JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

On 5/14/2022 at 12:26 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Fascinating! So human industrial activity can have dramatic impacts on climate change. 

You miss the point, as usual, Jay. This study suggests that "pollution" acts counter to global warming.

 

On 5/14/2022 at 1:16 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

There is a positive correlation between the two. Other green house gases also have a positive correlation but nothing else does, certainly not the Sun. We are trying to eliminate those other green house gases as well.

1280px-20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg.png

co2_trend_all_gl.png

 

 

Other greenhouse gases are thousands of times more potent than CO2, and have not been reduced.

So much for your CO2/greenhouse approach.

And CO2 is negatively correlated with earth temperature. As we saw above.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/14/2022 at 1:16 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

There is a positive correlation between the two. Other green house gases also have a positive correlation but nothing else does, certainly not the Sun. We are trying to eliminate those other green house gases as well.

1280px-20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg.png

co2_trend_all_gl.png

 

 

Again, the temperature graph shows a plateau in recent years, visible to the naked eye, so you need new eyeglasses, Jay.

There is a perfect correlation between solar cycle data and changes in earth temperature, so that is the correlation which matters, not the ephemeral and insignificant CO2 variable.

CO2 is actually negatively correlated with changes in earth temperature.

And the study which you linked earlier showed the phase relation between CO2 and earth temperature is out of phase, and apparently shows that CO2 is a dependent variable in relation to earth temperature.

Remember our discussion above?

"Antarctic temperature and CO2: near-synchrony yet variable phasing during the last deglaciation"

"Yet Variable Phasing", so the phasing is an issue as in the other studies I linked for you.

And another of your links states,

"The values of a temperature proxy, the hydrogen isotopic composition (δD), in the Antarctic EDC ice core1,2 have varied in parallel with CO2 concentrations over the past 800 thousand years (kyr; r2 = 0.82)3. However, δD apparently leads CO2 variations. For example, during the last termination (TI), the start of Antarctic warming has been estimated to be synchronous with CO2 increase4 or to lead CO2 increases by 800 ± 600 years5 on the East Antarctic Plateau. The lead is ca. 2000 years at a West Antarctic site6. Over the past 420 kyr, the Vostok ice core shows that the Antarctic δD temperatures lead the CO2 variations by 1.3 ± 1.0 kyr7. During the lukewarm interglacials (430–650 kyr BP), Antarctic δD leads CO2 by 1900 years, and the correlation between CO2 and δD is weaker (r2 = 0.57), as determined from the EDC core8."

So this complicates finding the direction of causation in these models.

Further, these models do not include solar cycle data, which creates a model specification problem and introduces bias into the coefficients.

Using a random sample size of 39 for a time span of many thousands of years is problematic, it is better to extract maximum and minimum points of long phases to see how the levels of CO2 correlate to temperature change at the extreme points. That was the methodology used by the studies I linked above. Those studies show a negative correlation between CO2 and earth temperature."

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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."

 

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, the temperature graph shows a plateau in recent years, visible to the naked eye, so you need new eyeglasses, Jay.

There is a perfect correlation between solar cycle data and changes in earth temperature, so that is the correlation which matters, not the ephemeral and insignificant CO2 variable.

 

Temp may have slowed after taking a huge jump from its last plateau in 2015 but it hasn't gone down like you are predicting. The 11 year average is still going up!

There is zero correlation between the sun and Earth temp as I have shown over and over again. Temp is way up over the past 50 years and the Sun is at the same output as 50 years ago.

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, the temperature graph shows a plateau in recent years, visible to the naked eye, so you need new eyeglasses, Jay.

There is a perfect correlation between solar cycle data and changes in earth temperature, so that is the correlation which matters, not the ephemeral and insignificant CO2 variable.

CO2 is actually negatively correlated with changes in earth temperature.

And the study which you linked earlier showed the phase relation between CO2 and earth temperature is out of phase, and apparently shows that CO2 is a dependent variable in relation to earth temperature.

Remember our discussion above?

"Antarctic temperature and CO2: near-synchrony yet variable phasing during the last deglaciation"

"Yet Variable Phasing", so the phasing is an issue as in the other studies I linked for you.

