GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

If you had ever taken statistics you would know that 1 data point is not enough to declare a plateau on an extended time series. All the chart shows is a typical yearly variation as has been happening over the past 50 years.

No, it is clearly consistent with the predictions of the beginning of a cooling phase, as predicted by the solar cycle models, and is inconsistent with the CO2 models. If a model predicts that the warming phase transitions to a cooling phase in 2020, and we see a sudden plateau develop in 2020-2022, then that is a remarkable prediction fulfillment. It has nothing to do with long range statistical correlations but is a point prediction. 

You never took a stats course, right?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the article,

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2874/Study-Reducing-human-caused-air-pollution-in-North-America-and-Europe-brings-surprising-result-more-hurricanes

So this article shows how reduced particulate effluence from industry and ICE vehicles has impacted climate change. That is not a CO2 engineered change, but a reduction in toxic effluence. The strength of this effect detracts from any measured relationship between CO2 increase and measured earth temperature change.

In case you still don't get it, Jay, this would represent a reduction in any measured CO2/earth temperature relationship.

The article shows that human industrial activity is capable of changing the climate. Removing particulates would only return us to pre industrial status which would not cause a temp rise relative to that period. What can be surmised is that particulates have slowed down the CO2 effect and as they have been reduced CO2 has had a greater affect.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, it is clearly consistent with the predictions of the beginning of a cooling phase, as predicted by the solar cycle models, and is inconsistent with the CO2 models. If a model predicts that the warming phase transitions to a cooling phase in 2020, and we see a sudden plateau develop in 2020-2022, then that is a remarkable prediction fulfillment. It has nothing to do with long range statistical correlations but is a point prediction. 

You never took a stats course, right?

There is nothing to be seen except typical yearly variation, your two data points do not indicate a plateau. The chart indicates that temp is back on the rise for 2022 (that part of the blue line that goes up from the last black box is Q1 2022)

You are statistically clueless. 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The article shows that human industrial activity is capable of changing the climate. Removing particulates would only return us to pre industrial status which would not cause a temp rise relative to that period. What can be surmised is that particulates have slowed down the CO2 effect and as they have been reduced CO2 has had a greater affect.

 

No, Jay, it means that the reduction of particulate toxic effluence in the period 1980-2020 has been a principle cause of global warming. That means that any observed increase in global warming must therefore take into consideration the effect of reduced particulate effluence, and therefore models which rely on CO2 without accounting for reduced particulate effluence are incorrectly specified and produce biased results. 

"Over the last 40 years, Europe and North America have been leaders in reducing particulate air pollution from industry, autos, energy and other sources. The increasing absence of human-caused air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, estimated to be a 50-percent drop in concentration from 1980 to 2020, has led to surface warming over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to more frequent tropical cyclones. Without significant amounts of particulate pollution to reflect sunlight, the ocean absorbs more heat and warms faster. A warming Atlantic Ocean has been a key ingredient to a 33-percent increase in the number of tropical cyclones during this 40-year period, Murakami said."

Edited May 17, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is nothing to be seen except typical yearly variation, your two data points do not indicate a plateau. The chart indicates that temp is back on the rise for 2022 (that part of the blue line that goes up from the last black box is Q1 2022)

You are statistically clueless. 

The annual series is clearly into a plateau as of 2020, as predicted by the solar cycle models.

You never took stats in university, right?

Edited May 17, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

No, Jay, it means that the reduction of particulate toxic effluence in the period 1980-2020has been a principle cause of global warming. That means that any observed increase in global warming must therefore take into consideration the effect of reduced particulate effluence, and therefore models which rely on CO2 without accounting for this are incorrectly specified and produce biased results. 

