What are the unprecedented frosts in Russia and the USA talking about?


There are many theories to explain climate change. The factors influencing it include solar activity, the World Ocean, volcanism, and even climatic memory. The role of the anthropogenic factor, that is, the economic activity of mankind, is the most controversial. However, 2020 and 2021 could be turning points in this matter.


Against the background of the last surprisingly warm and mild winter, this one turned out to be unusually tough. Abnormal cold weather is all over our hemisphere. In Russia, the temperature in places dropped by 7-9 degrees below normal, which is caused by the movement of cold air masses from the northeast. The southernmost regions of our country, the Kuban and the Crimea, are covered with a half-meter layer of snow.

The Arctic cold, having passed Russia, invaded the traditionally warm countries of Southeast Asia. In Vietnam, unprecedented snow fell, the temperature in some places dropped to minus 3 degrees, the death of animals unusual for this was noted. It is also abnormally cold in China, South Korea and Japan. LNG prices there are now setting real records as the population tries to warm up.

It is also cold now in the Old and New Worlds. In Europe, where the gas transportation infrastructure is well developed, there are at the same time nuclear power plants, gas pipelines, LNG terminals, coal-fired generation and “green energy”, they are coping with the problem quite successfully. However, the reserves of "blue fuel" in underground storage facilities are rapidly depleting, and tankers with LNG, except for the contracted ones, have gone to Asia, where prices for it are higher. Due to cold weather and icing, generation from alternative sources decreased, which led to a noticeable increase in the cost of electricity.

But the USA, or rather, their southern states, which were not completely ready for this, suffered most noticeably from the invasion of the Arctic cold. Millions of residents were left without electricity and heating in houses that were not adapted to such a temperature regime, pipes burst in places, power lines were cut off from gusts of wind. In oil-rich Texas, production of "black gold" fell, half of the wind turbines are idle with icy blades. Read more about unexpected problems of the "hegemon" we told earlier.

And now we get to the fun part. Apparently, the previous "coronavirus" 2021 is to blame for the problems of early 2020. Rather, we ourselves.

It is well known that climate change is influenced by such types of our economic activities as agriculture, animal husbandry, deforestation, combustion of hydrocarbon fuels, etc. As a result, greenhouse gases are emitted, and infrared radiation from the earth's surface increases. Together with other factors, anthropogenic causes climate changes that can no longer be denied or ignored.

And here the most curious thing happened. The coronavirus pandemic in 2020 has caused large-scale restrictions on the economic activities of mankind across the planet. The volume of industrial production and extraction of natural resources fell sharply, air transport links between the countries were almost interrupted for a long period, people stayed at home, and used less public and private vehicles. This instantly led to a reduction in harmful emissions into the atmosphere. It would seem that this is worth celebrating?

Yes, but Greta Thunberg's dream come true has its downside. If I can put it that way, nature "adapted" to the growing anthropogenic factor, responding to it with a gradual increase in temperature on Earth. But a one-step sharp decrease in this negative impact, so to speak, introduced an imbalance into the single ecosystem of the planet. How it worked, explained in an interview with the publication Gazeta.ru climatologist Sergey Nikanorov:

If we are talking about cold, then the theory of global warming also speaks about it. In particular, the opening of the "window" from the Arctic, which takes place in January or February. Due to the acceleration of climate change, cyclones pass in such a way that they cause extreme cold.

According to him, changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere disrupt the usual circulation of heat and energy. The system reacts to this, for example, by abnormal precipitation in the form of snow or rains where no one is ready for them. The warm winter of 2019-2020 was a consequence of the global warming process, and the unusually cold winter of 2020-2021 could be caused by a sharp imbalance. Nature opened the very "window" from the Arctic, from where the cold calmly moved to where no one was ready for it, causing a real collapse in the United States and Southeast Asia.

No, no one is calling on more and more actively to pollute the atmosphere, on the contrary. The unique situation of the "pandemic" and the resulting restrictions on economic activity clearly demonstrated how much humanity affects the environment, as well as what kind of response can be. Climate change is happening literally before our eyes, and there are very gloomy forecasts, up to the shift of the usual seasons and the transformation of terrible natural disasters into a routine.

There is something to think about.
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 24 February 2021 13: 36
    -2
    - Well, what can you say ... - nature ... as a "drug addict" ... - "gets used" to the greenhouse effect; melting ice; to the massive release of oil products into the seas, rivers (discharge of petrochemical waste) and oceans (frequent crashes of oil tankers with oil spills over whole water areas) ... and so on and so on ... - And this becomes its "dose"; which is also constantly increasing ...
    - He has not yet said his "scary word" Space ... - today what kind of garbage dumps does not fly in outer space ... - That will take some Galaxy and heap all this flying waste ... - very tightly connect them ( blinds them like a giant snowball) ... and begins its "bombardment" of the Earth ...
    - Generally ... - still the little men for some reason are sure that they are landing on the moon; on Mars and so on ... - they are doing a great and useful thing for the Universe ... - Where does such conviction come from ??? - Damn, we flew to Space and to other planets for lithium, for beryllium ... - as if we went to our own storeroom ... - as if we went to the river on the water ... on our Earth they went ... - How long will "have enough patience "The Cosmos ... is an open question ...
  2. Dmitry S. Offline Dmitry S.
    Dmitry S. (Dmitry Sanin) 24 February 2021 13: 59
    +2
    I remember that in the 60s and 70s of the last century, scientists wanted to heat the earth in order to avoid a new ice age, then they started screaming about global warming. Who is right and who is wrong is completely unclear.
  3. alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 24 February 2021 14: 16
    +9
    Rave!! Humanity is too insignificant to have any impact on nature or on the climate ... Let's recall the recent eruption of a volcano with an unpronounceable name. It threw out gases and ashes, maybe more than humanity in its entire industrial history. Well, and that. Someone felt it on themselves. A couple of dozen million years ago, there were subtropics in Antarctica. Who is to blame for the fact that there is now an icy desert. I had a chance to read the opus of some kind of pepper, so that one in all seriousness claimed that the dinosaurs were to blame. They ate a lot of the type and bzdeli. days fall on agriculture .. Cow types contribute to the greenhouse effect. The climate changes regardless of the activities of humans. Once in my memory a man intervened in this process. The accident of the drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The non-freezing port of Murmansk was covered with a thick layer of ice for several years ..Something like that
    1. rotkiv04 Offline rotkiv04
      rotkiv04 (Victor) 24 February 2021 18: 10
      +5
      I know - Russians are to blame and Putin in particular
  4. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 24 February 2021 15: 40
    -2
    HAARP (English High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is an American research project aimed at studying the interaction of the ionosphere with powerful electromagnetic radiation.
    HAARP (USA) - presumably up to 4,8 MW (in 2009 it was 3,6 MW) (Effective capacity: Pe = 3,6 GW)
    Sura - about 200 MW [4]
    EISCAT (Norway, Tromsø) - 1,2 MW
    SPEAR (Norway, Longyearbyen) - 288 kW

