GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The data I posted is from NASA and CalTech. It clearly states they are using SATIRE-T2+PMOD which real solar and climate scientists widely use.

The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech 

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

The solar radiation arriving at Earth (once known as the “solar constant”, now usually referred to as Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)), is the most fundamental of climate parameters as it indicates the totality of the energy driving the climate system.  All climate models need to prescribe a value for it, either explicitly or implicitly, but its measurement with the precision and stability needed for climate studies has proved challenging. -From Expert Guidance by Drs. Joanna Haigh and William Ball; please see the "Expert Guidance" tab for more.

TSI datasets generally fall under two categories, historical reconstructions and satellite-based radiometric measurements:

Historical reconstructions:  The two key datasets for long, historical records of TSI are (1) SATIRE and (2) NRLTSI. The NRLTSI data are being produced by NOAA as a Climate Data Record, available in a useful netCDF format with data for 1882-present. 

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/total-solar-irradiance-tsi-datasets-overview

Jay, the research which is cited in your link dates from 2010 to 2017, which is now out of date.

The more recent work which I have linked here uses more recent observations and methodologies.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We have weather stations that meticulously track temperature. The Arctic melting doesn't raise ocean levels because the ice is floating. The same goes for the Antarctic ice shelves that are shrinking. It is when Greenland and Antarctica proper begin to melt that ocean level will rise. That is what we are trying to prevent. By the time you see the ocean rise it will be too late.

Jay, you have to do better than that to make a case against fossil fuels, you have to show the connection with CO2 and global warming. However, we know that CO2 is negatively correlated with earth temperature, so you have no basis to promote an anti-fossil fuel agenda. In fact, if you want to further global cooling, you should support fossil fuels.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, the research which is cited in you link dates from 2010 to 2017, which is now out of date.

The more recent work which I have linked here uses more recent observations and methodologies.

No, those data points haven't changed and they are presented up to 2020. Total Solar Irradiance is decreasing while temperature is dramatically increasing. Your theory that the Sun is causing global warming is debunked.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

16 minutes ago, notsonice said:

The US generated a record 18% of its electricity from wind and solar in March

 

the death of coal, brought to you by solar and wind power

The US generated a record 18% of its electricity from wind and solar in March

Michelle Lewis

- Apr. 28th 2022 11:00 pm PT

 

@michelle0728

 

 

Michelle Lewis

- Apr. 28th 2022 11:00 pm PT

 

@michelle0728

 

 

58 Comments 

 

Last month, the US generated 18% of its electricity from wind and solar (59 TWh) for the first time. That beat the previous record set in March 2021 (53 TWh), according to new data from global energy think tank Ember.

 

---

In 2015, the US generated just 5.7% of its electricity from wind and solar (229.8 TWh). By 2021, it had more than doubled that, reaching 13% of its electricity from wind and solar (543.5 TWh).

The trend reflects the global acceleration toward wind and solar energy, which have doubled since 2015 to deliver a record 10% of global electricity in 2021, according to Ember’s “Global Electricity Review.”

Wind and solar were the fastest-growing forms of electricity worldwide for the 17th year in a row in 2021 and are projected to be the backbone of the future electricity system. 

Many European countries already produced more than 25% of their electricity from wind and solar in 2021, including Germany, Spain, and the UK, which is helping to rapidly reduce their reliance on imported fossil fuels from Russia and elsewhere.

The International Energy Agency states that in order to reach net zero, wind and solar need to reach 20% of global electricity by 2025 and 70% by 2050.

Ember’s COO, Phil MacDonald, said: 

Wind and solar are breaking records around the world. The process that will reshape the existing energy system has begun. Wind and solar provide a solution to the ‘trilemma’ of achieving a sustainable, affordable, and secure energy supply. This decade they need to be deployed at lightning speed.

 

 

And coal demand is at an all-time high and scheduled to grow fast and soon.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, you have to do better than that to make a case against fossil fuels, you have to show the connection with CO2 and global warming. However, we know that CO2 is negatively correlated with earth temperature, so you have no basis to promote an anti-fossil fuel agenda. In fact, if you want to further global cooling, you should support fossil fuels.

No,  I just needed to debunk your solar theory which I have done. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, those data points haven't changed and they are presented up to 2020. Total Solar Irradiance is decreasing while temperature is dramatically increasing. Your theory that the Sun is causing global warming is debunked.

Hardly, Jay I showed you that the variables used are not the data in your link, it has to do with Cosmic Ray Flux, a completely different set of data, with different results.

The studies I gave you were from 2021, yours are out of date.

And you still have to include the expected effects of CO2, which does not help your cause.

If you think that global warming is a problem, you should be promoting fossil fuels.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,068]

 

 

Consumption of Fossil Fuels for Electricity Generation in the US

 

Coal consumption in the US ...latest numbers from the EIA report

consumption is down to 39,697,000 tons in February 2022, down 17.2 percent compared to the same month  in 2021 which was at 47,969,000 tons

and remember early 2021 the US was in lock down................