"Over the last 40 years, Europe and North America have been leaders in reducing particulate air pollution from industry, autos, energy and other sources. The increasing absence of human-caused air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, estimated to be a 50-percent drop in concentration from 1980 to 2020, has led to surface warming over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to more frequent tropical cyclones. Without significant amounts of particulate pollution to reflect sunlight, the ocean absorbs more heat and warms faster. A warming Atlantic Ocean has been a key ingredient to a 33-percent increase in the number of tropical cyclones during this 40-year period, Murakami said."

No that isn't how it works. The lack of particulants during pre industrial times did not lead to temp rise. Their removal has perhaps unmasked the CO2 heat effect. 

It is really quite simple. Industrialization led to the production of a cooling agent and a heating agent that offset each other. The cooling agent is unquestionably bad for human health so we began to remove it. In doing so the heating agent was no longer moderated and is now becoming harmful so we must remove it as well.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The annual series is clearly into a plateau as of 2020, as predicted by the solar cycle models.

You never took stats in university, right?

You are just making yourself look foolish by declaring that the normal variation in two data points is sufficient for such a proclamation.

And your predictions are for cooling, not a plateau.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

16 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No that isn't how it works. The lack of particulants during pre industrial times did not lead to temp rise. Their removal has perhaps unmasked the CO2 heat effect. 

It is really quite simple. Industrialization led to the production of a cooling agent and a heating agent that offset each other. The cooling agent is unquestionably bad for human health so we began to remove it. In doing so the heating agent was no longer moderated and is now becoming harmful so we must remove it as well.

No, Jay, read the study. It is the removal of industrial particulate that has caused global warming in the period 1980 to 2020. Their removal to the extent of 50% has caused global warming, and the failure of the CO2 climate models to include particulate variables has now rendered those CO2 models obsolete. In other words, the effect of CO2 is grossly overstated in the standard CO2 climate models, which focus on the 1980 to 2020 period.

If you knew anything about statistical models, it would not be necessary for me to educate you on how such models work, or in this case do not work. In the standard climate models, it appears that the CO2 variables are acting as surrogates for the excluded particulate variables. That means that these models are not reliable.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

19 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are just making yourself look foolish by declaring that the normal variation in two data points is sufficient for such a proclamation.

No, we are now looking at the annual series since 2020, which includes more than two data points. Get some good eyeglasses, Jay.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

No, we are now looking at the annual series since 2020, which includes more than two data points. Get some good eyeglasses, Jay.

Here is the annual series since 2020. The first annual data point is 2020. The second annual data point is 2021. That adds up to a grand total of two annual data points. 1+1=2  2022 is not an annual data point yet, but Q1 is a hint at what it might be and it is up from 2021. You are making a grand fool of yourself with this silliness.

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[specinho + 440]

On 5/16/2022 at 5:49 AM, Ecocharger said:

Any supposed "transition" to an electric grid sufficient to support an all-electric future, is a pure pipe-dream.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Americas-Electric-Grid-Has-A-2-Trillion-Problem.html

"The U.S. power grid is strained as-is, with disruption and outages becoming more frequent in many regions.

Regulatory ‘nightmare’ makes investments in the grid more complicated.

Grid upgrades may cost up to $2 trillion through 2050."

 

not sure if anyone could recall how many years do they need to print trillions? About the same time frame till 2050?

[specinho + 440]

On 5/16/2022 at 9:38 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Yet Solar irradiance has not increased while Earth temperature has. Ground temp is up because CO2 is trapping heat at the surface. If the Sun was causing the warming the upper atmosphere would be heating as well.

 

not sure if this is proper to explain how heat could be trapped but for your second reference..........

heat provides energy to particles ( atoms, molecules etc). The more energy they need to distance themselves from each other, the more heat they can absorb or retain.

Gas does not need much energy due to their loose particle arrangement. Hence, the heat they can absorb or retain would be relatively low, or the lowest among the three.....

2.

not sure if this is accurate but for your reference.........

UV is usually blocked by Ozone. This high energy radiation is probably absorbed to dissociate molecules available up there. Hence, the temperature might not be affected much after it is absorbed. ( scenario changes when ozone is depleted).

infrared is more prominent in the morning due to condensation of water at night that blocks out other radiations.