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP
    It is still not known how the work of these stations affects the climate on the planet. The first station was put into operation in 1997. And the climate on the planet has become unpredictable since then.
  5. SASS Offline SASS
    SASS (Sass) 24 February 2021 17: 14
    +2
    Tales of greenhouse gases: cows farting, burning everything and everyone ...
    Yes, the volcano for its ONE eruption blocks all your screams and groans ...))) laughing tongue
  6. rotkiv04 Offline rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 (Victor) 24 February 2021 18: 07
    +5
    more idiotic than the involvement of mankind in the "greenhouse effect" can not be invented, as well as the very concept of "greenhouse effect." periods, hence all this nonsense about the influence of human activity
    1. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
      Rum rum (Rum rum) 24 February 2021 22: 39
      +1
      In the west, with education tight and what is the "medieval temperature optimum" there the population practically does not know, for this to fool their heads and cut the dough on this, this is a sacred matter.
      Who remembers the "millennium" problem (how is this crap spelled?), How much dough was thrown out to solve it?
  7. Rum rum Offline Rum rum
    Rum rum (Rum rum) 24 February 2021 22: 33
    +1
    Quote: rotkiv04
    I know - Russians are to blame and Putin in particular

    Ad intended! It's not even discussed.
  8. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 24 February 2021 23: 46
    +4
    Climate and Ecology are two fundamentally different concepts.
    Climate changes do not occur in a year or two and depend on the structure of the planet, the relief of the lower layer of continental plates, the composition, speed, direction and temperature of magma flows, interaction with the core, etc., as well as on the Earth's orbit, rotation rate, axis precession , the attraction of the moon, solar activity and many other factors that manifest on the surface by changing periods of glaciation and warming, inversion of magnetic poles, drift of continental plates, volcanic activity, temperature, speed and direction of ocean currents, changes in atmospheric flows, flora and fauna.
    Today, as a fact, we have a drift of the magnetic poles by tens of kilometers per year, an increase in the average temperature in the polar regions and the melting of permafrost with the release of large volumes of gas, ozone holes, some signs of a change in the composition of the atmosphere and a modification of atmospheric flows, which result in episodic movements of northern cold masses in the southern direction and violation of the usual climatic picture of the regions.
    Ecology is a habitat that directly depends on people, just like order and cleanliness in the house in which a person lives.
    The pandemic, like any economic crisis, led to a reduction in production, which in no way reduced and cannot reduce the pollution of the environment from previously accumulated waste, but only temporarily reduced the rate of their increase in connection with the so-called. deferred demand, restrictions and economic recession by several percent and which has no significant practical impact on the environment - in a year or two the forest will not grow, plastic is not utilized, the chemical composition of the soil will not be restored.
  9. boriz Offline boriz
    boriz (boriz) 25 February 2021 00: 17
    +3
    In Europe, where the gas transportation infrastructure is well developed, there are at the same time nuclear power plants, gas pipelines, LNG terminals, coal-fired generation, and "green energy", coping with the problem quite successfully.

    Why braid green energy? Solar power plants covered with snow - that's all. And the blades of the wind turbines are frozen. Where they are equipped with heating, the electricity is golden. And to the LNG terminals of Europe, the great LNG power brought shish and butter. Including because the wells stopped producing. At the same time, Mexico was framed.
    And winter 2005/6. for Russia it was much colder. Only that the cold did not go further.
    And this year is a normal Russian winter. SNiPs for such winters are calculated with a margin.
    And those who are not preparing for extreme winters, but for average winters, will have to adopt the experience of the USSR.
    Including the unified energy system. Indeed, a great technologically advanced power does not have a unified energy system. Separately West, separately East and separately Texas. This is not to mention Alaska. Texas found itself isolated in its power system, with power flows obstructed by DC links. And the neighbors were also cool, so there were no people willing to share their energy.
    In general, it is not a matter of climate change, but of stupidity and carelessness.
    In Ukraine, it would have been the same catastrophe if they had time to separate from the general Soviet energy system.
    Overflows were already at the limit. Only from the Russian side 3 MW. The power line section would no longer allow.
    And if they separated, in principle, there would be no one to help out. In Europe, such reserves as in Russia are not provided. And electricity prices are completely different.
    It is not for nothing that the Rada did not approve Vitrenko as the Minister of Energy. In my opinion, from 3 passes. So Ze, bypassing the Rada, left him just acting. They have experience, they have Suprun for 3 years ruining health care in the rank of acting. Then, even such a scumbag as Mosiychuk achieved her removal from office.
    So Vitrenko will deal with the energy sector of Ukraine. Like Suprun Health. Then he will blame climate change.
  10. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 25 February 2021 01: 30
    -6
    In the comments, the rage of couch climatologists.

    I was especially amused by this comment.

    Rave!! Humanity is too insignificant to have any impact on nature or on the climate. Let us recall the recent eruption of a volcano with an unpronounceable name. It threw out gases and ashes, maybe more than humanity in its entire industrial history. Well, and that. Someone felt it for themselves.

    And this one too:

    Tales of greenhouse gases: cows farting, burning everything and everyone ...
    Yes, the volcano for its ONE eruption blocks all your screams and groans ...)))

    In reality, everything is quite the opposite - anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are ten times higher than those from volcanoes. And there is scientific evidence for this, and not the conjectures of the mother's climatologists. https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/6950874

    Another couch climatologist learned one concept from climatology, but what it means and what role it plays in the formation of climate has no idea:

    In the west, with education tight and what is the "medieval temperature optimum" there the population practically does not know
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 25 February 2021 18: 20
      +3
      Especially amused by the rage of the "whistle-blowers" of the couch climatologists. laughing

      In reality, everything is quite the opposite - anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are dozens of times higher than those from volcanoes. And there is scientific evidence for this, and not the conjectures of the mother's climatologists.

