Ecocharger

The actual science shows otherwise. The lab experiment I quoted above shows the truth, that CO2 is a weak greenhouse contributor and probably a net coolant, while H2O is the most powerful greenhouse gas. Even NASA admits the predominant role of H2O as the foremost greenhouse gas.

Why is the price f oil healthy? Because the American economy continues to stagger forward, propped up by enormous amounts of deficit financing. This enormous federal feeding trough is sustained largely by increased public debt, which means increasing amounts of debt financing are going down the chute into oblivion. https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/here-1-trillion-stealth-stimulus-behind-bidenomics " We first got a glimpse of that two weeks ago when Michael Hartnett discussed "the era of fiscal excess" and pointed out that in just the past 12 months the US government spent $6.7 trillion, up 14% YoY... ... something which we previously noted had pushed the US federal deficit for fiscal 2023 up a staggering $1tn to $1.4tn from year before... ... deficit that is largely debt-funded, which is why the US is set to spend over $1 trillion in interest on government debt for the first time ever. And while there will be hell to pay in due course because no amount of propaganda can cover up cold, hard math, it won't be today - in fact, in order to get re-elected, Biden will do anything to preserve the impression that the economy is strong, and as Hartnett notes, it is "tough to get recession when unemployment 3% & budget deficit 9% GDP.""

Famous last words...don't worry, the discussion among these scientists shows that these articles are central to the debate and, yes, many scientists are watching the discussion and these articles are well known.

Some people are never happy. The oil industry has been criticized for producing too much oil and endangering the climate, and some misguided activists are trying to sue accordingly, while the screwball activists are also complaining that the oil industry is not producing enough oil and are suing the oil industry for this reason. Both of these cannot be right. It is about time that the oil critics got their act together, which is it? Too much, or too little? The activists are apparently in a schizophrenic meltdown. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Consumers-Sue-US-Shale-Alleging-Collusion-to-Boost-Oil-Prices.html "...these consumers are taking some of the top U.S. shale producers to court where the companies are called to answer allegations of fixing and keeping oil prices elevated by constraining domestic production. "

I knew that you would misread the experiment. The comparison between CO2 and "air" shows that CO2 is not the driver of global warming, as clearly stated in the results. Thus the need to recalibrate the forcing equations. Now why would any reasonable President be worried about an experiment showing the lack of necessity for destroying the average American's standard of living? I thought that the President is supposed to be concerned about the average American.

Well, you are again dancing around the main point, which is that atmospheric CO2 contributes a net cooling to global warming/cooling. Therefore, it must be H2O which is the driver of global warming and/or the reduction of atmospheric particulate levels. You have trouble seeing the relevance of that to public policy, which has been hyper-phobic over CO2 for no good reason? Come now.

Read before you speak, "Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year, helping to drag down earnings for the company overall." "The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit." Subsidies and breaks offered to EV industries by the governments are now being removed and higher fees are being levied on the struggling industry. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Governments-Deliver-Blow-To-EV-Darlings.html "Financial Times: EV additions to national fleets cost governments globally $10 billion in fuel duty revenue losses. Governments are depriving themselves, or rather, their successors, of billions in fuel duty revenues in the name of electrification. Governments have started to phase out tax incentives and have lifted registration fees for new EVs to compensate for the decline in fuel duty revenues." "In Europe, governments are taking a different but equally unpopular approach: they are phasing out EV incentives. The first results are in. In December, Germany announced the abrupt end to EV subsidies. Over the first quarter of this year, EV sales in the EU’s largest economy dropped by over 14%. In January alone, EV sales took a 50% dive following the cancelation of incentives."

I think that you will find that even in UK and Europe, governments have a well-established duty of care under statute to advise the public on relevant climate science. Any attempt to suppress or ignore new climate science which might dispute government policy is a violation of law and could be actionable by public lawsuits.

