GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

56 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

 

 

10 Takeaways from U.S. Auto Sales: Q1 2022

Wednesday April 20, 2022

New-vehicle sales last quarter came in at 3.3 million, according to the latest Kelley Blue Book counts, a drop from 3.9 million in the first quarter of 2021. Sales in the quarter were down 15.7% year over year, but as the Cox Automotive Industry Insights team has repeatedly stated: There is NOT a demand problem in the market right now.  

looks like 3 million autos sold about 170k were EV...yes Jay Kaput...ski!

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/10-takeaways-from-u-s-auto-sales-q1-2022/

 

 

giphy.webp 18.39 kB · 1 download

Almost twice as many as sold last year. You really are the dumbest of the dumb.

EV sales grew 76% year over year in Q1, in line with our January prediction for EV growth to outpace industry growth in 2022. EV share jumped from 2.5% of sales in Q1 2021 to 5.2% in Q1 2022.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/10-takeaways-from-u-s-auto-sales-q1-2022/

Edited May 2, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/enviro-groups-pocket-millions-from-wind-industry-report_4436994.html

 

Enviro Groups Pocket Millions from Wind Industry: Report

By Nathan Worcester

 

April 29, 2022 Updated: May 1, 2022

 

biggersmaller 

Print

A new report shows that many high-profile environmental organizations take money from wind power companies, raising questions about their independence and objectivity as the Biden administration pursues large-scale offshore wind projects along the coasts of the United States.

Titled “Conflicts of Interest,” the report was produced by the Save Right Whales Coalition, a group concerned about the potential impact of industrial-scale wind on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.

“Our investigation sought to understand why environmental groups that have worked vigorously to protect right whales have gone silent in the face of massive industrialization of right whale habitat. If the money flow is influencing the actions of these environmental groups, the public deserves to know,” said Lisa Linowes, who belongs to the Save the Right Whales Coalition.

At least $4.2 million in donations are documented in a spreadsheet examined by The Epoch Times.

Bay State Wind, a venture led by the Danish wind turbine giant Ørsted, donated $500,000 to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, one of the United States’ top research hubs for oceanography, marine science, and related disciplines.

 

Ørsted also donated an undisclosed sum to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), as proudly advertised on its sponsorship webpage.

The National Audubon Society, known for its bird conservation advocacy, has also accepted funding with ties to the wind industry.

Both the National Audubon Society and Maine Audubon received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New England Forests and Rivers Fund, which is financed in part by Avangrid and Eversource, both of which have large wind power portfolios.

Ocean Wind, another Ørsted subsidiary, has also funded New Jersey Audubon, as has the offshore wind firm Atlantic Shores.

In addition, Avangrid has funded Sharon Audubon.

Many consider wind turbines highly dangerous to birds and bats.

While a study financed by the pro-wind energy nonprofit American Wind and Wildlife Watch estimated there were just 214,000 to 368,000 wind turbine-related bird fatalities in the United States and Canada, many other studies have arrived at higher estimates.

“Planners, decision-makers, and wind turbine operators should regard most, if not all, existing mortality estimates at wind farms as highly imprecise and potentially biased low,” wrote researcher Shawn Smallwood in his own study, which estimated bird and bad wind turbine fatalities at an average of 573,093 per year in the United States. (Smallwood’s study was funded by the National Renewable Energy Lab and the California Energy Commission).

“We are concerned that financial conflicts of interest are interfering with your analysis of offshore wind projects,” coalition members wrote in an open letter to the organizations and firms named in the report.

Linowes, who also serves as executive director of WindAction Group, told The Epoch Times she is concerned about the lack of data on the long-term ecological impact of wind installations.

She worries that environmental groups with financial ties to Big Wind will not push hard enough to get to the truth.

Linowes cited a 2021 hearing in the United Kingdom’s House of Lords at which expert witnesses testified regarding the possible environmental effects of such installations in the North Sea, already an environmentally degraded habitat.

“We are talking about, effectively, [urbanizing] the sea by introducing all these structures,” said Melanie Austen, a Professor of Ocean and Society at the University of Plymouth, during that hearing.

“The marine plans and the knowledge base around large-scale impacts of marine renewables are not keeping pace,” Austen later added.