      And where can you find "scientific evidence"?
      Browsers (even bourgeois Google and even in safe mode) strongly advise against visiting the website of a venerable organization located in the geophysical laboratory of the Carnegie Institute in Washington, they just fall on their knees and cry and say - the owner does not go there, they follow you there.

      The bourgeois Wikipedia lists the results of their "life"

      volcanic CO 2 flux into the atmosphere is twice as high as previously assumed (although this flux remains two orders of magnitude lower than anthropogenic CO 2 fluxes

      There is a link to the article, but access to it is limited. True, there is an option to buy it there for $ 25, which for me is extremely dubious.
      https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/rimg/article-abstract/75/1/323/140959/Deep-Carbon-Emissions-from-Volcanoes?redirectedFrom=fulltext

      Confirmation of the conclusions of scientists from the Deep Carbon Observatory has not been met by other independent sources. And they do not arouse much confidence, because there are suspicions that the purpose of their activities is to provide a basis for "green madness".
      All that we have is a note in TASS that their scientists think so and the insanity of the adherents of the green sect, but this does not count because they believe all American delirium unconditionally.
      The note itself says:

      The atmosphere, as shown by the measurements of scientists, contains only 1,4% of the total carbon reserves on Earth, while in the bowels of the planet there are almost two zettatons (trillions of tons) of compounds of this element. A very small fraction of these reserves, about 300-400 million tons of carbon, is released into the atmosphere every year.
      Most of these emissions, about 280-360 million tons, come from volcanoes, climatologists say. This value is several orders of magnitude less than the typical annual volume of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, it speaks about the great influence of volcanoes on the climate, and about the even greater "contribution" of humanity to global warming.

      These people cite figures about, as they believe, the approximate amount of carbon entering the atmosphere and declare that due to human activities, tens of times more is released into the atmosphere. Moreover, the data does not provide, which is understandable in principle. I have not seen any mention of their study of human activity. They explore the crust of the earth, the mantle (apparently theoretically), microbes, minerals, and so on.
      So how much gets into the atmosphere and where are these numbers from?
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 25 February 2021 20: 16
        -2
        And where can you find "scientific evidence"?
        Browsers (even bourgeois Google and even in safe mode) strongly advise against visiting the website of a venerable organization located in the geophysical laboratory of the Carnegie Institute in Washington, they just fall on their knees and cry and say - the owner does not go there, they follow you there.

        I, of course, understand that your 3 parish classes are not enough to click the "Advanced" button on the browser warning page and then follow the link. Now you know how to do it.

        There is a link to the article, but access to it is limited.

        You see, a scientific article, like any other product of intellectual work, is subject to copyright. The author of a scientific article can either give it for use for money, or put it in free access - as he wishes.

        True, there is an option to buy it there for $ 25, which for me is extremely dubious.

        These are purely your problems, that you are in trouble with money.

        Confirmation of the conclusions of scientists from the Deep Carbon Observatory has not been met by other independent sources.

        Have you checked all the publications in the world on this topic?

        I literally found 2 articles in 2 minutes:

        Gerlach, TM, 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254–255 - times.

        And two - https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanic-gases

        Quote:

        Carbon dioxide makes up approximately 0,04% of the air in the Earth's atmosphere. On average, volcanoes emit from 180 to 440 million tons carbon dioxide.

        It beats with the data given in the note? Beats.

        These people cite figures about, as they believe, the approximate amount of carbon entering the atmosphere and declare that due to human activities, tens of times more is released into the atmosphere.

        Clarification - "these people" talk about how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere by volcanoes.

        Moreover, the data does not provide, which is understandable in principle.

        So you said yourself that you didn’t read the study itself, only a note?

        I have not seen any mention of their study of human activity. They explore the crust of the earth, the mantle (apparently theoretically), microbes, minerals, and so on.
        So how much gets into the atmosphere and where are these numbers from?

        Statistics on annual anthropogenic emissions are not a secret and are easy to find if you know how to use a keyboard and mouse.

        For example, article Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation https://ac.gov.ru/files/publication/a/23713.pdf .

        Quote:

        Most relevant data
        in terms of CO2 volumes in a cross-country context are presented in the annual report “BP
        Statistical Review of World Energy "(hereinafter - BP).
        According to BP, cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions in 2018 reached
        33,9 billion tons, having increased by 2,0% (the maximum increase in the indicator for the last
        seven years).

        Now let's compare 180-440 million tons of CO2 per year from volcanoes with 33 billion tons per year from human activity.

        The BP organization cited in the quote is none other than the world's largest oil and gas corporation, British Petroleum. Do you think an organization whose main source of income is fossil fuels would deliberately overestimate anthropogenic emissions?

        But if you don’t believe the "despicable brita", then you can compare the BP data with the data of the World Bank and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency - there will be all the same more than 30 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 per year.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 25 February 2021 22: 03
          +3
          I, of course, understand that your 3 parish classes are not enough to click the "Advanced" button on the browser warning page and then follow the link. Now you know how to do it.

          I'm already used to you, often two repetitions is not enough, just in case I will repeat 3 times and hopefully we will close this question.

          Browsers (even bourgeois Google and even Safe Mode) strongly advise against visiting the site
          Browsers (even bourgeois Google and even Safe Mode) strongly advise against visiting the site

          Safe mode is enabled in the settings after pressing the button additionally.
          Safe mode is enabled in the settings after pressing the button additionally.


          You see, a scientific article, like any other product of intellectual work, is subject to copyright. The author of a scientific article can either give it for use for money, or put it in free access - as he wishes.

          Then let her be referenced in the information for those to whom they are selling. Why do we need data to which there is no access? Is this an advertisement for the products of eco-scientists?

          These are purely your problems, that you are in trouble with money.

          This is not a problem with money, but an unwillingness to buy any garbage, even if Soros and the State Department finance Gretta with their own, they will not receive my money.

          Have you checked all the publications in the world on this topic?
          I literally found 2 articles in 2 minutes:

          Both links are 10 years old. Quite strange news based on "slightly outdated" data.

          It beats with the data given in the note? Beats.

          Let's say it beats, this is the data for 2010. ibid link:

          There is no doubt that very large volcanic eruptions can release significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 emitted about 9 million tons of CO 10 into the atmosphere in just 2 hours. ... However, it currently takes humanity only 2,5 hours to release the same amount. Although large explosive eruptions like this are rare and occur on a global scale roughly every 10 years or so, the emissions of humanity do not stop and increase every year.

          https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

          The intensity of eruptions is not constant and difficult to predict.
          Volcanic activity is increasing and it is not known what will happen tomorrow.


          http://vulkania.ru/novosti/s-nachala-fevralya-na-zemle-nablyudaetsya-neobyichno-vyisokaya-vulkanicheskaya-aktivnost.html

          Clarification - "these people" talk about how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere by volcanoes.

