GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 minute ago, Polyphia said:

Doubtful

It is doubtful that you possess the cranial capacity to integrate the new scientific research into your life experience.

[TailingsPond + 460]

14 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, thousands of times more potent per volume. 

But historically, temperature fluctuates without any relationship to CO2, earth temperature curves change direction downward when CO2 levels are extremely high, and earth temperature starts trending upward when CO2 concentrations are extremely low.  In other words, there are obviously other major factors which are moving the temperature curves. CO2 appears to be a dependent variable in these models, not an independent variable.

Volcanoes really complicate things.  

[Polyphia + 67]

48 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It is doubtful that you possess the cranial capacity to integrate the new scientific research into your life experience.

I see my 6 year-old nephew has surfaced again. 

[Polyphia + 67]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

So do you disagree with his viewpoint and the data he provides?

Also do you still think Co2 is a pollutant?

The data from the graph are not very compelling. They show an increase in temperature over the last few hundred years and a much steeper increase in temperature since 1960, just after the CO2 increases start to ramp up. If you looked at continental and global changes in temperature over the same time period, you see the same thing. So, no, this graph isn't a smoking gun that shows CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. And to be fair, by itself, a graph that shows a recent correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase isn't a smoking gun that shows CO2 increases cause temperatures to increase. As I am sure you know, it is much more complicated and nuanced than that.

In general, CO2 is not a pollutant--if the amount that we are dumping into the environment is increasing at such a rate that it directly or indirectly endangers our welfare, then at that point, yes, it is a pollutant. 

[notsonice + 1,062]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

This is an extract from a post from @Tom Nolan regarding Co2, published by the founder of greanpeace!

The graph at the bottom highlights the point he makes quite well I think.

The Demonization of Carbon Dioxide

“Very few people believe the world is not warming. The record is clear that the world has been warming since about the year 1700, 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. 1700 was the peak of the Little Ice Age, which was very cold and caused crop failures and starvation. Before that, around 1000 A.D. was the Medieval Warm period when Vikings farmed Greenland. [And] before that, around 500 A.D. were the Dark Ages, and before that, the Roman Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the sea level was 1–2 meters higher than today,” Moore said.

 Representatives of car companies arrive at the Vienna Autoshow as Greenpeace activists protest against carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from sports utility vehicle cars (SUV) on Jan. 16, 2008. (Dieter Nagl/AFP via Getty Images)

“Even until about 1950, the amount of fossil fuel used and CO2 emitted were very small compared to today. We do not know the cause of these periodic fluctuations in temperature, but it was certainly not CO2.”

Moore clarified that the “minority opinion” is not about the history of the Earth’s temperature, but it is the relationship between the temperature and CO2 that is at the center of the dispute.

“In this regard, I agree that many believe CO2 is the main cause of warming. CO2 is invisible, so no one can actually see what it is doing. And this ‘majority’ are mainly scientists paid by politicians and bureaucrats, media making headlines, or activists making money. [The rest are] the public who believe this story even though they can’t actually see what CO2 is doing,” Moore said.

Moore provided a graph of temperature continuously measured over 350 years (from 1659 to 2009) in central England. “If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t,” he explained.

1659–2009 Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central England. (Courtesy of Patrick Moore)

Moore described the demonization of CO2 as “completely ridiculous.” He added that CO2 is the basis of all life on Earth and its concentration in the atmosphere today, even with the increase, is lower than it has been for a large majority of life’s existence.

Co2 is NOT a pollutant!!!

notice the giant deviation in the past 30 years from the extended linear temperature trend????

 

do you know how to read the chart below???

 

I will help you, since 1980 all temperature readings are above the extended linear temp trend and the temp is now typically 1 degree centigrade higher than one would expect. Notice the correlation to the increase in CO2?????

Only a braindead moron would not be able to see the correlation..........CO2 is the cause.....

keep babbling that more CO2 is great, it is what morons do...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

7 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Volcanoes really complicate things.  

Also solar cycles, levels of particulate in the atmosphere, which are two major factors usually excluded from the standard CO2 climate models....it's like someone does not want to study them.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

6 hours ago, Polyphia said:

I see my 6 year-old nephew has surfaced again. 

That nephew who will graduate from Harvard at age 12? I can understand why he is not on your wavelength.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

notice the giant deviation in the past 30 years from the extended linear temperature trend????

 

do you know how to read the chart below???

 

I will help you, since 1980 all temperature readings are above the extended linear temp trend and the temp is now typically 1 degree centigrade higher than one would expect. Notice the correlation to the increase in CO2?????

Only a braindead moron would not be able to see the correlation..........CO2 is the cause.....

keep babbling that more CO2 is great, it is what morons do...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, you need to integrate other major factors, notably levels of particulate in the atmosphere (which affects the amount of sunlight penetrating to the earth) and solar cycles (which correlates the most closely with changes in earth temperature).