“Americans have come to expect environmental groups to be voicing the same concerns, but it’s not happening,” Linowes told The Epoch Times.

The Save Right Whale report quotes Woods Hole marine ecologist Mark Baumgartner, who told The Washington Post that “we already have a fairly industrialized ocean, with shipping traffic and fishing activities. Adding these large wind farms with many, many, many turbines is certainly concerning.”

As noted above, Woods Hole accepted $500,000 from Bay State Wind in 2018.

Linowes acknowledged that an FAQ on her group’s website that claimed “it is documented that replacing the soft sea bottom with wind turbines has led to a loss of sand eels” overstated the conclusiveness of that link.

The North Atlantic right whale population has fallen rapidly in recent years, prompting concern from environmentalists.

“The best available scientific information shows that the North Atlantic right whale population cannot withstand any additional stressors; any potential interruption of foraging behavior may lead to population-level effects and is of critical concern,” wrote representatives of multiple environmental groups in a letter expressing concern about the impact of surveys for offshore wind.

Linowes and her colleagues referenced that missive in their own open letter.

While speaking at a wind industry conference last year, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland outlined the Biden administration’s goals for rapidly scaling up offshore wind.

Linowes told The Epoch Times she has not heard from the groups named in the report.

“I think they want us to go away,” she said.

The Epoch Times has reached out to Ørsted, Avangrid, Atlantic Shores, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the WWF, the National Audubon Society, New Jersey Audubon, Sharon Audubon, and Maine Audubon.

The Epoch Times has also reached out to the American Clean Power Association, a group representing the wind industry.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

GISTEMP 3.1 is from July 2019. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

Notice: This page contains GISTEMP v3 data, which concludes with the July 2019 data update. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/index_v3.html

PMOD is from as current as the graph shows which is 2020. https://www.pmodwrc.ch/en/home/

The studies cited on your publicity blurb are from 2010 to 2017, which is way behind the times.

And the solar data set cited there is not the data used by scientists to study solar cycles. 

Irrelevant.

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A late spring snow storm in N. Dakota in April, not May. Yawn! It is sunny and warm in the rest of the country but I guess you didn't notice. You must live in N Dakota.

End of April, still cold in May. Do not live in N Dakota, but have driven through it many times.

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Almost twice as many as sold last year. You really are the dumbest of the dumb.

EV sales grew 76% year over year in Q1, in line with our January prediction for EV growth to outpace industry growth in 2022. EV share jumped from 2.5% of sales in Q1 2021 to 5.2% in Q1 2022.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/10-takeaways-from-u-s-auto-sales-q1-2022/

Still stuck on those miniscule numbers, Jay. Less than 1% of the vehicle market is EV, which is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

39 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The studies cited on your publicity blurb are from 2010 to 2017, which is way behind the times.

And the solar data set cited there is not the data used by scientists to study solar cycles. 

Irrelevant.

For the umpteenth time: GISTEMP v3 ran until 2019. The data in the graph is from 2019. 

September 16, 2019: NOAA is no longer providing updates to the GHCN v3 dataset. Consequently, updates to the GISTEMP v3 analysis concluded with the July 2019 update. Please see the current GISTEMP v4 for confinued updates and analysis. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

The solar data set is the data set used by solar and climate researchers. Your CFR paper said nothing about CFR causing the dramatic warming that we are observing.

Your theory that the Sun is causing global warming is debunked.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

End of April, still cold in May. Do not live in N Dakota, but have driven through it many times.

Temp is measured over an entire year to come up with an average. A late season snow storm has a minor affect on that average.

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

For the umpteenth time: GISTEMP v3 ran until 2019. The data in the graph is from 2019. 

September 16, 2019: NOAA is no longer providing updates to the GHCN v3 dataset. Consequently, updates to the GISTEMP v3 analysis concluded with the July 2019 update. Please see the current GISTEMP v4 for confinued updates and analysis. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

The solar data set is the data set used by solar and climate researchers. Your CFR paper said nothing about CFR causing the dramatic warming that we are observing.

Your theory that the Sun is causing global warming is debunked.

It is not "my" theory, you must be verbally challenged on this, Jay. It is top scientists who use a different set of solar data than the one on your publicity BLURB.