And another of your links states,

"The values of a temperature proxy, the hydrogen isotopic composition (δD), in the Antarctic EDC ice core1,2 have varied in parallel with CO2 concentrations over the past 800 thousand years (kyr; r2 = 0.82)3. However, δD apparently leads CO2 variations. For example, during the last termination (TI), the start of Antarctic warming has been estimated to be synchronous with CO2 increase4 or to lead CO2 increases by 800 ± 600 years5 on the East Antarctic Plateau. The lead is ca. 2000 years at a West Antarctic site6. Over the past 420 kyr, the Vostok ice core shows that the Antarctic δD temperatures lead the CO2 variations by 1.3 ± 1.0 kyr7. During the lukewarm interglacials (430–650 kyr BP), Antarctic δD leads CO2 by 1900 years, and the correlation between CO2 and δD is weaker (r2 = 0.57), as determined from the EDC core8."

So this complicates finding the direction of causation in these models.

Further, these models do not include solar cycle data, which creates a model specification problem and introduces bias into the coefficients.

Using a random sample size of 39 for a time span of many thousands of years is problematic, it is better to extract maximum and minimum points of long phases to see how the levels of CO2 correlate to temperature change at the extreme points. That was the methodology used by the studies I linked above. Those studies show a negative correlation between CO2 and earth temperature."

Actual science enter his head?  No 

Whole basis for CO2 driven global warming according to THEIR own models is for temps to increase in the Tropical Troposphere and then push north/south from there.... Except ground temps are warming faster even though heat rises(in other words NOT driven by the sun and CO2, but rather pavement as said majority of thermometers are in cities).... Guess what correlation has been negative going on 20 years now even according to the IPCC?  Yet do they listen to their OWN models?  Oh Hell no!

PS: As anyone who looks at exo planets will tell you when reading temperature of a planet, if you took the earth and placed it at equal distance from sun as Venus, with its higher irradiance from Sol, earth's temperature would be IDENTICAL to that of Venus with 98% CO2 atmosphere.  Science who knew....

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

28 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Actual science enter his head?  No 

Whole basis for CO2 driven global warming according to THEIR own models is for temps to increase in the Tropical Troposphere and then push north/south from there.... Except ground temps are warming faster even though heat rises.... Guess what correlation has been negative going on 20 years now even according to the IPCC?  Yet do they listen to their OWN models?  Oh Hell no!

PS: As anyone who looks at exo planes will tell you when reading temperature of a planet, if you took the earth and placed it at equal distance from sun as Venus, with its higher irradiance from Sol, earth's temperature would be IDENTICAL to that of Venus with 98% CO2 atmosphere.  Science who knew....

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.

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You miss the point, as usual, Jay. This study suggests that "pollution" acts counter to global warming.

 

CO2 is not a particulant and reduction in particulants is not only good for human health but it just returns us to a pre industrial status. It is not relevant to the massive temperature increase other than showing that our industrial activity does affect the climate.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

CO2 is not a particulant and reduction in particulants is not only good for human health but it just returns us to a pre industrial status. It is not relevant to the massive temperature increase other than showing that our industrial activity does affect the climate.

permissible co2 exposure for an 8 hour work shift is 5000 ppm 

Edited by KeyboardWarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

permissible co2 exposure for an 8 hour work shift is 5000 ppm 

So what? ppm is parts per million not particles per million. CO2 is a gas at room temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So what? ppm is parts per million not particles per million. CO2 is a gas at room temperature.

CO2 is a gas at room temperature?😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, KeyboardWarrior said:

CO2 is a gas at room temperature?😆

Carbon dioxide is a colorless and non-flammable gas at normal temperature and pressure. Although much less abundant than nitrogen and oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide is an important constituent of our planet's air. A molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) is made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:
Carbon dioxide is a colorless and non-flammable gas at normal temperature and pressure. Although much less abundant than nitrogen and oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide is an important constituent of our planet's air. A molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) is made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms.

Nah I'm pretty sure C02 is a liquid at room temperature. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 

 

As oceans absorb CO2 at a faster rate, bigger challenges emerge

 

              "19 Mar 2019"

From wildfires to more extreme storms, the effects of climate change are already devastating communities around the globe. But the effects would be even worse if it weren't for the oceans, new research has confirmed.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/oceans-absorb-co2-challenges-emerge/

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nah I'm pretty sure C02 is a liquid at room temperature. 

Only inside a soda bottle, but that’s not at standard pressure.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Only inside a soda bottle, but that’s not at standard pressure.

I can't tell if you realize that I'm joking yet. 