Otherwise, the models are incomplete and of no value.

[Polyphia + 67]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That nephew who will graduate from Harvard at age 12? I can understand why he is not on your wavelength.

I graduated from a comparable school, so we would be on similar wavelengths.

[Polyphia + 67]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you need to integrate other major factors, notably levels of particulate in the atmosphere (which affects the amount of sunlight penetrating to the earth) and solar cycles (which correlates the most closely with changes in earth temperature).

Otherwise, the models are incomplete and of no value.

So, show us the studies that take all of these important variables into consideration.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 minute ago, Polyphia said:

I graduated from a comparable school, so we would be on similar wavelengths.

At age 12?

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 minute ago, Polyphia said:

So, show us the studies that take all of these important variables into consideration.

I have already listed them above... you go and read them. I am not going to waste my time reposting material which is above your head.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 67]

38 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

At age 12?

Since we are talking about a fictitious scenario with my nephew...actually, I graduated at 10 and received my Ph. D. at 12.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

7 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

Since we are talking about a fictitious scenario with my nephew...actually, I graduated at 10 and received my Ph. D. at 12.

I can well believe that...from Home U, your sire awarding the degree.

[notsonice + 1,062]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you need to integrate other major factors, notably levels of particulate in the atmosphere (which affects the amount of sunlight penetrating to the earth) and solar cycles (which correlates the most closely with changes in earth temperature).

Otherwise, the models are incomplete and of no value.

notably levels of particulate in the atmosphere (which affects the amount of sunlight penetrating to the earth) and solar cycles (which correlates the most closely with changes in earth temperature).?????????

 

so what big things have happened in the last 40 years???????

levels of particulates from???? post the events....... we do know that manmade particulates or natural particulates will cool the earth

 

PM2.5 has been steady flat line on a global basis between 45 to 50 micrograms per cubic meter from 1990 to 2022 (no data from before 1990 on a global basis........nothing happening to effect the earth temp

solar cycles???? they happen every 11 years.....no one is claiming solar cycles are to blame for the long term trend of rising temps

 

Dude your claim of incomplete models and of no value is BS...you post nothing to back your claims up

As usual............

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by notsonice

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

On 12/20/2022 at 10:52 PM, notsonice said:

I will help you, since 1980 all temperature readings are above the extended linear temp trend and the temp is now typically 1 degree centigrade higher than one would expect. Notice the correlation to the increase in CO2?????

The data you select is too small a timescale and these fluctuations can be caused by many things as you know. In fact there are previous temperature fluctuations larger than the last 40 years in the graph where there is no increase in Co2 levels, only a moron could of missed that!

Anyway I think where you and many others are getting confused is that there is generally a 600-1000 year lag in Co2 rises to temperature increases over earths historical data based on ice cores.

There is certainly a correlation but its unclear on whether temperature drives Co2 or vice versa.

In any case man's "interference" with increased Co2 levels over the last 150-200 years should not have made any changes for a few centuries yet, let alone the last 42 years.

Climate Myth...

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton, US House of Representatives (Texas) 1985-2019) - Full Statement

 

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO₂ and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO₂ follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO₂ simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO₂ is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO₂ into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO₂ being released. In other words, increasing CO₂ levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO₂-temperature change relationship.  They found that:

• The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. 

• This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.

• The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.  As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO₂ in water falls.  This causes the oceans to give up more CO₂, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurred after that atmospheric CO₂ increase (Figure 2).

 

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO₂ concentration (yellow dots).  Source.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

18 hours ago, notsonice said:

notably levels of particulate in the atmosphere (which affects the amount of sunlight penetrating to the earth) and solar cycles (which correlates the most closely with changes in earth temperature).?????????

 

so what big things have happened in the last 40 years???????

levels of particulates from???? post the events....... we do know that manmade particulates or natural particulates will cool the earth

 

PM2.5 has been steady flat line on a global basis between 45 to 50 micrograms per cubic meter from 1990 to 2022 (no data from before 1990 on a global basis........nothing happening to effect the earth temp

solar cycles???? they happen every 11 years.....no one is claiming solar cycles are to blame for the long term trend of rising temps

 

Dude your claim of incomplete models and of no value is BS...you post nothing to back your claims up

As usual............

 

I posted the science on particulates earlier, yes the drastic reduction of particulates in the last few decades has made a substantial contribution to global  warming.

And, of course, solar cycles remain the most important determinant of earth temperature change.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

The new forces of global freezing are having a dramatic impact on oil demand.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Ticks-Up-On-EIA-Inventory-Data-Report.html

"Oil prices have been on the mend this week, buoyed by a forecast for freezing weather in the United States, the White House’s plan to start buying crude to replenish the strategic petroleum reserve after the biggest draw from it in history, and China’s expected demand recovery."

Edited December 21, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 67]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I posted the science on particulates earlier, yes the drastic reduction of particulates in the last few decades has made a substantial contribution to global  warming.