          Of course yes but this is not the only source of carbon dioxide.

          So you said yourself that you didn’t read the study itself, only a note?

          Naturally, it is not freely available. It is rather strange to publish data that is not validated. If their verification is possible only for money, this is an unscrupulous advertisement. Let them roll up their research into a tube and sit on it.

          Statistics on annual anthropogenic emissions are not a secret and are easy to find if you know how to use a keyboard and mouse.
          For example, an article by the Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation

          It remains to find out where the analytical center has information from. Who is the original source?

          The BP organization cited in the quote is none other than the world's largest oil and gas corporation, British Petroleum. Do you think an organization whose main source of income is fossil fuels would deliberately overestimate anthropogenic emissions?

          Why not? Greta bit them. Read from the development strategy, they turn their loot and go into the "green"
          https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/our-strategy.html

          But if you don’t believe the "despicable brita", then you can compare the BP data with the data of the World Bank and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency - there will be all the same more than 30 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 per year.

          Why are you talking about our esteemed partners so much? negative It was enough to call them "ugly angliches". It is also not clear where the Dutch get their data from, perhaps they all "drink from one source."
          In general, the origin of the data, the calculation methodology are not clear and the conclusions seem to me biased. I was not interested in the topic, there will be time, I will look in more detail, if I write anything. hi
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 02: 24
            -2
            I'm already used to you, often two repetitions is not enough, just in case I will repeat 3 times и I hope we will close this question.

            Safe mode is enabled in the settings after pressing the button additionally.
            Safe mode is enabled in the settings after pressing the button additionally.

            Firstly, do you have 2 and 3 - the same number?) Now I understand, you didn't even have a kindergarten.

            Secondly, I tell you about Ivan, you tell me about the idiot. I told you about the warning that pops up when you click on the link with the press release of that scientific group. You don't need to enter any browser safe mode.

            Thirdly, there was no need to raise this issue (about site security) at all. The pop-up warning is just a consequence of the lack of the HTTPS security protocol on the resource, which has become a standard for browsers, but was introduced relatively recently and is not used on all sites. And this does not apply in any way to the truth or falsity of the information contained on this site.

            Okay, now closed this question? Closed. Let's get down to business.

            It's not a money problem, it's a reluctance to buy all rubbishLet Soros and the State Department finance Gretta on their own, they will not receive my money.

            Only now, as it turned out, the data in this "all the garbage" is confirmed by other studies.

            Both links are 10 years old. Quite strange news based on "slightly outdated" data.

            During these 10 days, volcanic activity on Earth has not significantly increased. You can try looking for more recent volcanic emissions data - the results will be slightly different.

            Next, about this quote:

            There is no doubt that very large volcanic eruptions can release significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 emitted about 9 million tons of CO 10 into the atmosphere in just 2 hours.

            The eruption of St. Helens in 1980 has a volcanic activity index (VEI) of 5 (paroxysmal). Such eruptions occur with a frequency of once every 1 years. That is, in 12 years there will be only 12 such eruption in the whole world. Stronger eruptions with an index of 1 occur even less often - already 6 time in 1-50 years.

            While anthropogenic CO2 emissions occur constantly, and their intensity only increases. In the same quote of yours, after the highlighted fragment, it says that the amount of CO2 that St. Helens threw out in 9 hours, humanity throws out in 2,5 hours. And remember, it does it constantly.

            The intensity of eruptions is not constant and difficult to predict.
            Volcanic activity is increasing and it is not known what will happen tomorrow.

            Nobody says anything about tomorrow - we are talking about today.

            Of course yes, but this is not the only source of carbon dioxide.

            Everything is correct. But in my comments I was talking about couch climatologists who claim that volcanic emissions alone give more CO2 than all of humanity taken together.

            Why not? Greta bit them. Read from the development strategy, they turn their loot and go into the "green"

            The BP data given in the link refers to 2018, Greta performed in 2019. This is the time.

            Two. The transition to "green energy" at the moment means for the company, which was previously engaged in oil and gas production, huge natural losses associated with the transition to a new market niche. Why should a company, which receives huge revenues from oil and gas production, go green and provide inflated data on anthropogenic emissions, if the supposedly true (in the opinion of climatoskeptics) data on these emissions could justify the company's current activities?

            In other words, your argument "BP overestimates the data on anthropogenic emissions, as it turns into green energy" is not supported by logic.

            It is also not clear where the Dutch get their data from, perhaps they all "drink from one source."

            Ok, let's go from the other side. Let's discard the data of "nasty Englishwomen" and other henchmen of the "rotten West". Let's take the official data on Russia obtained by Russian scientists. Will the official report of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation and Roshydrometr of the Russian Federation be a reliable source for you? I think so, you are a patriot. So here's this document:

            http://downloads.igce.ru/publications/Two_years_Doklad_RF/124785_Russian%20Federation-BR4-2-4BR_RUS_rev.pdf

            See the section "Greenhouse gas emissions and trends in their change." I quote the first paragraph of the section:

            The total anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases in the Russian Federation, excluding land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), was 2155,5 million tons CO2-eq (i.e. more than 2 billion tons). This value corresponds to 67,6% of the cumulative 1990 emissions. Taking into account the emissions and removals associated with LULUCF, the cumulative emissions in 2017 were 1577,8 MtCO2e. (50,7% of the cumulative 1990 emissions.

            To understand this passage, you need to clarify what the "CO2-equivalent" indicator means. This, in fact, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the air, and it is called an equivalent because in comparative calculations for countries, CO2 emissions are used as a standard for comparison.

            By the way, the same figures for Russia are presented in the report of British Petroleum. And the answer is simple - BP compiles its report on the basis of data obtained by national climatological organizations.

            So, to summarize all of the above:

            1. Scientific data from various sources indicate that CO2 emissions from volcanoes are no more than 440 million tons per year.

            2. Russia alone emits 2 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 per year. And this is only 4% of the global annual anthropogenic emissions.

            So yes, mom's climatologists in the comments do not understand anything and do not know about the topic they are trying to judge.
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 26 February 2021 04: 16
              +3
              Firstly, do you have 2 and 3 - the same number?) Now I understand, you didn't even have a kindergarten.