To be fair, CO2 is not technically a liquid when dissolved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/15/2022 at 4:32 PM, Ecocharger said:

You miss the point, as usual, Jay. This study suggests that "pollution" acts counter to global warming.

 

Other greenhouse gases are thousands of times more potent than CO2, and have not been reduced.

So much for your CO2/greenhouse approach.

And CO2 is negatively correlated with earth temperature. As we saw above.

 

On 5/15/2022 at 4:49 PM, 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."

 

Most(65%) of what you discuss is deferred maintenance by the Utilities and will have to be spent anyway.   Remember the 100 year old power line in California  that caused the fire in  2018?   More than 50% of transmission in the US is  over 60 years old and is past due for replacement if the Edison Electrical Institute is correct.

Edited by nsdp
left out a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I can't tell if you realize that I'm joking yet. 

To be fair, CO2 is not technically a liquid when dissolved. 

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 am aware that the CO2 in a soda isn’t in a pure liquid form of CO2  - it’s technically dissolved in solution with water.  I didn’t try to explain all of that in the post, because based on your statements about the nature of states of CO2 I didn’t want to make a response that could confuse matters even if it was technically correct.

Edited by Eric Gagen
  • Great Response! 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/15/2022 at 9:03 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Temp may have slowed after taking a huge jump from its last plateau in 2015 but it hasn't gone down like you are predicting. The 11 year average is still going up!

There is zero correlation between the sun and Earth temp as I have shown over and over again. Temp is way up over the past 50 years and the Sun is at the same output as 50 years ago.

It is expected that the cooling phase begins in 2020 according to the solar cycle studies, so that is consistent with the graph which you gave above. Any plateau effect is inconsistent with the CO2 models, and the direction of causation is apparently out of phase, suggesting that CO2 is a dependent variable in relation to earth temperature change. It looks like CO2 levels change in response to the changes in earth temperature, not the other way around. How could you miss that conclusion from your own linked study, Jay? You should read your own material  more closely.

The solar cycle series used for the studies I linked is not the simple data stream which you are looking at, Jay. Different series. But the correlation coefficients are much higher for the solar cycle series than for the CO2 correlations. 

I guess you skipped your stats courses, Jay?

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2022 at 9:38 PM, 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.

 

Earth temperature appears to have plateaued, according to your own data, Jay. That contradicts your CO2 theory.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2022 at 9:51 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

CO2 is not a particulant and reduction in particulants is not only good for human health but it just returns us to a pre industrial status. It is not relevant to the massive temperature increase other than showing that our industrial activity does affect the climate.

Your people are screaming that CO2 is a "pollutant", Jay. If you are now claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant, try and get your people on board.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your people are screaming that CO2 is a "pollutant", Jay. If you are now claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant, try and get your people on board.

All particles are pollutants, not all pollutants are particles. Such a difficult concept for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

It is expected that the cooling phase begins in 2020 according to the solar cycle studies, so that is consistent with the graph which you gave above. Any plateau effect is inconsistent with the CO2 models, and the direction of causation is apparently out of phase, suggesting that CO2 is a dependent variable in relation to earth temperature change. It looks like CO2 levels change in response to the changes in earth temperature, not the other way around. How could you miss that conclusion from your own linked study, Jay? You should read your own material  more closely.

The solar cycle series used for the studies I linked is not the simple data stream which you are looking at, Jay. Different series. But the correlation coefficients are much higher for the solar cycle series than for the CO2 correlations. 

I guess you skipped your stats courses, Jay?

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.

image.png.0ebd8778ee9f7cf3de1e6ad61ad241cf.png

image.png.a7b4cc396ddf96c054c19288deb15391.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 minutes 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.

image.png.0ebd8778ee9f7cf3de1e6ad61ad241cf.png

image.png.a7b4cc396ddf96c054c19288deb15391.png

The solar cycles predicted a cooling phase beginning in 2020, so that is consistent with your data chart, Jay. Read your own material. There is a clear plateau for this period.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

The solar cycles prediced a cooling phasebeginning in 2020, so that is consistent with your data chart, Jay. Read your own material.

A one year downturn that is still above the best fit line and 11 year average. There are many one year downturns over the past 50 years. And the temperature is going up again this year as can be seen in the graph. Terrible heatwaves already in India and Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All particles are pollutants, not all pollutants are particles. Such a difficult concept for you.

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.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.