And, of course, solar cycles remain the most important determinant of earth temperature change.

It isn't that simple. Most particulates have a cooling effect and some a warming effect. To complicate things, in some parts of the world, particulates are being reduced and in others increased. How much impact particulates, especially anthropogenic ones, have had/are having on climate isn't entirely clear. There are some estimates that the existence of aerosols may have SUPPRESSED the recent warming of the earth caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50%.

And "no" on your second claim. Solar cycles are not playing a role in the recent warming trend we are experiencing.

[notsonice + 1,062]

On 12/21/2022 at 5:18 PM, Ecocharger said:

I posted the science on particulates earlier, yes the drastic reduction of particulates in the last few decades has made a substantial contribution to global  warming.

And, of course, solar cycles remain the most important determinant of earth temperature change.

you did not post anything...I posted you the data showing no decline in particulates on a global basis over the past 4 decades........

 

you just have a problem dealing with reality that rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...

 

[notsonice + 1,062]

21 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The new forces of global freezing are having a dramatic impact on oil demand.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Ticks-Up-On-EIA-Inventory-Data-Report.html

"Oil prices have been on the mend this week, buoyed by a forecast for freezing weather in the United States, the White House’s plan to start buying crude to replenish the strategic petroleum reserve after the biggest draw from it in history, and China’s expected demand recovery."

yet the price of crude and nat gas is falling today.......10 degrees plus warmer weather for the entire US forecast for Dec 24/26 (West will be in the mid 50s on xmas eve and it is moving across the US fast) to well after new years....

 

so much for your global freezing impact on oil demand.....

and all or your other babbling posts, including your July Goldman Sachs call for Brent Crude at $130 on the end of the year......How did they get is so wrong??????

 

Demand is in the dumpster....Russia exports are cratering and the price of crude falls ......Boy is must suck to be one that is crying demand is increasing

EV's making a dent in demand?

Sleepy Joe oversupplying the market with crude?

China in a bad recession?

2023 will suck for oil ....anyone crying $90 Brent for the first quarter of 2023  at this point will lose their shirts

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

16 hours ago, notsonice said:

Demand is in the dumpster....Russia exports are cratering and the price of crude falls ......Boy is must suck to be one that is crying demand is increasing

EV's making a dent in demand?

Oil Ticks Up On EIA Inventory Data Report | OilPrice.com

Gasoline is up to 9.6mmb/day, a steady climb since pre-covid days. EV's are causing more oil production as so much petro goes into the making of the units, from digging up the earth to mine the precious metals to the amount of plastics in the unit themselves. This has been proven time and again that it takes much more FF to make the EV's, break even per unit is around 70,000 miles. 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 12/21/2022 at 7:13 PM, Polyphia said:

It isn't that simple. Most particulates have a cooling effect and some a warming effect. To complicate things, in some parts of the world, particulates are being reduced and in others increased. How much impact particulates, especially anthropogenic ones, have had/are having on climate isn't entirely clear. There are some estimates that the existence of aerosols may have SUPPRESSED the recent warming of the earth caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50%.

And "no" on your second claim. Solar cycles are not playing a role in the recent warming trend we are experiencing.

Solar cycles have been shown to be the principle determinant of earth temperature change, there is no argument there.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

22 hours ago, notsonice said:

yet the price of crude and nat gas is falling today.......10 degrees plus warmer weather for the entire US forecast for Dec 24/26 (West will be in the mid 50s on xmas eve and it is moving across the US fast) to well after new years....

 

so much for your global freezing impact on oil demand.....

and all or your other babbling posts, including your July Goldman Sachs call for Brent Crude at $130 on the end of the year......How did they get is so wrong??????

 

Demand is in the dumpster....Russia exports are cratering and the price of crude falls ......Boy is must suck to be one that is crying demand is increasing

EV's making a dent in demand?

Sleepy Joe oversupplying the market with crude?

China in a bad recession?

2023 will suck for oil ....anyone crying $90 Brent for the first quarter of 2023  at this point will lose their shirts

You must have had a bad breakfast, go easy on that syrup.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Fears-Of-An-Economic-Slowdown-Keep-Oil-Prices-In-Check.html

"A supportive EIA weekly report and concerns about the big freeze forcing production shut-ins pushed oil prices higher this week, although news of better-than-expected Q3 performance in the U.S. has raised the prospect of further interest rate hikes. While fears of an economic slowdown added downward pressure to oil prices, both WTI and Brent rallied on Friday morning as bullish sentiment returned."

Edited December 23, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 12/22/2022 at 12:55 PM, notsonice said:

you did not post anything...I posted you the data showing no decline in particulates on a global basis over the past 4 decades........

 

you just have a problem dealing with reality that rising CO2 is the cause of global warming...

 

You just slept through the material I found...wake up,buddy.