              It looks like you grew up in a pigsty and did not learn to count to three request Repeat, this means a second time and then again (third). I see this is a super difficult task for you?

              Secondly, I tell you about Ivan, you tell me about the idiot. I told you about the warning that pops up when you click on the link with the press release of that scientific group. You don't need to enter any browser safe mode.

              Yes, I mean you yes
              I repeat for the fourth time.

              Browsers (even bourgeois Google and even in safe mode) strongly advise against visiting the site
              Safe mode is enabled in the settings after pressing the button additionally.

              I don't know how to explain it to you anymore. Can I try pictures? The computer does not give the opportunity to enter the site, not any buttons, only change the mode to safe and after that there is also no.
              Do not hesitate, if you do not understand, I will repeat it. sad I'm already used to your dense stupidity.
              Okay, now closed this question? Let's get down to business.

              Only now, as it turned out, the data in this "all the garbage" is confirmed by other studies.

              By whom and when was it found out? Have you sponsored $ 25 eco-scholars and read the article?

              During these 10 days, volcanic activity on Earth has not significantly increased. You can try looking for more recent volcanic emissions data - the results will be slightly different.

              Actually, not days, but years, but it is so ... Have you read inattentively? I repeat. I already get used to it winked

              The intensity of eruptions is not constant and difficult to predict.
              Volcanic activity is increasing and it is not known what will happen tomorrow
              .

              Today this is one figure, tomorrow volcanoes will wake up in a week and surpass all "human" emissions for years to come. And the likelihood of such a development increases. Do you want to insert the graph again or look at the above? What is the meaning of these green body movements?

              The BP data given in the link refers to 2018, Greta performed in 2019. This is the time.

              Couldn't she have bitten them before the show? Didn't you have any teeth? This time.

              Two. The transition to "green energy" at the moment means for the company, which was previously engaged in oil and gas production, huge natural losses associated with the transition to a new market niche. Why should a company, which receives huge revenues from oil and gas production, go green and provide inflated data on anthropogenic emissions, if the supposedly true (in the opinion of climatoskeptics) data on these emissions could justify the company's current activities?

              In other words, your argument "BP overestimates the data on anthropogenic emissions, as it turns into green energy" is not supported by logic.

              Yes, this means at least a decrease in profits for the company. What for? And what is left for them? Ekoshiziks are in power, they will soon begin to spread rot on oil workers, in the USA this has already begun. They have no choice, otherwise the company has no prospect of survival; they try to survive and say - we are our eco-minded, we are with you.
              In other words, you and logic are not compatible concepts. These are two.

              Let's take the official data on Russia obtained by Russian scientists. Will the official report of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation and Roshydrometr of the Russian Federation be a reliable source for you? I think so, you are a patriot. So here's this document:
              See the section "Greenhouse gas emissions and trends in their change." I quote the first paragraph of the section:

              It will fit yes And patriotism has nothing to do with it. Here it is clear about this idea of ​​speech, and not just the mantra of the green.
              See Table II.1.

              Total 1990 - 3186,8; 2017 - 2155,5
              Energy 1990 - 2568,5; 2017-1699,9
              Industry 1990 - 283,5; 2017 - 233,2
              Agriculture 1990 - 276,4; 2017 - 127,9
              Well, there are little things, land use and waste.

              Tellingly, we have not reached the 1990 indicators for these positions. The Russian economy is developing, while emissions are growing. It is on these positions that they will be beaten.
              First of all, in the energy sector. Russia is an energy superpower, the West is losing the competition, they simply have nothing to oppose. So I will restrict the export of nude hydrocarbons and will impose fans and solar panels for domestic use. This is how we lose our competitive advantage. BUT this is still half the trouble. It's just dangerous. In Texas, frost once every 30 years, and outside my window - 30C and it happens regularly, winter is half a year. And all the roofs are covered with snow, even though they are regularly cleaned. No fans or batteries will help.

              1. Scientific data from various sources indicate that CO2 emissions from volcanoes are no more than 440 million tons per year.

              Apparently yes yes I don’t know how they counted, but I don’t see any point in challenging the figure.

              2. Russia alone emits 2 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 per year. And this is only 4% of the global annual anthropogenic emissions.

              Yes yes

              So yes, mom's climatologists in the comments do not understand anything and do not know about the topic they are trying to judge.

              No No.

              What is hidden under the abstract concept of "anthropogenic factors" is not clear in the text of the article. It says about the following:

              The volume of industrial production and extraction of natural resources fell sharply, air transport links between the countries were almost interrupted for a long period, people stayed at home, and used less public and private vehicles.

              Notice, no energy, agriculture, land use and waste. Only prom. production and transport. Now look at the numbers above, the industry itself in Russia is about 10% of the total emissions. I don’t remember how many there were at the beginning, if you want to count, compare.

              Well, plus how much transport is there. I think the proportion in the world is about the same. You relied on the data of a scientific article, "mother's experts" operated with figures for the industry and the text of the article. Hence the confusion and disagreement. By the way, I also understood this as industrial emissions. Too lazy to rummage around, but in my opinion I came across information similar to the point of view of "mother's experts". And there are some problems with the verification of information, not everyone is ready to donate 25 Baku dollars to clarify what the article is about.
              If I were you, I would apologize to people. hi
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 07: 30
                -2
                It looks like you grew up in a pigsty and didn't learn to count to three. Request Repeat, this means a second time and then again (third). I see this is a super difficult task for you?

                Oh, spin again in the pan :)

                I'm used to you, often two reps is not enough, just in case I will repeat 3 times and I hope we will close this question.

                Repeat 3 times - this means saying the same 3 more times.

                Go retrain the Russian language :)

                I don't know how to explain it to you anymore. Maybe try pictures? The computer does not give the opportunity to enter the site, not any buttons, only change the mode to safe and after that there is also no.
                Do not hesitate, if you do not understand, I will repeat it. sad I already got used to your dense stupidity.
                Okay, now closed this question? Let's get down to business.

                I was waiting for this comment)) Because now I will relishly poke you with a pug into the harsh truth. And I will explain just in the pictures - you just finished 3 classes, the computer for you, apparently, is a very difficult thing. Learn, free lesson.






                Now we have dealt with this issue, once again proving your inability to solve even such a simple problem.
                1. 123 Offline 123
                  123 (123) 26 February 2021 16: 42
                  +2
                  Oh, spin again in the pan :)

                  I turn you around.