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 minute ago, notsonice said:

 

 

Consumption of Fossil Fuels for Electricity Generation in the US

 

Coal consumption in the US ...latest numbers from the EIA report

consumption is down to 39,697,000 tons in 2022, down 17.2 percent compared to the same period in 2021 which was at 47,969,000 tons

and remember early 2021 the US was in lock down................

World wide production and consumption of coal is at an all time high and growing.

And you are still driving a fossil fuel car?

Edited April 30, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Hardly, Jay I showed you that the variables used are not the data in your link, it has to do with Cosmic Ray Flux, a completely different set of data, with different results.

And you still have to include the expected effects of CO2, which does not help your cause.

All your CRF paper did was show that the Sun affects climate. We all agree on that, the question is how much effect and is it correlated to the recent dramatic warming. That is why this conclusion prevails: 

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with an increase in volcanic activity is thought to have helped trigger the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland cooled from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

 

• Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

• If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

• Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Edited April 30, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,068]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

World wide production and consumption of coal is at an all time high and growing.

And you are still driving a fossil fuel car?

post real numbers.............you never do ...

 

as all you do is babble bs.......

How much do you piss away at the pump??

 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All your CRF paper did was show that the Sun affects climate. We all agree on that, the question is how much effect and is it correlated to the recent dramatic warming. That is why this conclusion prevails: 

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with an increase in volcanic activity is thought to have helped trigger the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland cooled from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

 

• Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

• If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

• Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Again, Jay, your cited sources are from 2010 to 2017, and do not include the recent studies.

Here again are the results of this recent work on CRF. Read and learn,

"Recent studies highlighting the presence, and traceability, of the 22 year magnetic cycle of the Sun have revealed the occurrence a new type of event in the solar lexicon—the “Terminator” (Dikpati et al., 2019; Hurd & Cameron, 1984; McIntosh et al., 2019). Stated simply, a terminator is the event that marks the hand-over from one sunspot cycle to the next. It is an abrupt event occurring at the solar equator resulting from the annihilation/cancelation of the oppositely polarized magnetic activity bands at the heart of the 22 years cycle; that is, there is no more old cycle flux left on the disk. Put another way, a terminator is the end of a Hale magnetic cycle. This annihilation appears to globally modify the conditions for magnetic flux to emerge—principally causing the rapid growth of the magnetic system at midsolar latitudes that will be the host for the sunspots of the next sunspot cycle. Our companion paper (McIntosh et al., 2019, hereafter M2019) highlights the terminators that took place at the end of solar cycles 22 and 23, illustrating that a significant, step-function-like, change in the Sun's radiative proxies took place at the same time over a matter of only a few days. In their analysis, M2019 demonstrate that terminators were visible in standard proxies of solar activity going back many decades—as many as 140 years to the dawn of synoptic H-α filament and sunspot observations. Dikpati et al. (2019) suggested that the most plausible mechanism for rapid transport of information from the equatorial termination of the old cycle's activity bands (of opposite polarity in opposite hemispheres) to the mid-latitudes to trigger new-cycle growth was a solar “tsunami” in the solar tachocline that migrates poleward with a gravity wave speed (∼300 km s⁻¹).

In the following analysis, we will explore if these termination events could provide a starting point in establishing a robust Sun-Troposphere connection on decadal timescales, by creating or demonstrating a new fiducial time for solar activity. Correlation does not imply causation, but such a strong correspondence requires explanation, one that is beyond the current paradigm of atmospheric modeling."

[notsonice + 1,068]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Meanwhile in reality:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/

I would not pay much attention to the chart as far as solar irradiance dropping due to an increase in temp as solar irradiance dropped less than 1 point out of 1361....from 1980 to 2020 Statistically a nothing........

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

7 minutes ago, notsonice said:

post real numbers.............you never do ...

 

as all you do is babble bs.......

How much do you piss away at the pump??

 

Stop driving that fossil fuel car of yours, it makes the Green revolution look silly.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, Jay, your cited sources are from 2010 to 2017, and do not include the recent studies.

Here again are the results of this recent work on CRF. Read and learn,

"Recent studies highlighting the presence, and traceability, of the 22 year magnetic cycle of the Sun have revealed the occurrence a new type of event in the solar lexicon—the “Terminator” (Dikpati et al., 2019; Hurd & Cameron, 1984; McIntosh et al., 2019). Stated simply, a terminator is the event that marks the hand-over from one sunspot cycle to the next. It is an abrupt event occurring at the solar equator resulting from the annihilation/cancelation of the oppositely polarized magnetic activity bands at the heart of the 22 years cycle; that is, there is no more old cycle flux left on the disk. Put another way, a terminator is the end of a Hale magnetic cycle. This annihilation appears to globally modify the conditions for magnetic flux to emerge—principally causing the rapid growth of the magnetic system at midsolar latitudes that will be the host for the sunspots of the next sunspot cycle. Our companion paper (McIntosh et al., 2019, hereafter M2019) highlights the terminators that took place at the end of solar cycles 22 and 23, illustrating that a significant, step-function-like, change in the Sun's radiative proxies took place at the same time over a matter of only a few days. In their analysis, M2019 demonstrate that terminators were visible in standard proxies of solar activity going back many decades—as many as 140 years to the dawn of synoptic H-α filament and sunspot observations. Dikpati et al. (2019) suggested that the most plausible mechanism for rapid transport of information from the equatorial termination of the old cycle's activity bands (of opposite polarity in opposite hemispheres) to the mid-latitudes to trigger new-cycle growth was a solar “tsunami” in the solar tachocline that migrates poleward with a gravity wave speed (∼300 km s⁻¹).