Your cited data set is already three years out of date, and the cited studies are from 2010 to 2017, which is five years out of date, in case you have trouble counting.

Yes, the cited study I gave you indicated that solar variables cause the changes in earth climate, how could you miss that? Read again.

"Recent research has demonstrated the significance of the underlying 22 years magnetic polarity cycle in establishing the shorter sunspot cycle. Integral to the manifestation of the latter is the spatiotemporal overlapping and migration of oppositely polarized magnetic bands. We demonstrate the impact of “terminators”—the end of Hale magnetic cycles—on the Sun's radiative output and particulate shielding of our atmosphere through the rapid global reconfiguration of solar magnetism. Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back some six decades we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate a correlation between the occurrence of terminators and the largest swings of Earth's oceanic indices: the transition from El Niño to La Niña states of the central Pacific. This empirical relationship is a potential source of increased predictive skill for the understanding of El Niño climate variations, a high-stakes societal imperative given that El Niño impacts lives, property, and economic activity around the globe. "

Edited May 2, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

6 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Temp is measured over an entire year to come up with an average. A late season snow storm has a minor affect on that average.

Cold weather in spring is a change in direction. Yes, it will show up in the annual reports.

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

Oil is king and will remain so going forward.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Fossil-Fuels-Arent-Going-Away-Anytime-Soon.html

"Despite the global push toward renewable energy, fossil fuels aren’t likely to go anywhere anytime soon. 

The world’s demand for oil is currently greater than the supply available.

The longevity of oil demand is also supported by the emerging debate about making the energy transition a just one for the developing world. "

"The IEA, for its part, has turned around on its calls for fewer oil and gas investments. In just a matter of months, the industry body has reversed its message: it is now calling on oil producers to churn out more oil and gas. How long will it be until the UN’s Antonio Guterres joins these calls for more oil and gas because prices have become unbearable?

Meanwhile, demand for oil remains robust despite environmentalist protests, despite denunciatory reports, and despite calls for less investment in oil and gas. In its March Oil Market Report, the IEA said that 2022 oil demand would rise by 2.1 million bpd from last year. This, for context, is about the same as the combined oil production of Nigeria and Venezuela as of March this year, per the latest Monthly Oil Market Report of OPEC."

Edited May 2, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

34 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It is not "my" theory, you must be verbally challenged on this, Jay. It is top scientists who use a different solar set of solar data than the one on you publicity BLURB.

Your cited data set is already three years out of date, and the cited studies are from 2010 to 2017, which is five years out of date, in case you have trouble counting.

Yes, the cited study I gave you indicated that solar variables cause the changes in earth climate, how could you miss that? Read again.

The studies are not from 2010 and 2017. It is ongoing data collection. GISTEMP is now V4 and continues to be collected. There is no further studies needed. Total energy from the Sun is down while temperatures are way up. That negative correlation destroys the theory that the Sun is the cause of global warming.

You paper says the Sun has an affect on climate. I and everyone else agree. That however does not mean that it is the only thing that has an affect or that it is the cause of global warming. Yet again:

• 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.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[nsdp + 449]

On 4/29/2022 at 3:28 AM, 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.

Rob The data published by NASA SOHO program contradicts the articles you cite.

'The amount of solar energy 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."

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The studies are not from 2010 and 2017. It is ongoing data collection. GISTEMP is now V4 and continues to be collected. There is no further studies needed. Total energy from the Sun is down while temperatures are way up. That negative correlation destroys the theory that the Sun is the cause of global warming.

You paper says the Sun has an affect on climate. I and everyone else agree. That however does not mean that it is the only thing that has an affect or that it is the cause of global warming. Yet again:

• 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.

The studies you cited have no basis to draw such a conclusion, they did not include solar variables in their models. An unsupported opinion is worth nothing.

The solar data set shown in your publicity blurb terminates in 2019, and is not the same data set used in the solar studies. That data supports the solar hypothesis and disproves the CO2 hypothesis.

And you have not incorporated anything about the role of CO2, which has been proven to be negatively correlated with earth temperature. If you really think that earth warming is a problem, you should be advocating for increased CO2 production.

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

Oil demand looks solid going forward, despite economic headwinds.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Oil-Price-Outlook-Remains-Bullish-As-Europe-Prepares-Russian-Oil-Embargo.html

"Oil price outlook remains bullish as Europe prepares to impose an embargo on Russian crude.

