GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

The oil business is in an enviable situation. 

The new climate science based on solar cycles is predicting a cooling cycle, and what do we get? A winter blast into May....okay, chalk up one for the fossil fuel business.

The winter blast has shut down oil extraction, so, as you guessed, that means restricted oil supplies and higher oil prices. 

An embarrassment of riches for the oil folks, one on top of another.

That new solar cycle science is really dynamite!

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Extreme-Weather-Leads-To-Sharp-Drop-In-North-Dakota-Oil-Production.html

"A recent bout of bad weather has slashed oil production in North Dakota by almost 80 percent, and restoring the lost output could take several days. North Dakota, home to part of the Bakken shale formation, is the third-largest oil-producing state in the United States, with a daily production of 1.1 million barrels.

The situation is temporary, but today’s volatile market is acutely aware of any production outages, particularly in the United States. North Dakota’s loss of roughly 800,000 bpd has caused oil prices to climb even higher at an inopportune time when global oil prices are already high. The U.S. oil industry has come under fire recently for its slow post-covid production increase.

According to Katie Haarsager, spokesperson for the North Dakota Oil and Gas Division, the extreme weather has caused road blockages with snow and ice. This has hindered the ability of oil companies to reach their production sites and has damaged their electrical infrastructure."

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 4/27/2022 at 10:49 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

No one is paying any attention to your solar claims. Total failure.

Why? The correlations are pretty much irrefutable if you actually read the article. Also they arent Eco's claims they are scientists claims.

There is this view to back up climate change advocates:-

The ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99% (and the evidence is even stronger than that)

https://theconversation.com/the-97-climate-consensus-is-over-now-its-well-above-99-and-the-evidence-is-even-stronger-than-that-170370

or there is this:-

PROFESSOR VALENTINA ZHARKOVA BREAKS HER SILENCE AND CONFIRMS “SUPER” GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM

https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/

I guess its up to you what you believe or dont believe, but climate modelling has a very shaky history when it comes to accuracy.

The other issue is that although we are currently seeing rapid warming of the planet in general, this is not unusual in the earths history and the planet has been at least 14 degrees warmer and still flourished and life went on. The climate change activists going back 2000 years is ridiculous as that timeframe is like the blink of an eye in earths history.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

20 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Why? The correlations are pretty much irrefutable if you actually read the article. Also they arent Eco's claims they are scientists claims.

There is this view to back up climate change advocates:-

The ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99% (and the evidence is even stronger than that)

https://theconversation.com/the-97-climate-consensus-is-over-now-its-well-above-99-and-the-evidence-is-even-stronger-than-that-170370

or there is this:-

PROFESSOR VALENTINA ZHARKOVA BREAKS HER SILENCE AND CONFIRMS “SUPER” GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM

https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/

I guess its up to you what you believe or dont believe, but climate modelling has a very shaky history when it comes to accuracy.

The other issue is that although we are currently seeing rapid warming of the planet in general, this is not unusual in the earths history and the planet has been at least 14 degrees warmer and still flourished and life went on. The climate change activists going back 2000 years is ridiculous as that timeframe is like the blink of an eye in earths history.

Are you sober? 

The first article completely supports my position and the second is 4 years old from a thoroughly discredited researcher.  

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Are you sober? 

Now that is a valid question 🤣

Jay humans and human ancestry has been around a lot longer that 2000 years pal.

Some scientists have tried to discredit her paper, like i said its a question of what and who you believe.

I posted both a pro climate change and the opposing view point, I consider that to be objective and fair but clearly you cannot see this.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Now that is a valid question 🤣

Jay humans and human ancestry has been around a lot longer that 2000 years pal.

Some scientists have tried to discredit her paper, like i said its a question of what and who you believe.

I posted both a pro climate change and the opposing view point, I consider that to be objective and fair but clearly you cannot see this.

Make a point or don't. It is unclear to me what you are doing.

For her great predicted solar minimum have you noticed the high amount of solar activity this past month?

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Make a point or don't. It is unclear to me what you are doing.

For her great predicted solar minimum have you noticed the high amount of solar activity this past month?

 

Does every post have to be making a point?

Some readers or posters on here may not be aware of the solar theory.

Jay you are very black and white on this topic

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Does every post have to be making a point?

Some readers or posters on here may not be aware of the solar theory.

Jay you are very black and white on this topic

Then you should educate them on solar theory, that isn't my job. You have made it clear in the past that you support it. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Then you should educate them on solar theory, that isn't my job. You have made it clear in the past that you support it. 

Not my job to do either! As I said before its up to everyone to make their own minds up!

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

Perhaps the world's biggest Con aka Green Energy Is finally being exposed. Ford is on the Cuspid of collapse GM is inevitable. 

Ford Had a Strong Quarter. But There Could Be Trouble Brewing.

Analysts still have concerns because costs are rising. Ford (ticker: F) expects higher prices for raw materials to boost its commodity-related expenses by $4 billion in 2022, compared with the $1.8 billion it had predicted earlier.