This might also explain why the report regarding excessive removal of pollutants could cause climate change.

As water vapour clears out, visible light heats up the earth......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by specinho

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

26 minutes ago, specinho said:

not sure if this is proper to explain how heat could be trapped but for your second reference..........

heat provides energy to particles ( atoms, molecules etc). The more energy they need to distance themselves from each other, the more heat they can absorb or retain.

Gas does not need much energy due to their loose particle arrangement. Hence, the heat they can absorb or retain would be relatively low, or the lowest among the three.....

2.

not sure if this is accurate but for your reference.........

UV is usually blocked by Ozone. This high energy radiation is probably absorbed to dissociate molecules available up there. Hence, the temperature might not be affected much after it is absorbed. ( scenario changes when ozone is depleted).

infrared is more prominent in the morning due to condensation of water at night that blocks out other radiations.

This might also explain why the report regarding excessive removal of pollutants could cause climate change.

As water vapour clears out, visible light heat up the earth......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb light, preventing some of it from escaping the Earth. This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average temperature.

 

February 19, 2021

What do CO₂, methane, and water vapor have in common? If your first thought was “greenhouse gases,” you’d be correct! Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, in a process called the “greenhouse effect.”¹ But how do these molecules actually warm our planet?

We’ll start our exploration of greenhouse gases with a single carbon dioxide (CO₂) molecule. Let’s say this CO₂ molecule came from the exhaust in your car. From your tailpipe, it drifts up into the atmosphere, diffusing among the other gases. There, particles of light—photons—hit our molecule.

So what happens to those photons? “Greenhouse gas molecules will absorb that light, causing the bonds between atoms to vibrate,” says Jesse Kroll, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Chemical Engineering at MIT. “This traps the energy, which would otherwise go back into space, and so has the effect of heating up the atmosphere.” Basically, the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in our CO₂ molecule bend and stretch to absorb photons. (With other greenhouse gases, the molecular bonds are different, but in all cases, they absorb photons, stopping them from leaving the atmosphere.)

Eventually, our CO₂ molecule will release these photons. Sometimes, the photons continue out into space. But other times, they rebound back into the Earth’s atmosphere, where their heat remains trapped.

And importantly, greenhouse gases don’t absorb all photons that cross their paths. Instead, they mostly take in photons leaving the Earth for space. “CO₂ molecules absorb infrared light at a few wavelengths, but the most important absorption is light of about 15 microns,” says Kroll. Incoming light from the sun tends to have much shorter wavelengths than this, so CO₂ doesn’t stop this sunlight from warming the Earth in the first place. But when the Earth re-emits this light,² it has a longer wavelength, in the infrared spectrum.

And the range of wavelengths around 15 microns is a particularly crucial window. The most common greenhouse gas, water vapor, doesn’t efficiently absorb photons in this range. So when CO₂ grabs photons with wavelengths around 15 microns, it’s selecting for the same light that normally has the easiest time escaping Earth’s atmosphere.

There’s another reason why CO₂ is such an important greenhouse gas: it has a long atmospheric lifetime. This has to do with the way CO₂ reacts (or rather, doesn’t react) with the atmosphere. “The atmosphere is a very oxidative environment due to the presence of oxygen and ultraviolet radiation,” says Kroll. Oxidation occurs when oxygen steals electrons from another atom—it’s the same chemical reaction that causes iron to rust. Methane, another greenhouse gas, reacts easily with oxygen, which removes it from the atmosphere within around 12 years. That’s long enough to affect the climate, but nowhere near the lifetime of CO₂, which does not react with oxygen and can last over a century.

CO₂’s long lifespan is the key reason that human activities are leading to climate change. As we keep taking carbon-based compounds like coal and oil out of the ground, and put that carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO₂, the added CO₂ piles up much faster than it can be naturally removed.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere

Edited May 17, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,068]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No your studies didn't show any solar cycles that correlated with the massive temperature increase over the past 50 years.