In the following analysis, we will explore if these termination events could provide a starting point in establishing a robust Sun-Troposphere connection on decadal timescales, by creating or demonstrating a new fiducial time for solar activity. Correlation does not imply causation, but such a strong correspondence requires explanation, one that is beyond the current paradigm of atmospheric modeling."

Oh I read it, it doesn't say anything about the Sun causing the recent dramatic increase in global temperature. 

[notsonice + 1,068]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Stop driving that fossil fuel car of yours, it makes the Green revolution look silly.

more bs from you..

How much do you burn a month.........100 gallons???? more???? on my end 15 gallons a month...

Are you such a puss you will not post how much you piss away gassing up???

I bet you drive some real crappy gas guzzlers

you still burning coal at home????

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by notsonice

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, notsonice said:

I would not pay much attention to the chart as far as solar irradiance dropping due to an increase in temp as solar irradiance dropped less than 1 point out of 1361....from 1980 to 2020 Statistically a nothing........

Huh? You've got that causation backwards.

[notsonice + 1,068]

26 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

And coal demand is at an all-time high and scheduled to grow fast and soon.

Coal consumption in the US ...latest numbers from the EIA report

consumption is down to 39,697,000 tons in February 2022, down 17.2 percent compared to the same month  in 2021 which was at 47,969,000 tons

and remember early 2021 the US was in lock down................

 

all time high......the only one that is high is you..........

[notsonice + 1,068]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Huh? You've got that causation backwards.

what is your point with the chart

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, notsonice said:

what is your point with the chart

Their claim is that an increase in solar intensity is causing global warming. The chart shows that solar irradiation is down while temps are increasing rapidly, thus the Sun is negatively correlated and not the cause of global warming.

[notsonice + 1,068]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Their claim is that an increase in solar intensity is causing global warming. The chart shows that solar irradiation is down while temps are increasing rapidly, thus the Sun is negatively correlated and not the cause of global warming.

the variation in solar intensity from the chart does not really show much up or down change whatsoever ...the range is 1360.5 to 1361.5 over 140 years ...........IE the sun ..solar irradiation really does not go up or down much at all ...I would not state the solar irradiation is down

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

9 hours ago, notsonice said:

the variation in solar intensity from the chart does not really show much up or down change whatsoever ...the range is 1360.5 to 1361.5 over 140 years ...........IE the sun ..solar irradiation really does not go up or down much at all ...I would not state the solar irradiation is down

The relevant period:

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

post real numbers.............you never do ...

 

Poor baby, you have to look.  Amazing what you never find if you are LAZY isn't it?

India Today: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/indias-coal-demand-to-top-1-billion-tonne-in-2022-push-net-zero-goals-further-away/articleshow/88346693.cms

India in Future: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/coal-demand-in-india-to-surge-by-63-in-2030-says-union-minister-11648035767385.html

Do remember under Modi in India barely has hooked up houses to electricity and most of this still has not happened yet massively increasing electrical demand.  

China just hit their record high in coal production last month.

Vietnam is massively increasing coal use.

Those by themselves are more than what the entire western world uses.  But hey, you do you.  Keep babbling like a madman.  The horrors of actually using your brain instead of your lips. 

PS: I still notice you never replied back at your inability to divide 4/1.... 👍

[Ron Wagner + 643]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We have weather stations that meticulously track temperature. The Arctic melting doesn't raise ocean levels because the ice is floating. The same goes for the Antarctic ice shelves that are shrinking. It is when Greenland and Antarctica proper begin to melt that ocean level will rise. That is what we are trying to prevent. By the time you see the ocean rise it will be too late.

Do some experimentation in your bathtub. See if ice breaking up changes anything. Ice shelves have broken up and refrozen every year since the oceans and land were formed. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Ron Wagner

[Ron Wagner + 643]

https://www.nps.gov/casa/index.htm Take a tour of Castillo De San Marcos in St. Augustine, Florida. The oldest city in America. The Fort is the focal point of the city. The sea wall is well above water and has been since 1695.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

Do some experimentation in your bathtub. See if ice breaking up changes anything. Ice shelves have broken up and refrozen every year since the oceans and land were formed. 

i just told you that floating ice melting doesn't change anything. It displaces the same amount of space as water.

'Icebergs and frozen seawater also melt in warm temperatures but are not significant contributors to sea level rise. This is because they are already in the water. The volume of water they displace as ice is about the same as the volume of water they add to the ocean when they melt. As a result, sea level does not rise when sea ice melts". https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/whats-causing-sea-level-rise-land-ice-vs-sea-ice/

Land bound ice melting (Greenland and Antarctica proper) does raise the ocean level. That is what comes next and we are trying to prevent. Please try and not be so dumb. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Jay McKinsey