Well, no, that is not the finding of the study. The experiment finds that replacing "air", which includes other greenhouse gases, with CO2 causes the following, "The presence of IR radiation from a heated surface (like when the sun heats the earth’s surface) strongly attenuates the heating ability of increasing backscatter from increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere." So it is IR radiation from the heated surface (such as the Earth) which causes the reduction in the strength of the backscatter from atmospheric CO2 and the subsequent net cooling. It is only when general "air" is used does the net heating take place. The CO2 contributes a net cooling. Consequently, "This result has consequences for the climate change models used by IPCC."

You just knew that the EV rollout would be a bust, and now the wheels have come off completely together with a total waste of uncounted billions of taxpayer dollars, throw thoughtlessly into the sewer of Green waste slime. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/75-Billion-Bipartisan-Investment-Nets-Only-7-EV-Charging-Stations.html "The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law earmarked $7.5 billion for EV charging, with $5 billion allocated to states, but the slow rollout has resulted in just 7 charging stations. Higher standards for new EV chargers, including 97% operational reliability, 150kW power, and proximity to highways, have contributed to the slow progress, along with permitting challenges and power demands. Concerns have been raised by lawmakers and experts about mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and the lack of experience among state transportation agencies in deploying EV charging infrastructure."

The "forcing equations" are the issue, and I guess you missed the point of this recent paper. It measures the independent impact of CO2, not just plain old "air", which is a mixture of greenhouse gases. That is what we want to know, what is the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. "no heating but a slight cooling of a black object is found when air is replaced by CO2...The presence of IR radiation from a heated surface (like when the sun heats the earth’s surface) strongly attenuates the heating ability of increasing backscatter from increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This result has consequences for the climate change models used by IPCC."" This is a game changer.

Rob, the current numbers show that EV sales are on a death march to oblivion, especially in your own area. Only Ford had the guts to tell the truth about their EV sales, and the picture is an unmitigated disaster. There is just no demand for these contraptions. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email "Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year, helping to drag down earnings for the company overall." "The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit."

Well, no, this has attracted attention and an attempted alternative experiment which did not work when the CO2 level was increased.. Read again, he makes it clear that he is not refuting his own earlier experiment, which is quoted in support of the new experiment. No refutation here, except of the standard forcing equations. He does observe of the other study, "The result is similar but lower than what Harde and Schnell found." So he is not in total agreement with Harde and Schnell. And then he proceeds to adjust the CO2 levels. Here is the key conclusion of the study. "The presence of IR radiation from a heated surface (like when the sun heats the earth’s surface) strongly attenuates the heating ability of increasing backscatter from increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This result has consequences for the climate change models used by IPCC." https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=124562 "This study deal with interactions between thermal and radiative energy flow in experimental situations of varying complexity. Of special interest is how IR energy, re-emitted from CO2 gas, behaves in an earth/atmosphere simulated setup. Such an experiment was performed by Hermann Harde and Michael Schnell where they show that IR radiation emitted from CO2 can warm a small black-body metal plate. In a control experiment, we verified this result. However, in their experiment, the amount of IR radiation from the heating element was strongly attenuated. In a modified experiment, where IR emission from the heating source is present, no heating but a slight cooling of a black object is found when air is replaced by CO2. The modified experimental situation is also more like the earth/atmosphere situation. The presence of IR radiation from a heated surface (like when the sun heats the earth’s surface) strongly attenuates the heating ability of increasing backscatter from increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This result has consequences for the climate change models used by IPCC."

Rob, that is not the issue here. The agitation is about oil companies supposedly not informing the government about climate change. That is surely not any where near criminality. Nor is it even a duty which would create liability. However, it is a violation of duty for the government to ignore or suppress new climate research which might disturb the climate panic. The public welfare is ill served when the truth is hidden, and that could reasonably lead to class action lawsuits against governments.

Bottom line is that EVs are now tanking and fossil fuel vehicles increasing in sales in Europe. Your analysis seems rather strange.