New lockdowns in China exerted some downward pressure on WTI and Brent, but the upside potential remains substantial. 

Plummeting Russian production, some of which may never return to markets, could have a significant impact on oil prices for years to come."

Edited May 3, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 710]

On 4/29/2022 at 11:37 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

 

We still have six cold and cool months in central Illinois. Chicago is much colder. I have seen no indication of global warming except tales of how severe the snowstorms were decades ago. Thank God that is gone for now. If there is any warming, it has been a blessing since air conditioning became affordable in the fifties and sixties. 

Once again. The median population continues to move Southwest as it has since the beginning of the air conditioning revolution! The West is to get away from congestion and move to WARMER climates. Today is very cool and rainy here in Illinois. It is May 3. We have had few sunny or warm days all this year. Americans can see the alarmism for what it is. Propaganda from the elites who have agendas to make more money from whatever source they can and to put more pressure on the lower and middle classes to destroy their political power. Inflation actually helps them make even more money by taking the real estate that they can no longer afford to pay taxes on. Many pay real estate taxes that equal, in a few years, what they originally paid for their homes! 

[specinho + 470]

On 5/2/2022 at 9:29 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes because you are so dumb you can't understand basic concepts such as the temperature is increasing rapidly and soon the land bound ice will start to melt causing massive sea level rise. 

imagine the first info from a cup of water with ice. When ice melted, there would be a layer of ice water on top of the initial water.

Second image indicates general temperature on land and in the sea. Overall temperature of the atmosphere 

Generally, the polar regions are colder than other places even in summer probably due to its ability to reflect radiation and hence, dissipate heat. Land temperature is much colder due to permafrost and no heat carrying capacity like water.

Increment of global temperature varies with places but probably still not enough to get off the coat in the summer at the poles.... Still too cold.

Therefore, there is reason to believe, the melting of ice does not rely on atmospheric temperature much but direct high energy radiation from the sun caused by ozone depletion and/ or holes.

Patch the holes, high energy radiation would be blocked out. Ice saved, sea saved. No panic.

[Ron Wagner + 710]

You are projecting again like Jay, and he is infamously not good at it, much like Al Gore and company. He has grown even richer than he and his wealthier wife by his games. Meanwhile he lives in homes that use many times the electricity they should. He also jet sets wherever he wishes and owns a yacht he docks in a lower taxing state.  

You have to show real meaningful ocean rise to prove anything. Take a visit to St. Augustine, Florida and view the ancient fort before your alarmism. 

Even if you were right, it is much better to move back from the coastlines but in Florida, and everywhere else, the wealthy build as close to the shore as possible, regardless of the alarmists. They also carry insurance that is backed by the middle class. 

Obama's oceanfront mansion. 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Europe-May-Lose-The-Energy-Transition-Race-Before-It-Really-Begins.html

 

Europe May Lose The Energy Transition Race Before It Really Begins

By Irina Slav - May 03, 2022, 5:00 PM CDT

• Europe is facing a major hurdle as it races towards a greener tomorrow; a lack of raw materials.
• Like fossil fuels, Europe has little local mining production, so it is heavily dependent on imports.
• According to the authors of the KU Leuven study, however, the EU could come to source between 50% and 75% of the critical minerals it needs from recycling.
•  
• Mining is a dirty business. Greens don't want it in their own country just in Third World countries that are out of sight and out of mind. RCWJoin Our Community

In a recent report titled Global Energy Perspective 2022, consultancy McKinsey said it expected wind and solar to become a sort of baseload generation capacity as soon as 2030. The report also had a lot of praise for the technological advances that had allowed the cost of wind, solar, EVs, and battery storage to fall substantially over the past few years 

What that report didn’t say was that the “baseload scenario” will only materialize in the presence of a sufficient supply of raw materials. As a front-runner in the transition race, Europe is particularly vulnerable to any shortages of these raw materials. Because of these shortages, the transition might end before it begins in earnest.

For now, everything looks like it’s going pretty well. The prices of electric cars are on the rise but sales are still going strong, at least in part because of government incentives and in another part because of soaring fuel prices.

Yet there are clouds on the horizon. 