Statistically the temperature change has not plateaued. The temps are still above the 11 year average and the best fit line.

Ecochump you are as wrong as it gets

Statistically the past 7 data points are all above the 1970-2020 linear fit......meaning that they do not represent a plateau at all. To make a call that a Plateau (temporary) has been reached you would need 7 or more of the of the last 10  data points to be under the linear fit line. If 7 data points out of the last 10 are below the linear fit line.....all you could say at this time is a temporary plateau has been reached. You would need to go to 2025 with many data points below the linear fit line and a flattening (horizontal) 10 year moving average to even call it a plateau....

and yes I took University stats and in one of my businesses I use stats every day.......The business is run completely by statistics.......

 

The chart Jay presents clearly does not show  a plateau, it just shows that the last 7 data points are higher than what would be predicted and that a return to the linear rise in global temperature has occurred in the last  data point

Calling it a plateau??????? you are not playing with a full deck of cards.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

Ecochump you are as wrong as it gets

Statistically the past 7 data points are all above the 1970-2020 linear fit......meaning that they do not represent a plateau at all. To make a call that a Plateau (temporary) has been reached you would need 7 or more of the of the last 10  data points to be under the linear fit line. If 7 data points out of the last 10 are below the linear fit line.....all you could say at this time is a temporary plateau has been reached. You would need to go to 2025 with many data points below the linear fit line and a flattening (horizontal) 10 year moving average to even call it a plateau....

and yes I took University stats and in one of my businesses I use stats every day.......The business is run completely by statistics.......

 

The chart Jay presents clearly does not show  a plateau, it just shows that the last 7 data points are higher than what would be predicted and that a return to the linear rise in global temperature has occurred in the last  data point

Calling it a plateau??????? you are not playing with a full deck of cards.

And who put the badge on you Gabby? I might suggest data points may well not your cup of tea...kindly...But Of Course Not!...I might add.

Now as to Data points and plateaus...The market is forming a bubble so to speak....

Opinion | John Durham Has Already Won

The Trump-era special prosecutor begins his first trial this week, but the verdict hardly matters.

Kimberley Strassel argued that Durham had already accomplished the “far bigger goal” than convicting Sussmann — to “put every sleazy collusion player in the hot seat, with ramifications beyond the courtroom.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/16/john-durham-has-already-won-00032509

Edited May 17, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

7 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Not until this post. A great number of people are ‘scientifically illiterate’ so I took every word on this subject from you at face value. You made 3 posts in a row about the chemistry and properties of CO2 which indicated you weren’t familiar with its physical properties, so I assumed you were not in fact familiar with its physical properties.

I’ve made posts before about calculating the work required to isothermally compress hydrogen gas from 1 to 300 bar. It’d be quite amusing if I didn’t understand the physical properties of carbon dioxide 🤣. 
 

I’ve recently developed a fascination with something called an “interaction parameter” (notated with “kappa”) that can be used to describe molecular interactions within real gaseous mixtures. Gas compression companies build expensive laboratories to experimentally determine these parameters, in order to avoid retrograde effects when handling well gases. Carbon dioxide has an effect on phase changes if present within the mixtures. 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

2 hours ago, specinho said:

not sure if this is proper to explain how heat could be trapped but for your second reference..........

heat provides energy to particles ( atoms, molecules etc). The more energy they need to distance themselves from each other, the more heat they can absorb or retain.

Gas does not need much energy due to their loose particle arrangement. Hence, the heat they can absorb or retain would be relatively low, or the lowest among the three.....

2.

not sure if this is accurate but for your reference.........

UV is usually blocked by Ozone. This high energy radiation is probably absorbed to dissociate molecules available up there. Hence, the temperature might not be affected much after it is absorbed. ( scenario changes when ozone is depleted).

infrared is more prominent in the morning due to condensation of water at night that blocks out other radiations.