                  I was waiting for this comment)) Because now I will relishly poke you with a pug into the harsh truth. And I will explain just in the pictures - you just finished 3 classes, the computer for you, apparently, is a very difficult thing. Learn, free lesson.

                  Lord give me patience. Einstein was right about the infinity of the universe and more. You can fill these screenshots in the form of a tattoo on your forehead.
                  Read what is written on the first inscription below to hide the details.
                  Do I repeat 5 times, or more? (You can speculate about this and philosophize about the knowledge of the Russian language.).

                  Browsers (even bourgeois Google and even in safe mode) strongly advise against visiting the site

                  I heeded the warning, you don't. That makes all the difference. It takes you 2 days to understand this?
                  I prefer not to go to all sorts of trash heaps. You can stand under the load and switch to a red light. It will be good for humanity. The anthropogenic impact on the planet will decrease.
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 16: 59
                    -2
                    I turn you around.

                    In my wet fantasies :)

                    I heeded the warning, you don't. That makes all the difference. It takes you 2 days to understand this?

                    Oh, and the comment back you said is completely different :) I quote you:

                    Компьютер does not allow access to the site, no buttons, only a change to a safe mode and after that, too, no.

                    As you can see, the browser makes it possible to enter the site. And the button was still there :) But I understand that pressing the button is a problem for you. Parish - it is, yes.

                    I prefer not to go to all sorts of trash heaps.

                    Blah blah blah. There is no garbage can there, there is just a site with an outdated encryption protocol. Dot.
                    1. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 26 February 2021 17: 25
                      0
                      As you can see, the browser makes it possible to enter the site. And the button was still there :) But I understand that pressing the button is a problem for you. Parish - it is, yes.

                      Exactly yes There was no safe way to enter the site. Could you please indicate the "button" by pressing which it will be possible to safely enter the site? It's just a different approach, I stop in front of the inscription. "high voltage" you check its presence with your fingers in the socket.

                      Blah blah blah. There is no garbage can there, there is just a site with an outdated encryption protocol. Dot.

                      Probably we have different ideas about garbage cans laughing These people do not follow their own website, how do they manage to follow volcanoes all over the planet?
                      You can continue to experiment, start by crossing the street at a red light.
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 17: 50
                        -2
                        Quite right yes None safe the opportunity to enter the site did not appear. Could you please indicate the "button" by pressing which it will be possible to safely enter the site?

                        It's very funny to watch your attempts to wriggle out of your own words. laughing

                        What else can you think of to justify your inability to use your computer? Come on, you have already put the word "safe", show your imagination - maybe "aesthetic" yet?)

                        It's just a different approach, I stop in front of the inscription. "high voltage" you check its presence with your fingers in the socket.

                        It's just your incompetence. Stop pretending, you are like a little one. Well, they didn’t cope with such a simple task, people of your age tend not to know such things. There is nothing shameful in this. But in attempts to get out - there is.
                      2. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 26 February 2021 18: 11
                        +1
                        It's very funny to watch your attempts to wriggle out of your own words.
                        What else can you think of to justify your inability to use your computer? Come on, you have already put the word "safe", show your imagination - maybe "aesthetic" yet?)

                        It's just a difference in approach. I stopped in front of the warning sign, you put your fingers in the socket. This time there was no tension, I can’t forget that it will always be this way. Good luck along the way. hi
                      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 18: 30
                        -3
                        I stopped in front of a warning sign

                        Oh yeah, it's so scary :) Poor

                        This time there was no tension, I can’t forget that it will always be this way.

                        I just know how to use the Internet and know what security certificates are and how they are issued to sites, unlike you.
          2. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 08: 56
            -2
            Come on.

            Today this is one figure, tomorrow volcanoes will wake up in a week and surpass all "human" emissions for years to come. And the likelihood of such a development increases. Do you want to insert the graph again or look at the above? What is the meaning of these green body movements?

            Do you want to repeat once again that it was about the present and not about the future? This time.

            Two, look at the graph and see that the intensity of volcanic eruptions has increased dramatically since the early 19th century. Do you know why? The answer is extremely simple - people have begun to study, observe and, most importantly, document volcanic eruptions around the world. And the maximum intensity of the eruptions on the graph fell on the period from the middle of the 20th century, when mankind got at its disposal all modern instruments of global observation, from airplanes to satellites.

            You understand that this graph reflects not the true number of volcanic eruptions, but their observed number?

            Well, for a snack:

            What is hidden under the abstract concept of "anthropogenic factors" is not clear in the text of the article. It says about the following:

            Anthropogenic factors are all factors associated with human activities. This is an elementary concept, even in school geography. Oh yes, sorry, I forgot that you have only 3 parish classes.

            "Mother's experts" operated with figures for the industry and the text of the article.

            What the experts' mothers interpret there are their problems. No one is to blame for them that they are sucking data out of their finger.

            If I were you, I would apologize to people.

            So you apologize, but I have nothing to apologize for to my mother's climatologists.
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 26 February 2021 17: 13
              +2
              Do you want to repeat once again that it was about the present and not about the future? This time.

              What is the purpose of the comparison? Is it not to substantiate the point of view that the human impact on the atmosphere is greater than volcanoes? Do you need to repeat it several times? How difficult it is with you .. sad

              Today this is one figure, tomorrow volcanoes will wake up in a week and surpass all "human" emissions for years to come. And the likelihood of such a development increases. Do you want to insert the graph again or look at the above? What is the meaning of these green body movements?

              Two, look at the graph and see that the intensity of volcanic eruptions has increased dramatically since the early 19th century. Do you know why?

              No, I do not know. I think this question should be answered by scientists.

              The answer is extremely simple - people have begun to study, observe and, most importantly, document volcanic eruptions around the world. And the maximum intensity of the eruptions on the graph fell on the period from the middle of the 20th century, when mankind received at its disposal all modern instruments of global observation, from airplanes to satellites.

              Do you know why the anthropogenic impact is growing? Because it began to be studied, documented and given too much attention. before, they simply did not know and did not think about it. Most recently, this has not hovered anyone.

              You understand that this graph reflects not the true number of volcanic eruptions, but their observed number?

              Naturally. And it continues to grow. Do you want to say that they are watching more and better, but in fact there is no increase? Then how correct are the data of the scientists in the article? Can we wait until they learn to observe?

              Anthropogenic factors are all factors associated with human activities. This is an elementary concept, even in school geography. Oh yes, sorry, I forgot that you have only 3 parish classes.