Related: The Global Energy Shortage Could Be A Boon For Tidal Power

China’s CATL, one of the majors in the battery space, recently reported a drop in its first-quarter profit because of higher production costs. What this suggests is that the company has so far absorbed the cost increases caused by tightening raw material supply but how long it would continue to do this is an open question.

Meanwhile, the CEO of Rivian, the Amazon-backed EV startup, warned of a battery shortage in the EV space. And it was a grave warning: “Put very simply, all the world’s cell production combined represents well under 10% of what we will need in 10 years,” RJ Scaringe said, as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “Meaning, 90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist.”

One would think that at least with wind and solar, the supply chains are there and well developed. That may be the case; however, the metals needed to feed into these supply chains are in problematic supply, especially in Europe.

Like fossil fuels, Europe has little local mining production, so it is heavily dependent on imports. To make matters a lot more complicated for it, its main supplier of aluminum, nickel, and zinc is Russia. Almost all of the lithium and rare earths used in Europe are also sourced from abroad. 

"The global energy transition is progressing faster than the mining project pipeline, with copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel, and rare earths all at risk of a disruptive demand pull between now and 2035," said the authors of a study from Belgian KU Leuven University that warned Europe was facing a shortage of all the main ingredients of the energy transition.

Local production is desirable but quite unlikely, at least on a scale that would make sense. A Reuters analysis of the situation by Andy Home notes that the regulatory regime in the union is such that any new mine would take 15 years from planning to the start of production.

In other words, Europe has made it impossible for its own miners to produce the metals the continent needs to transition away from fossil fuels locally. At the same time, with its stance toward Russia and China, it is risking a lot of the current supplies of these metals and other critical materials. And this time, the U.S. can’t come to the rescue because it is struggling with reducing its own dependency on foreign sources of critical metals and minerals.

The solution? Recycling, according to the authors of the KU Leuven study. Between 2040 and 2050, the EU could come to source between 50% and 75% of the critical minerals it needs from recycling. That is, if the EU acts now to develop a recycling supply chain. And if it finds how to bridge the gap between supply and demand for these minerals in the years until 2040.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 5/3/2022 at 11:14 AM, Ron Wagner said:

We still have six cold and cool months in central Illinois. Chicago is much colder. I have seen no indication of global warming except tales of how severe the snowstorms were decades ago. Thank God that is gone for now. If there is any warming, it has been a blessing since air conditioning became affordable in the fifties and sixties. 

Once again. The median population continues to move Southwest as it has since the beginning of the air conditioning revolution! The West is to get away from congestion and move to WARMER climates. Today is very cool and rainy here in Illinois. It is May 3. We have had few sunny or warm days all this year. Americans can see the alarmism for what it is. Propaganda from the elites who have agendas to make more money from whatever source they can and to put more pressure on the lower and middle classes to destroy their political power. Inflation actually helps them make even more money by taking the real estate that they can no longer afford to pay taxes on. Many pay real estate taxes that equal, in a few years, what they originally paid for their homes! 

Chicago weather: New NOAA data shows climate is warming in Chicago

Starting this week, the new averages are based on data from 1991 to 2020.

That 30-year period was warmer than the previous 30-year period, so the normals for Chicago have increased.

In terms of temperature, the annual average temperature has increased 1 1/2 degrees, from 49.9 degrees to 51.4 degrees. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-weather-temperature-rain-snow/10586555/#:~:text=Starting this week%2C the new,49.9 degrees to 51.4 degrees.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

You are projecting again like Jay, and he is infamously not good at it, much like Al Gore and company. He has grown even richer than he and his wealthier wife by his games. Meanwhile he lives in homes that use many times the electricity they should. He also jet sets wherever he wishes and owns a yacht he docks in a lower taxing state.  

You have to show real meaningful ocean rise to prove anything. Take a visit to St. Augustine, Florida and view the ancient fort before your alarmism. 

Even if you were right, it is much better to move back from the coastlines but in Florida, and everywhere else, the wealthy build as close to the shore as possible, regardless of the alarmists. They also carry insurance that is backed by the middle class. 

Obama's oceanfront mansion. 

Yes, we know you aren't smart enough to actually project a trend into the future and take preventative action. 

• Sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880.
• In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels.
• The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015. 
• In many locations along the U.S. coastline, high-tide flooding is now 300% to more than 900% more frequent than it was 50 years ago.
• If we are able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. sea level in 2100 is projected to be around 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher on average than it was in 2000.
• On a pathway with high greenhouse gas emissions and rapid ice sheet collapse, models project that average sea level rise for the contiguous United States could be 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) by 2100 and 3.9 meters (13 feet) by 2150. 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level#:~:text=In 2020%2C global sea level,per year from 2006–2015.

 

Oh and do you have any actual proof that Obama's house is not electrically efficient or are you just spewing out your arse as usual?

Edited May 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Chicago weather: New NOAA data shows climate is warming in Chicago

Starting this week, the new averages are based on data from 1991 to 2020.

That 30-year period was warmer than the previous 30-year period, so the normals for Chicago have increased.

In terms of temperature, the annual average temperature has increased 1 1/2 degrees, from 49.9 degrees to 51.4 degrees. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-weather-temperature-rain-snow/10586555/#:~:text=Starting this week%2C the new,49.9 degrees to 51.4 degrees.

Jay, where do you keep finding out-of-date weather data? You must stockpile it and drag out little headline blurbs. 

But times are changing, as you can see. Weather is changing. Climate is changing.

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, we know you aren't smart enough to actually project a trend into the future and take preventative action. 

• Sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880.
• In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels.
• The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015. 
• In many locations along the U.S. coastline, high-tide flooding is now 300% to more than 900% more frequent than it was 50 years ago.
• If we are able to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. sea level in 2100 is projected to be around 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher on average than it was in 2000.
• On a pathway with high greenhouse gas emissions and rapid ice sheet collapse, models project that average sea level rise for the contiguous United States could be 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) by 2100 and 3.9 meters (13 feet) by 2150. 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level#:~:text=In 2020%2C global sea level,per year from 2006–2015.

 

Oh and do you have any actual proof that Obama's house is not electrically efficient or are you just spewing out your arse as usual?

You grab at the least reliable projections, which are just that....wild projections using the most "optimistic" Green mania exaggerations.

Hysterical nonsense. Keep your eye on current temperature change, Jay. See what happens.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,475]

On 5/1/2022 at 11:14 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Almost twice as many as sold last year. You really are the dumbest of the dumb.

EV sales grew 76% year over year in Q1, in line with our January prediction for EV growth to outpace industry growth in 2022. EV share jumped from 2.5% of sales in Q1 2021 to 5.2% in Q1 2022.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/10-takeaways-from-u-s-auto-sales-q1-2022/

No, Jay, EVs are still below 1% of vehicle sales.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, where do you keep finding out-of-date weather data? You must stockpile it and drag out little headline blurbs. 

But times are changing, as you can see. Weather is changing. Climate is changing.

The new dataset was released today. You just don't understand how climate science is done.

At a Glance

• Climate averages for temperature and precipitation just changed in many U.S. locations.
• Calculated every 10 years, temperature normals are warming due to climate change.
• The new dataset covers the 1991 to 2020 period.

Climate averages for temperature and precipitation likely just changed where you live, and that's influenced by climate change.

The changes are a part of a once-per-decade update to climate normals that were released by NOAA on Tuesday.

Climate normals are more commonly known as your average temperature and precipitation for any given period of time, like a day, month or season. These so-called "normals" help put the actual temperature or precipitation into historical context relative to what you would expect in a given time.

More than 7,300 stations across the U.S. have normals data for temperature, NOAA says. Precipitation data is available for nearly 15,000 locations.

NOAA has now updated the normals data to include the most recent three-decade average: 1991 to 2020. For many locations, that means there is an overall increase in the average temperature when compared to the old 1981-2010 dataset because of global temperature rise, but there are some caveats.

The map below shows the annual average temperature change in the new 1991-2020 normals when compared to the previous dataset that covered the 1981-2010 period. Much of the Lower 48 has a warmer annual average temperature in the new normals, as depicted by the vast expanse of red shadings.

 

The temperature change, in degrees Fahrenheit, from the previous 30-year normals (1981-2010) to the latest version (1991-2020).

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, Jay, EVs are still below 1% of vehicle sales.

The number of used vehicles bought and sold is a useless metric.