This might also explain why the report regarding excessive removal of pollutants could cause climate change.

As water vapour clears out, visible light heats up the earth......

One large metorite strike or large volcanic activity can cause enough particulate matter to blot out immense amounts of sunlight over a long period of time. Water vapor as in clouds does the same. Compare those to Asia's daily expelling of particulate matter from coal plants that blackens the skies of their cities most days of the year. Then add all the asphalt and concrete that mankind has used to build roads and cities around the world since before cars became commonplace. Then add in all the "adjusted" data by "scientists" who have received large grants by governments to proliferate more climate crisis propaganda. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Wagner + 643]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I’ve made posts before about calculating the work required to isothermally compress hydrogen gas from 1 to 300 bar. It’d be quite amusing if I didn’t understand the physical properties of carbon dioxide 🤣. 
 

I’ve recently developed a fascination with something called an “interaction parameter” (notated with “kappa”) that can be used to describe molecular interactions within real gaseous mixtures. Gas compression companies build expensive laboratories to experimentally determine these parameters, in order to avoid retrograde effects when handling well gases. Carbon dioxide has an effect on phase changes if present within the mixtures. 

Tell us more. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I’ve made posts before about calculating the work required to isothermally compress hydrogen gas from 1 to 300 bar. It’d be quite amusing if I didn’t understand the physical properties of carbon dioxide 🤣. 
 

I’ve recently developed a fascination with something called an “interaction parameter” (notated with “kappa”) that can be used to describe molecular interactions within real gaseous mixtures. Gas compression companies build expensive laboratories to experimentally determine these parameters, in order to avoid retrograde effects when handling well gases. Carbon dioxide has an effect on phase changes if present within the mixtures. 

I don’t research every persons post history before responding in a thread.  Neither do I remember everything a poster has ever posted.  I more or less just respond to what is posted within the last page or so.  Your 3 posts seemingly misunderstanding the properties of carbon dioxide in short order had every possible indication of being your genuine opinion, so I treated it as such.  

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

I don’t research every persons post history before responding in a thread.  Neither do I remember everything a poster has ever posted.  I more or less just respond to what is posted within the last page or so.  Your 3 posts seemingly misunderstanding the properties of carbon dioxide in short order had every possible indication of being your genuine opinion, so I treated it as such.  

No no I understand I’m not criticizing you. 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No your studies didn't show any solar cycles that correlated with the massive temperature increase over the past 50 years.

Statistically the temperature change has not plateaued. The temps are still above the 11 year average and the best fit line.

The trend is obviously changing here, now into a plateau rather than an increase. That verifies the prediction made by the solar cycle models since 2017. That was more than three years before this data, which should now be updated to include the 2022 numbers.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb light, preventing some of it from escaping the Earth. This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average temperature.

 

February 19, 2021

What do CO₂, methane, and water vapor have in common? If your first thought was “greenhouse gases,” you’d be correct! Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, in a process called the “greenhouse effect.”¹ But how do these molecules actually warm our planet?

We’ll start our exploration of greenhouse gases with a single carbon dioxide (CO₂) molecule. Let’s say this CO₂ molecule came from the exhaust in your car. From your tailpipe, it drifts up into the atmosphere, diffusing among the other gases. There, particles of light—photons—hit our molecule.

So what happens to those photons? “Greenhouse gas molecules will absorb that light, causing the bonds between atoms to vibrate,” says Jesse Kroll, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Chemical Engineering at MIT. “This traps the energy, which would otherwise go back into space, and so has the effect of heating up the atmosphere.” Basically, the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in our CO₂ molecule bend and stretch to absorb photons. (With other greenhouse gases, the molecular bonds are different, but in all cases, they absorb photons, stopping them from leaving the atmosphere.)

Eventually, our CO₂ molecule will release these photons. Sometimes, the photons continue out into space. But other times, they rebound back into the Earth’s atmosphere, where their heat remains trapped.

