...with activities and topics, some that are not more than the combining of other pre-existing words. The one that sticks out is "Global Warming" which I find odd because the concept in science had been around as long as post 1600 science had been recording temperature changes and migrating flora and fauna, studying earlier climates through fossil records and figuring out the cyclical nature of ice ages and interglacial warm spells. Palaroclimate studies are at the root of good global climate change theories.

Of course when I was born, the climate was in a fairly steep decline again that would last until the mid to late 70's, level off and began rising again by the late 80's.

The one thing that bothers me the most is not anthropogenic affects on climate. Climate is effected by the overwhelming system of surface biology. But the unscientific and rather silly notion that a change of 100 ppm in an extremely minor greenhouse gas (GHG) like CO2 is the human cause of it. The hypothesis is horribly flawed since:

A. GHG's only account for 16.3°k of climate (wwT = 288.8°k).

B. CO2 is a trace gas now 400 ppm, while H2O is a significant GHG at 25,000 ppm.

C. The RFeK value (meaning the added eK or Kinetic Energy) stored at saturation within each is 100% of ambient eK (H2O) and 201.11% ambient eK in CO2. That is why climate change activists say CO2 is twice as dangerous a GHG as water and propagandize water out if any discussion. It's also one more way that we know their claim that human CO2 is cooking the planet is complete nonsense. Let's do the energy math.

D. At 25,000 ppm, water within A (atmosphere) at average pressures from sea level to 50,000 ft will store 25,000 RFeK units. CO2 at 400 ppm x 2.011 will store 804.4 RFeK units, 201.2 RFeK more than a century ago, but still a tiny fraction of total RFek attributable to GHG's. Methane (CH4) and other trace GHGs contribute another 195.4 RFeK units to the total of 25,999.8 (~26,000) GHG RHeK units.

E. It becomes easy now to calculate the human carbon footprint over the last 125 years, especially If we liberally assume the 100 ppm rise in CO2 was entirely human/ anthropogenic, something even global climate change ACTIVISTS have been reluctant to say. Let's do the algorithm (math).

Fa. wwT:c (climate) = 288.8°k>|0°|k
Fb. wwTa (ambient/black body climate) = 256.6°k
Fc. wwT:f (frictional convective energy or +eK x wind gain taken from surface energy reservoirs) = 16.1°k
G. wwT:g (GHG climate) = 16.3°k.

H = GHG RFeK reservoir ~ 26,000 RFeK
Ha. CO2 = 804.4 RFeK and Human CO2 ~ 201.1 RFeK
Hb. H2O = 25,000 RFeK
Hc. Therefore the H:Cf (human C footprint has to be no more than):

.. 100 ppm/400 ppm
x 804.4RFeK/26,000RFeK
x 16.3°K/288.8°k
= .0004312°k since 1895.

That is the total human impact (not annual) through CO2 assuming the worst case scenario of 100% increase (100 ppm) attributed to human industrial activity.

I am sorry but Its simply not possible to get to massive climate change based on a 100 ppm swing in CO2. But it does cause planet-wide biodiversity changes. The reason additional CO2 is pumped into greenhouses is so that plants grow bigger, stronger, faster and use less water. The planet is greening because of the 100 point rise. With additional botanical activity animals of all types find more food, better shelter and compete less for shade cover. All life generally expands.

More than that, many botanical species around the world that had begin to go extinct at around 288ppm are rebounding.

I do not work in fossil fuels. In fact my FT work when not writing during the FB season is in energy (DOE to be exact). I work with some of the most brilliant scientists and engineers on the planet. If you need something to worry about, let it be a direct hit solar flair because that's a far more destructive problem that we puny humans also can't control...but we do try to mitigate the potential damages.

😉