              Of course yes And volcanoes are a "natural" factor. Not all factors of anthropogenic impact were considered in the article, and volcanoes are not the only natural factor. If you single out one of the natural ones - volcanoes, why can't you single out one anthropogenic - industry?
              Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot that you grew up with pigs and this is difficult for you.

              What the experts' mothers interpret there are their problems. No one is to blame for them that they are sucking data out of their finger.

              I suppose it's not a problem that "sows" experts interpret the facts in their own way. Where are you sucking data riddle from.
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 17: 42
                -2
                What is the purpose of the comparison? Is it not to substantiate the point of view that the human impact on the atmosphere is greater than volcanoes? Do you need to repeat it several times? How difficult it is with you ..

                It's not difficult with me. if you finally include what is on your shoulders.

                It is for this. Mamka's climatologists argue that volcanic emissions are many times higher than anthropogenic ones. Not "will exceed", but "exceed". I have made a comparison to show that this is not the case.

                Do you know why the anthropogenic impact is growing? Because it began to be studied, documented and given too much attention. before, they simply did not know and did not think about it. Most recently, this has not hovered anyone.

                Anthropogenic influence is growing due to the fact that:

                1. The population of the Earth has increased;

                2. An industrial revolution has taken place across the planet. It happened relatively recently, at a time when it could already be recorded and documented.

                These are objective reasons.

                In the situation with volcanoes, the reason is subjective, connected precisely with observations. If you look at your own graph, there has been no noticeable increase in the intensity of eruptions from the 50s of the last century to the present. The Total chart (purple line) has risen from 50 right up to 55. how many.

                Of course, there are fluctuations in volcanic activity, but they are not as drastic as you are trying to imagine here.

                Naturally. And it continues to grow. Do you want to say that they are watching more and better, but in fact there is no increase? Then how correct are the data of the scientists in the article? Can we wait until they learn to observe?

                The data of the "scientists" in the article are given on today moment.

                And in the same way, climate scientists say about the present moment. claiming that volcanic emissions exceed anthropogenic ones.

                Once again, to consolidate. We are not talking about the past or the future - we are talking about the present.

                Of course yes And volcanoes are a "natural" factor. Not all factors of anthropogenic impact were considered in the article, and volcanoes are not the only natural factor. If you single out one of the natural ones - volcanoes, why can't you single out one anthropogenic - industry?
                Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot that you grew up with pigs and this is difficult for you.

                Again twenty-five. Volcanoes alone were not isolated by me - they were identified by the very same mother's climatologists, the quotes of which I cited in my first comment. It is about this that I argue with them. It is they who argue that only volcanoes exceed the ALL anthropogenic factor in emissions.

                Can you give an example of their comments? Okay, I'll give it again if you have problems:

                Rave!! Humanity is too insignificant to have any impact on nature or on the climate ..Let us recall the recent eruption of a volcano with an unpronounceable name. It emitted gases and ash more than humanity in its entire industrial history.

                Tales of greenhouse gases: cows farting, burning everything and everyone ...
                Yes, the volcano for its ONE eruption blocks all your screams and groans ...

                Read carefully when you try to argue with me. And then you always get into trouble.

                I suppose it's not a problem that "sows" experts interpret the facts in their own way.

                I do not interpret the facts at all - I just cite them. In specific numbers, in contrast to the mother's climatologists.
                1. 123 Offline 123
                  123 (123) 26 February 2021 18: 58
                  +1
                  It is for this. Mamka's climatologists argue that volcanic emissions are many times higher than anthropogenic ones. Not "will exceed", but "exceed". I have made a comparison to show that this is not the case.

                  According to the text of the article, not all anthropogenic factors were considered, but industry and road transport. I quoted a quote, I don't see the need to repeat myself. It was the comparison with these factors that was meant. Volcanic activity is by no means the only natural factor.
                  What is the point in comparing one of the factors of a natural nature with all of the anthropogenic ones?

                  In the situation with volcanoes, the reason is subjective, connected precisely with observations. If you look at your own graph, there has been no noticeable increase in the intensity of eruptions from the 50s of the last century to the present. The Total chart (purple line) has risen from 50 right up to 55. how many.
                  Fluctuations in volcanic activity, of course, are, but they are not as dramatic as you are trying to imagine here.

                  Are you sure about that? Is it just more being watched? Seismic activity is increasing throughout the planet. It looks like the dynamics are somewhat different than what you are trying to imagine.

                  In the east of the Caucasus, in the region of Dagestan, there is an increase in seismic activity, which may end with an earthquake. Yevgeny Rogozhin, Deputy Director of the Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, RAS, told reporters on Thursday.

                  - https://stavropolye.tv/news/72428

                  Scientists have warned that the number of devastating earthquakes around the world could increase significantly next year. They believe that changes in the Earth's rotation rate can cause intense seismic activity, especially in densely populated tropical regions.

                  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/2018-set-to-be-year-of-big-earthquakes

                  Indonesia's Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency says the number of earthquakes in the country continues to grow every year

                  https://regnum.ru/news/society/3015622.html

                  Seismic activity on the rise in Central Asia

                  https://www.zakon.kz/4857385-v-tsentralnoy-azii-rastet.html

                  Seismic activity is increasing. Six earthquakes recorded near Magnitogorsk

                  https://www.verstov.info/news/society/78940-seysmicheskaya-aktivnost-rastet-nepodaleku-ot-magnitogorska-zafiksirovali-shest-zemletryaseniy.html

                  https://up74.ru/articles/obshchestvo/104928/?sphrase_id=179859

                  Can you give an example of their comments? Okay, I'll give it again if you have problems:
                  Rave!! Humanity is too insignificant to have any impact on nature or on the climate. Let us recall the recent eruption of a volcano with an unpronounceable name. It threw out gases and ash more than humanity in its entire industrial history.

                  Tales of greenhouse gases: cows farting, burning everything and everyone ...
                  Yes, the volcano for its ONE eruption blocks all your screams and groans ...

                  1) Man is really insignificant in comparison with nature.
                  Eyjafjallajökull is a really difficult name to pronounce. Comparing the amount of emissions with all those made by mankind is really an exaggeration, but this is more of rhetoric. You can say for example like this. Emissions during the eruption were not comparable to anthropogenic ones. Or can you give examples of when industrial emissions prevented the use of aviation on a similar scale or so much ash fell on the ground? Are you hooked on the last offer?

                  2) One volcano and the truth in one eruption blocks all your screams and groans. Who are you compared to a volcano?

                  3) You try to find mistakes and inconsistencies in others and at the same time do the same. This is me about the growth of seismic activity.

                  Read carefully when you try to argue with me. And then you always get into trouble.

                  Thanks for the warning. Do not worry, it is difficult to get there, two will not fit, first you have to get out of there.

                  I do not interpret the facts at all - I just cite them. In specific numbers, in contrast to the mother's climatologists.

                  A very self-confident statement.
                  We are waiting for "specific numbers" from an expert on the growth of seismic activity. I will watch with interest how you refute the statements (above on the links) about the growth of seismic activity and clearly expose all these "strange" people with numbers in hand. And some of them "pretend" to be specialized scientists. Good luck, go for it. hi
      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 02: 50
        -2
        I was a little mistaken here in this place:

        To understand this passage, you need to clarify what the "CO2-equivalent" indicator means. This, in fact, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the air, and it is called an equivalent because in comparative calculations for countries, CO2 emissions are used as a standard for comparison.

        CO2-equivalent is a calculated indicator of the greenhouse activity of all greenhouse gases, including CO2, in terms of the greenhouse activity of CO2 itself. Used in climatology to simplify calculations, CO2 is chosen as the reference gas with the lowest greenhouse effect.

        Therefore, to correct my mistake, I present the data on the volume of annual CO2 emissions in China for 2019:

        https://knoema.ru/atlas/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9/%D0%92%D1%8B%D0%
        B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B-%D0%A1%D0%9E2-1000-%D1%82

        11 535 million tons or 11,5 billion tons of CO2. We compare this figure with 440 million tons of CO2 from volcanoes around the world.
      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 03: 11
        -2
        By the way, more about the Deep Carbon Observatory article. I don't know why you suddenly found only the paid version. I am now watching its publication on the organization's website for free:

        https://deepcarbon.net/scientists-quantify-global-volcanic-co2-venting-estimate-total-carbon-earth

        This article and several other articles from the organization on the same topic are also available in the scientific journal Elements.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 26 February 2021 04: 19
          +2
          By the way, more about the Deep Carbon Observatory article. I don't know why you suddenly found only the paid version. I am now watching its publication on the organization's website for free:

          I repeat. On the site, the first paragraph of the article and the inscription that it is not available and there is a paid version. Maybe you're more fortunate.
  • olpin51 Offline olpin51
    olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 25 February 2021 08: 16
    +3
    Somewhere, at one time, I read that the influence of the human factor is no more than 1-1,5%. Well-reasoned scientific articles. And everything that happens on earth is a reflection of the processes that take place in its depths. Not so long ago there was a lot of talk about the effect of freon on the ozone layer. There is evidence, scientifically based, that volcanoes have a major impact on this. Again, the internal processes of the earth. Now they have stopped talking - global corporations have seized their niche in replacing safe freon with another poisonous one, and this has been proven poison.
    Time will tell why this CO2 campaign is underway. Surely this again will not do without "BIG MONEY".
  • olpin51 Offline olpin51
    olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 25 February 2021 08: 27
    +2
    Quote: Cyril
    And there is scientific evidence for this, and not the speculations of the mother's climatologists. https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/6950874

    A typical custom article is one common phrase. We must read something more serious. For example, academician Syvorotkin about the cause of climatic CATASTROPHES. There are others on this topic not for the layman.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 25 February 2021 20: 20
      -4
      A typical custom article is some common phrases.

      In my link, not the scientific article itself, but a note about it.

      We must read something more serious. For example, Academician Syvorotkin about the cause of climatic CATASTROPHES. There are others on this topic. not for ordinary people.

      When someone braids words like the highlighted ones, it immediately becomes clear that someone does not cut anything in the subject. Because science, in principle, is not for ordinary people. The common people are not engaged in science.
      1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
        olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 25 February 2021 21: 03
        +2
        Articles in pop-magazines are written for ordinary people, for ordinary people. No details and calculations. And there they add headings like science, medicine, etc. to them ... This is human psychology. Actually, everyone knows this.
        And they write with details in ... Well, it's clear where.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 25 February 2021 21: 08
          -3
          Articles in pop-magazines are written for ordinary people, for ordinary people. No details and calculations. And there they add headings like science, medicine, etc. to them ... This is human psychology. Actually, everyone knows this.

          First, TASS is not a "journal". This is the Russian state news agency. First of all, news.

          Secondly, the article has a link to scientific the organization that conducted the research.
          1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
            olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 25 February 2021 21: 14
            +2
            Yah. TASS is a Russian state news agency for the general public.
            That says it all.
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 25 February 2021 21: 15
              -3
              Can't you see the difference between a news agency and a pop magazine? Trouble ...
              1. olpin51 Offline olpin51
                olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 25 February 2021 21: 21
                +2
                I once worked in one federal news agency and I know the whole kitchen of presenting the material very well.
  • kriten Offline kriten
    kriten (Vladimir) 25 February 2021 13: 11
    0
    Typical article for eco psychopaths. They do not care about the reasons - the main thing is to yell and do something, the main thing is not hesitation. Atrophied by eco madness, her brains are capable of performing the main function - to think. Otherwise, you will begin to understand that human activity in terms of emissions is in no way comparable to the ocean, volcanoes and nothing else.
  • Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 25 February 2021 20: 09
    +3
    - Ask Greta Thunberg - she will tell you the whole truth about global warming! laughing lol
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 25 February 2021 21: 10
      -4
      In modern science, the influence of the anthropogenic factor on the climate is not a subject of discussion - 95% of climate scientists around the world agree with it. There is scientific consensus on this issue in the world.
  • Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 25 February 2021 21: 15
    -1
    Quote: Cyril
    In modern science, the influence of the anthropogenic factor on the climate is not a subject of discussion - 95% of climate scientists around the world agree with it. There is scientific consensus on this issue in the world.



    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 26 February 2021 03: 12
      -3
      Ummm ... Latynina became a climate scientist with us?
  • Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 26 February 2021 03: 15
    0
    Quote: Cyril
    Ummm ... Latynina became a climate scientist with us?

    - No, she collected material from various scientists and summarized it. Her intelligence and education are more than enough for this. I watched these videos with great interest and pleasure, and very carefully - they are very cool made. Just shine!
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 28 February 2021 21: 29
    0
    Ha. Apparently, because of a short memory, people have completely forgotten the cold winters of the 80s, and the warm 90-00s, and regular snowfalls in Yusa.
    And now any garbage is the reason for panic articles in the media.