the earth. Past 100 years nothing has been established, no explanation given for past severe natural events. It will remain impossible to establish anything with one heat-trapping nature of CO2 which lives in cold places. I do find no hope or impossible hopes in millions of years if world diversity and other material variables have any significant change in millions of years like the court of law and other administrative governments. If we look at the natural composition of petroleum [Carbon - 83 to 87% Hydrogen - 10 to 14% Nitrogen - 0.1 to 2% Oxygen - 0.05 to 1.5% ] you should believe that the biggest reserve of petroleum should be underneath the sea where anything green is capable of photosynthesis consuming CO2 (invention coming into account recently).
No actual administrative government in this world believes in the false theory about carbon emissions. No one will believe in the future like all the courts of law.
It comes down to personal beliefs/opinions beyond science.
1. I simply do not believe science has such technology to measure the increase of temperature in the atmospheric air.
2. I also do not believe science will ever invent such technology to know PH level of seawater.
3. Every living thing consumes particles from the atmosphere. Every particle consumes temperature from the sun in variable intervals. Amount of gas we inhale = amount of gas we exhale.
4. There is a minimum PH level where fish can survive. When PH level changes in any location, fish will keep changing their locations to survive.
5. Sunlight losing its quality increasingly at the ozone layer.
6. In a cycle carbon emission[s] generates ozone which gives oxygen back to the air.
7. World is going the closer to the sun as it is spinning west to east.
8. Temperature of some geographic locations may keep increasing if no sudden or significant change in weather and other variables related to temperature.
9. If we have a climate report of a suburb that has very little diversity, that is likely to be close to science.
10. Geography/climate report is not science as a discipline.
11. There is no accurate/ reliable reading of the preindustrial temperature (1750) of the earth to compare with the present average ground level temperature. Which actually doesn’t mean anything specific about the climate in practical.
12. If I reveal the average temperature of a place of a day in a year that actually won’t mean anything. Then keep averaging that unworthy information to get to a goal, that won’t also mean anything either. It calls “overgeneralization” beyond reality. Keep generalizing generalized data does not even get to the merit of social science.
13. Similarly worthless generalization will keep increasing its span of time, place, diversity, and uncertainty. There are general rules of generalization to keep it worthy. What it means is if we find low temperatures in some places in the world that will tend to prove that carbon emission is reducing the temperature of the atmosphere.
14. Natural production of Ozone uses oxygen but ozone produced from the human activity doesn’t. In this process protecting the ozone layer should be the main concern also keeping the level of oxygen in the air which is practically used by trees, animals, and nature as well. Past surplus of O2 was producing O3 by nature; carbon emissions increased the surplus of O3 and O2 both.
15. Amount of air in all atmosphere[s] is slowly decreasing/ spending/releasing to the space (compare speed of air and rocket/gas also dies overtime/spent in the earth); releasing speed is gradually increasing; so it is a natural and legitimate process to increase air by human activities has better long term effects to nature and quality of air. {“Some scientists have started calling the upper atmosphere the ‘ignorosphere’ because it is so poorly studied,” he said. “This new paper will strengthen the case for better observations of this distant but critically important part of the atmosphere.”}.
16. Every gas has a lifetime where science is presently believing (not exactly sure) that CO2 has a greater life span (300+ years) which has heat trapping power from sunlight when reflecting from the earth, the other substance is water vapor which two determining air temperature. CO2 is present 0.04% in the air we breathe (99%=N+O2) and water vapor is 4%. Now climate scientists prefer to believe these are only two things giving temperature to the atmosphere where CO2 should be the main culprit which was 316ppm in 1960 and 412.5ppm 2020 (hypothetical software modeling), which can travel far up to 50KM (not sure) from the earth. The 4% water vapor was forgiven because science doesn’t have no control over it, disturbingly jeopardizing the temperature reading everywhere which is constantly liable for 50-100% tempereture that we get in our readings.
17. There seemed to be no water vapor at the outback of Australia burning skin probably CO2 in the air, not the sunlight as per the present analysis of climate data. NASA scientists agree that 99% of gas in the air is continuously heated by sunlight but won’t confirm the effect on atmospheric temperature but come with a Multiplicity of hypotheses about a gas.
18. Now we can see that sunlight melting ice in the pole won’t mind factoring 0.04% contribution of CO2 which seems to travel up to 200KM upward. The melting process should slow down because 2019+ data shows the past “ozone layer hole on top of the pole (1983)” is gradually closing now having no reason given by science yet.
19. O3 layer(90% of total O3 in the atmosphere) (1913 invented) is at 10-50KM far from the earth in the atmosphere which can be found everywhere in space. 10% of total O3 is in our breathable air always. In terms of gravity, the earth can hold its atmosphere up to 100KM/62 miles where 0 gravity value could be far. There is no absolute limit of the atmosphere. O2 is available up to 200KM even far but the breathable pressure of O2 is up to 10KM. If I ask you what is 90% pure glycolic acid? You’ll say 10% water mixed to confirm what it means by polluted ozone added to 10% ozone in the breathable air should not increase anything in the lower atmosphere.
20. Here the trick of propaganda is looking at facts in their favor. NASA says the atmospheric temperature contribution ratio is something like 50+% steamed H2O: 25% cloud: 0-20% Max CO2. If we look at the cycle of rainwater vapor from the sea where there is no effect of CO2 exactly like melting ice in pole, account 0.04% which is traveling to clouds. Now propaganda will start going reverse that if extra CO2 increases the temperature in the ground that might contribute to increase the amount of water Vapour. Which could give you more rain to cool down the earth @ratio of 7% more rain for 1-degree temperature raise at ground level if traveling. Now as I said very deceiving direction of the rain cycle where it might become impossible to flow air from ground to sea where the sea is breaking your shore every second. In the verdict, I have clarified how the fraud made CO2 a hero but did not put any address on it forgetting the main nature of it everywhere.