Although higher prices are offsetting higher costs for Ford now, RBC analyst Joseph Spak expressed doubt that can continue. “It is price sustainability that is the concern,” Spak wrote Wednesday.

If Ford’s prices can’t continue rising, the auto maker might have one buffer. Ford sells to dealers who then sell to consumers. Those dealers’ profit margins are elevated, which Spak says would be cut first.

https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/ford-stock-price-earnings-rising-prices-costs-51651147895

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

Amazon takes $7.6 billion loss on Rivian stake after EV company's stock plunge

KEY POINTS

• Rivian shares lost over half their value in the first quarter of 2022, forcing Amazon to take a big markdown on its stake in the electric vehicle company.
• On Wednesday, Ford took a $5.4 billion loss on its Rivian stake.
• Amazon invested more than $1.3 billion in Rivian as part of strategic partnership between the two companies.
• https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/28/amazon-takes-7point6-billion-loss-on-rivian-stake-from-q1-stock-plunge.html

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

General Motors maintains 2022 guidance despite rising costs and supply chain issues

KEY POINTS

 

Shares of GM are down roughly 34% so far in 2022. Its market cap is about $55 billion, down from more than $90 billion at the beginning of the year.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/26/general-motors-gm-earnings-q1-2022.html

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

Ford Says It Lost $5.4 Billion On Its Rivian Investment (Updated)

Ford has officially disclosed how much it’s lost by holding on to its Rivian shares, and it’s a staggering $5.4 billion.

https://fordauthority.com/2022/04/ford-has-lost-5-4-billion-on-its-rivian-investment/

[TailingsPond + 874]

On 4/27/2022 at 4:00 AM, Boat said:

Judge finds Trump in contempt in New York civil fraud inquiry, fines him $10K a day; Trump to appeal

 

Break out the wallets. One of your boys is in trouble. We’ll actually two. Putin and Trump. Funny it’s an old man they both hate in charge. Who’d of thunk it. We’ll they both have problems with honoring the Constitution and following the rule of law. Is that a deal with all billionaires? Is it ego or the actual laws that get in the way. So which one of these billionaires will need Extended law enforcement. Lol

Trump is no billionaire

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Are you sober? 

The first article completely supports my position and the second is 4 years old from a thoroughly discredited researcher.  

 

Actually, Jay, her work is consistent with many other solar cycle researchers, all of which provides a much better explanation of climate change than the CO2 model. 

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Make a point or don't. It is unclear to me what you are doing.

For her great predicted solar minimum have you noticed the high amount of solar activity this past month?

 

The studies by solar cycle scientists look at correlations between past solar activity and climate change. It is possible that future solar activity may not be predictable, in which case we just have to take what comes.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ford Says It Lost $5.4 Billion On Its Rivian Investment (Updated)

Ford has officially disclosed how much it’s lost by holding on to its Rivian shares, and it’s a staggering $5.4 billion.

https://fordauthority.com/2022/04/ford-has-lost-5-4-billion-on-its-rivian-investment/

 

Tesla just reported first-quarter earnings for 2022 and beat analysts’ expectations on the top and bottom lines. Here are the key numbers.

• Earnings per share: $3.22 vs $2.26 expected
• Revenue: $18.76 billion vs $17.80 billion expected

Shares rose as high as 6% in after-hours trading.

 

Automotive revenue reached $16.86 billion, up 87% from the same period last year. Automotive gross margins jumped to a record 32.9% with Tesla reporting gross profit of $5.54 billion in its main segment. Regulatory credits accounted for $679 million of automotive revenue for the quarter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/20/tesla-tsla-earnings-q1-2022.html

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

32 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Actually, Jay, her work is consistent with many other solar cycle researchers, all of which provides a much better explanation of climate change than the CO2 model. 

Meanwhile in reality:

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

Edited April 29, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No 

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate

17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No 

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

_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/

Jay, here is one conclusion from this data series used in your cited source.

"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."

This statement has been disproved by recent studies relating solar cycles to earth temperature changes. We have given the links earlier. This is where the debate is.

In any event, your source above does not purport to be a CO2 model, but a complex of "greenhouse gases", some of which are much more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases. 

Other studies have shown CO2 cycles to be anti-phasal with earth temperature changes, which means that CO2 changes are negatively correlated with earth temperature changes. So whatever impact CO2 has is apparently overwhelmed by other greenhouse gases.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

22 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, here is one conclusion from this data series used in your cited source.

"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."

This statement has been disproved by recent studies relating solar cycles to earth temperature changes. We have given the links earlier. This is where the debate is.

In any event, your source above does not purport to be a CO2 model, but a complex of "greenhouse gases", some of which are much more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases. 

No that statement has not been disproved. The real data is right in front of your eyes. Sun irradiance is down and temperature is up. Reality destroys your arguments and is why your "science" is being ignored.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

35 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No that statement has not been disproved. The real data is right in front of your eyes. Sun irradiance is down and temperature is up. Reality destroys your arguments and is why your "science" is being ignored.

Your cited material above is not even a study, just a publicity release, Jay. Show us some real science studies supporting your view. This is not it.

So far, it seems you only deal with publicity releases.

I gave you a model from University of California showing that CO2 is anti-phasal with global temperatures.

Here is from the Zharkova study, as linked above by Rob Plant,

"Zharkova was one of only two scientists to correctly predict solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — in fact, only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

Zharkova’s models have run at a 97% accuracy and now suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020.

Grand Solar Minimums are prolonged periods of reduced solar activity, and in the past have gone hand-in-hand with times of global cooling."

So we should be seeing major winter storms in May...well, I guess we have the answer to that already!

Edited April 29, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your cited material above is not even a study, just a publicity release, Jay. Show us some real science studies supporting your view. This is not it.

So far, it seems you only deal with publicity releases.

It is NASA releasing data that clearly shows massive disparity between decreasing solar activity and the recent temperature increase. That is real science. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

 

"Zharkova was one of only two scientists to correctly predict solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — in fact, only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

Zharkova’s models have run at a 97% accuracy and now suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020.

Grand Solar Minimums are prolonged periods of reduced solar activity, and in the past have gone hand-in-hand with times of global cooling."

So we should be seeing major winter storms in May...well, I guess we have the answer to that already!

So we are entering a Super Grand Solar Minimum yet temperatures are rapidly rising. That is why you and she are discredited.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So we are entering a Super Grand Solar Minimum yet temperatures are rapidly rising. That is why you and she are discredited.

2021 Winter Weather Broke Records Across the Globe

Coldest February in More than 30 Years

The average temperature across the U.S. was 30.6°F below the 20th-century average. It was the coldest February in the country since 1989, and the 19th-coldest February since records began 127 years ago. 

This was driven mainly by the coldest air since December 1989 in Texas. In February, Alaska was colder than usual, with all daily high temperatures below freezing.

 

Exceptionally Cold Weather in Areas Near the Arctic

Russia, Scandinavia, Alaska, and northern Canada have been experiencing temperatures tens of degrees below zero. According to The Washington Post, “The cold is related to a powerful polar vortex that has trapped bone-chilling air over the high latitudes, allowing little of it to escape to the south.”

Northeastern Siberia on Wednesday recorded a low temperature of minus -78°F, which is the lowest December temperature recorded in Russia since 1984 and one of the lowest temperatures to be reported in the Northern Hemisphere in several years away from Greenland.

https://www.tomorrow.io/weather/blog/2021-winter-weather/

 

 

December 20, 2021·2 minutes

Edited April 29, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

2021 Winter Weather Broke Records Across the Globe

Coldest February in More than 30 Years

The average temperature across the U.S. was 30.6°F below the 20th-century average. It was the coldest February in the country since 1989, and the 19th-coldest February since records began 127 years ago. 

This was driven mainly by the coldest air since December 1989 in Texas. In February, Alaska was colder than usual, with all daily high temperatures below freezing.

 

Exceptionally Cold Weather in Areas Near the Arctic

Russia, Scandinavia, Alaska, and northern Canada have been experiencing temperatures tens of degrees below zero. According to The Washington Post, “The cold is related to a powerful polar vortex that has trapped bone-chilling air over the high latitudes, allowing little of it to escape to the south.”

Northeastern Siberia on Wednesday recorded a low temperature of minus -78°F, which is the lowest December temperature recorded in Russia since 1984 and one of the lowest temperatures to be reported in the Northern Hemisphere in several years away from Greenland.

https://www.tomorrow.io/weather/blog/2021-winter-weather/

 

 

December 20, 2021·2 minutes

Wrong as always.

Contiguous U.S. ranked fourth warmest during 2021

For 2021, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 54.5°F, 2.5°F above the 20th-century average and ranked as the fourth-warmest year in the 127-year period of record. The six warmest years on record have all occurred since 2012. The December contiguous U.S. temperature was 39.3°F, 6.7°F above average and exceeded the previous record set in December 2015. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-202112

 

2021 Continued Earth’s Warming Trend

 

Earth’s global average surface temperature in 2021 tied 2018 as the sixth-warmest year on record, according to independent analyses from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Global temperatures in 2021 were 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for NASA’s baseline period, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). NASA uses the period from 1951-1980 as a baseline to compare how global temperatures change over time.

Collectively, the past eight years have been the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. This annual temperature data is part of the global temperature record that tells scientists how much and where our planet has been warming. Earth in 2021 was about 1.1°C (1.9°F) warmer than it was in the late 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was underway and weather stations were popping up around the world.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149321/2021-continued-earths-warming-trend

[Ecocharger + 1,460]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is NASA releasing data that clearly shows massive disparity between decreasing solar activity and the recent temperature increase. That is real science. 

That is not science, there is no study or model referred to. Where is the CO2 data?

I gave you a real science study showing that CO2 is antiphasal and negatively correlated to earth temperature. That is real science, so show us something which is relevant to CO2 or it does not make the grade.