And importantly, greenhouse gases don’t absorb all photons that cross their paths. Instead, they mostly take in photons leaving the Earth for space. “CO₂ molecules absorb infrared light at a few wavelengths, but the most important absorption is light of about 15 microns,” says Kroll. Incoming light from the sun tends to have much shorter wavelengths than this, so CO₂ doesn’t stop this sunlight from warming the Earth in the first place. But when the Earth re-emits this light,² it has a longer wavelength, in the infrared spectrum.

And the range of wavelengths around 15 microns is a particularly crucial window. The most common greenhouse gas, water vapor, doesn’t efficiently absorb photons in this range. So when CO₂ grabs photons with wavelengths around 15 microns, it’s selecting for the same light that normally has the easiest time escaping Earth’s atmosphere.

There’s another reason why CO₂ is such an important greenhouse gas: it has a long atmospheric lifetime. This has to do with the way CO₂ reacts (or rather, doesn’t react) with the atmosphere. “The atmosphere is a very oxidative environment due to the presence of oxygen and ultraviolet radiation,” says Kroll. Oxidation occurs when oxygen steals electrons from another atom—it’s the same chemical reaction that causes iron to rust. Methane, another greenhouse gas, reacts easily with oxygen, which removes it from the atmosphere within around 12 years. That’s long enough to affect the climate, but nowhere near the lifetime of CO₂, which does not react with oxygen and can last over a century.

CO₂’s long lifespan is the key reason that human activities are leading to climate change. As we keep taking carbon-based compounds like coal and oil out of the ground, and put that carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO₂, the added CO₂ piles up much faster than it can be naturally removed.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere

Some problems with this interview (it is not a scientific study, but an interview for a blog policy advocate). It ignores the fact that other greenhouse gases are many thousands of times more potent than CO2, which is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, and secondly, high levels of earth temperature and low levels of earth temperature are negatively correlated with CO2 levels.

In other words, the actual scientific tests show that these ideas do not happen in the real world.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

9 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The trend is obviously changing here, now into a plateau rather than an increase. That verifies the prediction made by the solar cycle models since 2017. That was more than three years before this data, which should now be updated to include the 2022 numbers.

As I have said over and over the data I have presented includes Q1 of 2022 which shows an increase. Or perhaps you are not aware that it is still just Q2 of 2022.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

5 hours ago, notsonice said:

Ecochump you are as wrong as it gets

Statistically the past 7 data points are all above the 1970-2020 linear fit......meaning that they do not represent a plateau at all. To make a call that a Plateau (temporary) has been reached you would need 7 or more of the of the last 10  data points to be under the linear fit line. If 7 data points out of the last 10 are below the linear fit line.....all you could say at this time is a temporary plateau has been reached. You would need to go to 2025 with many data points below the linear fit line and a flattening (horizontal) 10 year moving average to even call it a plateau....

and yes I took University stats and in one of my businesses I use stats every day.......The business is run completely by statistics.......

 

The chart Jay presents clearly does not show  a plateau, it just shows that the last 7 data points are higher than what would be predicted and that a return to the linear rise in global temperature has occurred in the last  data point

Calling it a plateau??????? you are not playing with a full deck of cards.

No, it shows a clear plateau, which coincides with the predicted commencement of a cooling phase consistent with solar cycle data. 

You should be happy about this, as the solar cycle impact on earth temperature will overcome the impact of reduced particulate effluent.

This is all good news.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Some problems with this interview (it is not a scientific study, but an interview for a blog policy advocate). It ignores the fact that other greenhouse gases are many thousands of times more potent than CO2, which is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, and secondly, high levels earth temperature and low levels of earth temperature are negatively correlated with CO2 levels.

In other words, the actual scientific tests show that these ideas do not happen in the real world.

It is not an interview. It is a statement by MIT. Your reading comprehension continues to be garbage.