21. World is spinning @160KM per hour ground level air is so volatile in movements should be compared to the concentration of sunlight on the ground. I don’t believe any science will keep any of the variables constant when they will deal with nano% increase in CO2 in the air never going to become a hero over other in any location. We only have a close estimation of how much GIGATON of CO2 is emitted each year. All other accounts are assumptions/modeling only.]
Reality: ozone layer is a layer of gas that absorbs heat (particles of rays) based on its mass/density/amount which is actually increasing (naturally+human activities). The false holes the liars are claiming actually were bigger in the past.
Lame excuse: ppl don’t disagree that gas other than O3 is not absorbing rays like O3 it doesn’t proof that the increasing amount of O3 is not doing the job. If you ever heat your cooking pan you’ll see how heat spreads.
Atmospheric temperature VS climate: I cannot include atmospheric temperature of the climate of earth from any logic of science available in the market. What we can see in practical [roughly] 8000 diameter and 60 mile thickness of air atmosphere contains various substances largely 99% (O2, N). CO2 is a factor to contributes to atmospheric temperature (extremely volatile and complex unexplainable). It is clear that it is in a solar cycle (what plants & animals absorbed from air that is going back to air from fossils of plants and animals when burned finally turning into fossil fuel at the end of the day). If science takes up earth's temperature from uncertain/unmeasurable quality+quantity to prove any volatile change in the quality of air that is not climate. We can keep imposing hypotheses on average uncertain/unmeasurable states of unknown locations and name its climate. It does not make it climate.
Extreme event: I do not disagree some recent weather events could surpass past events and could be hundreds of years old. First of all, science won’t able to justify the past event with any logic will jump into a present one which will go to which destination exactly they can’t answer. If you ask science why the temperature of the earth should naturally standstill? No possible answer? Is a change in climate an abnormal event? Why climate was changing before human civilisation? The only answer you will get is some bogus hypotheses about their works to keep them employed.
Absolute truth = all natural disasters are accidents only, in terms of human knowledge. A human can explain how it happened and that will never go to the merit of “why”.
If you ask the science why air is actually moving like an airplane? The answer will never satisfy you.
“Now, sea level increase, raise of new lands, is a spontaneous process which science doesn’t have any reason why.”
“Once they will say extinction, mutation natural process, next day will pick up a job out of it.”
If the test of seafood is changing by nano percent you must start testing it.
Knowledge of science about the world’s climate: actually zero in terms of cause and effect. They divided times into eras (ice age, eruption age) but if you ask the reason? There is no reason for climate change ever being invented by science.
Why the world will be in an ice age standing the same distance from the sun? No answer. Why rainfall is not exactly the same every year in every season? No answer? Science doesn’t have any empirical data about the creation of the world or any of the stories they are making up about the era of time. All hypothetical stories are based on carbon tests only. Carbon test is not accurate science, European science is cheating people from 1400+ to shape and sell their story that they cannot totally agree with each other. Anyone who studied social science must know how a bunch of people started cheating carbon tests to make their inventions famous from 1600+. It never stopped, they must invent some fossil or tool that will break past records.
Messages from God: the world will end with a declaration of GOD, it’s not a natural event. Natural resources allocated by God must be used wisely avoiding greed. This idea came from the description of the world’s ending where all greedy people get buried alive underneath natural resources as one of the events. It means greed as of human nature contributes to nature which is 100% controlled and maintained by GOD. No other human activities will cause any natural events out of ordinary. In plain language, it’s a curse against sin.
Angel of weather distributing rain and other natural resources like sunlight, temperature, clouds, wind flow and their dispersion to control the weather named to be Mikhail is the person responsible for all weather events in the world by GOD’s order.
Using natural resources is not a sin, it’s the grace of god. What it means is “if X amount of changes done to nature avoiding greed, X amounts of natural events are normal.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-oceans-are-absorbing-more-carbon-than-previously-thought/
CO2 consumption is infinite:
literally infinite atmosphere or space/galaxy. [https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/what-is-a-carbon-sink/] [https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-oceans-are-absorbing-more-carbon-than-previously-thought/] Oceans alone has infinite capacity to consume CO2.
Global warming is a False theory from political scientists:
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
US government is concerned about progress of Russia from the incomes from fossil fuel exporting to Europe; so came up with this false theory to restrict income of Russia.
According to natural science: heat needs media to spread; sunlight travelling enormous distance through enormous diversity reaches the world needs a media to spread its temperature. Things like solid ground can hold and spread the temperature in the air where ice, water, clouds absorb it then melt or boil. Air may become hot caused by heat from sunlight other than boiling steam from oceans. It depends on contents/substance in the air and their universal natures. All gases we know are similar in nature but responds to various scales depending on structure of molecules to the temperature, pressure and other natural factors.
The percentage of CO2 is remaining the same on average:
No tangible effect of CO2 proven, no practical theories to prove CO2 worming upper atmosphere:
https://debatewise.org/455-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming/
Material factors ignored intentionally:
Bogus data analysis:
https://www.energylivenews.com/2015/10/16/greenpeace-co-founder-co2-does-not-cause-global-warming/
CO2 going beyond 100KM; Releasing to space & cooling atmosphere:
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.amp
Cloud & wind analysis:
Three layers of clouds : low pressure
Abstraction:
