JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, notsonice said:

Ecochump you are as wrong as it gets

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

This is all good news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

The trends show a plateau developing, which is good news for everyone, Jay, You should be happy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

The trends show a plateau developing, which is good news for everyone, Jay, You should be happy about it.

I wish, but that is not what the data shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

By "MIT"? The author is not even identified, Jay.

It is merely a publicity release in support of a policy advocacy. Not a scientific study.

  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

I wish, but that is not what the data shows.

That is what it shows, so be happy.

And that new study of particulate change is also good news for the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

By "MIT"? The author is not even identified, Jay.

It is merely a publicity release in support of a policy advocacy. Not a scientific study.

Yes, it is published by MIT and the authors are clearly stated. You just can't comprehend what is going on as usual.

image.png.33aa29989c699ebeffb88d063d0925d6.png

 

image.png.6226da9952ce870560cf9baf4cae660e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, it is published by MIT and the authors are clearly stated. You just can't comprehend what is going on as usual.

image.png.33aa29989c699ebeffb88d063d0925d6.png

 

image.png.6226da9952ce870560cf9baf4cae660e.png

"Guest expert"? This is just an interview, not a scientific study. And just who is Ariel Mobius?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Oil prices continue to maintain a healthy pace, and it appears that this will be the new status quo. People are not willing to stop driving their vehicles.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/High-Gasoline-And-Diesel-Prices-Are-Here-To-Stay.html

"U.S. gasoline and diesel prices are at record highs and show no sign of falling or of denting demand.

Refining capacity has shrunk dramatically since 2020 due to the covid pandemic, driving fears of a supply crisis.

It is looking increasingly likely that the only cure for these high prices would be a recession, a cure that could be as bad as the disease."

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

"Guest expert"? This is just an interview, not a scientific study. And just who is Ariel Mobius?

A person authorized to make statements for MIT, that MIT stands by. Doesn't need to be a scientific study, it is an explanation that you get in this professor's class at MIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil prices continue to maintain a healthy pace, and it appears that this will be the new status quo. People are not willing to stop driving their vehicles.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/High-Gasoline-And-Diesel-Prices-Are-Here-To-Stay.html

"U.S. gasoline and diesel prices are at record highs and show no sign of falling or of denting demand.

Refining capacity has shrunk dramatically since 2020 due to the covid pandemic, driving fears of a supply crisis.

It is looking increasingly likely that the only cure for these high prices would be a recession, a cure that could be as bad as the disease."

"U.S. gasoline and diesel prices are at record highs and show no sign of falling or of denting demand.....

 

Great your advertising the high oil prices forever reinforces that EV's are a cost effective alternative...That is if you can find one for sale as all the EV's on the market have over a year wait list.......

 

Enjoy everytime you tank up....What are you spending per mile for gas??????? How much a year at the new prices?????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

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

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

This is all good news.

you must be smoking something....

 

You have over the past 2 years even higher rises in global temp than one would expect ...and then it drops back on the last reading to the expected rise and you call this a plateau ???

you really never took stats or understood it based on your statements....

You should stay away from Vegas unless you love to support casino workers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

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

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

Opinion | John Durham Has Already Won

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

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

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

dude what are you babbling about now?? we are talking about global warming ........Hillary keeping you up at night ??? ha ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

Yes, and a curve that seems to indicate that EV demand is healthy doesn't actually say anything about the future of EV demand. Things happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

dude what are you babbling about now?? we are talking about global warming ........Hillary keeping you up at night ??? ha ha ha

Now Gabby I do believe that post will lead to a rise in "Global Warming"..albeit abstractly that I give you.

Now back on topic? Global Warming?...Climate Change?...or perhaps Climate Inversions? Carbon causing climate inversion's? Go Figure! Purely speculative of course..your mileage may vary.

Sincerely 

EWO.

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

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

 

February 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

image.png.1cd0bf71da985155b001a20b28d30cab.png

not sure if your intention is to get an explanation on things that might be confusing after words of mouth that could have changed things minutely per mouth change over the decades........but this is for your second reference:

Radiation of sun is absorbed by forested land and grass land. Transpiration and respiration release water vapour into the air that later condensed to form cloud.

Lithoral land like rock, sand, soil would absorb the heat from the radiation and release the heat back to the atmosphere upon saturation. This heat would be trapped by the cloud due to its thickness. The retained heat controls the temperature variation (e.g. not too cold at night, not too hot during the day).

Aquatic areas like river and sea, would reflect light where the sun is shinning on it. The rest of the areas absorb. Water evaporates shall heated up enough to form clouds.

Ice covered land like artic, antartic, partial time of tundra areas, light is reflected by the white snowy covered land where it shines. But the heat might be absorbed. Temperature change is hence, minimal for the heat reaches here is absorbed by the ice. Until lately.

Therefore, from this small coarse drawing, we might be able to deduce that

1. most of the radiation from the sun is not reflected except on the surface of water and on ice. But the heat from the radiation is largely absorbed by all forms of land on earth.

2. The heat absorbed is later released into the atmosphere.

3. Source of heat would hence could be summarized as

a) direct radiation ( try to block a beam from laser with palm. Any point your palm is, you feel the heat. This might indicate that radiation carries energy or heat with it along the path it travels.)

b) release from land forms e.g. respiration, transpiration, overheated, evaporation, burning etc

c) heat released from land forms that trapped by the cloud i.e. greenhouse effect

 

Therefore, the explanation by MIT is probably over complicated and probably skewed.

If you would not mind to spend a few minutes to combine the three rough drawings i posted last night and today, you may find the answer to your curiosity, senior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Removing particulates would only return us to pre industrial status which would not cause a temp rise relative to that period.

Jay I disagree, removing particulates which cause "global dimming" would cause less cloud cover as particulates in the atmosphere can become nuclei for rain droplets.

"Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Their effects are complex and vary in time, location, and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect; however, at night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth's heat loss."

Therefore less particulates/pollution in the atmosphere would cause larger daily temperature variances.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Yes, and a curve that seems to indicate that EV demand is healthy doesn't actually say anything about the future of EV demand. Things happen. 

I think what shows EV demand being healthy is that demand is hugely outstripping supply in Europe. What is putting people off buying an EV is that they cant get their hands on the one they want for 12 months. Future demand is almost a given in Europe as pretty much every vehicle manufacturer is stopping producing new ICE vehicles by 2030 due to politics and government bans on new ICE vehicles. North America is a different animal due to the vast distances you need to travel, cost and future tech advances will determine the demand for EV's there.

What will be interesting in Europe will be how long it will take for a sizeable second hand EV market to evolve and whether thiose batteries and their range will be sufficient.

Edited by Rob Plant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A person authorized to make statements for MIT, that MIT stands by. Doesn't need to be a scientific study, it is an explanation that you get in this professor's class at MIT.

No, you need a research study to contribute anything to the ongoing discussion. Anything else is just advocacy, such as this "interview".

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

"U.S. gasoline and diesel prices are at record highs and show no sign of falling or of denting demand.....

 

Great your advertising the high oil prices forever reinforces that EV's are a cost effective alternative...That is if you can find one for sale as all the EV's on the market have over a year wait list.......

 

Enjoy everytime you tank up....What are you spending per mile for gas??????? How much a year at the new prices?????

 

I will ask you the same question...how much are you contributing to the issue you advocate against? I do not see a problem with CO2, so it is not up to me to do anything about it. That is your job....stop filling your gas tank with fossil fuels if you want to maintain any credibility here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I think what shows EV demand being healthy is that demand is hugely outstripping supply in Europe. What is putting people off buying an EV is that they cant get their hands on the one they want for 12 months. Future demand is almost a given in Europe as pretty much every vehicle manufacturer is stopping producing new ICE vehicles by 2030 due to politics and government bans on new ICE vehicles. North America is a different animal due to the vast distances you need to travel, cost and future tech advances will determine the demand for EV's there.

What will be interesting in Europe will be how long it will take for a sizeable second hand EV market to evolve and whether thiose batteries and their range will be sufficient.

Bottom line....EV expenses will continue to be above the level most people are willing to pay, which means that public transport is essential.

That all translates into a lower standard of living.....and all for no good purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Bottom line....EV expenses will continue to be above the level most people are willing to pay, which means that public transport is essential.

That all translates into a lower standard of living.....and all for no good purpose.

@Ecocharger technology doesnt stand still and you are presuming that batteries will not develop which is a massive miscalculation.

Here read this for example which uses no REE and could possibly give you a 900 mile range on the same volume size battery whilst being much lighter and much cheaper to make and more "green".

Sulfur Battery Technology Could Make Electric Cars Go Three Times Further By 2024

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2022/04/02/sulfur-battery-technology-could-make-electric-cars-go-three-times-further-by-2024/?sh=54244a027eed

Jay I'm doing your work for you all of a sudden lol

The above may never happen, but someone somewhere will make something like this happen in the next 5 years IMHO and that will end ICE as the go to vehicle of choice, its inevitable!

if it cheaper to build, more economical, none pollutive, has far less maintenance costs, and will continue to become cheaper as technology contantly improves then what is not to like???

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

@Ecocharger technology doesnt stand still and you are presuming that batteries will not develop which is a massive miscalculation.

Here read this for example which uses no REE and could possibly give you a 900 mile range on the same volume size battery whilst being much lighter and much cheaper to make and more "green".

Sulfur Battery Technology Could Make Electric Cars Go Three Times Further By 2024

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2022/04/02/sulfur-battery-technology-could-make-electric-cars-go-three-times-further-by-2024/?sh=54244a027eed

Jay I'm doing your work for you all of a sudden lol

The above may never happen, but someone somewhere will make something like this happen in the next 5 years IMHO and that will end ICE as the go to vehicle of choice, its inevitable!

if it cheaper to build, more economical, none pollutive, has far less maintenance costs, and will continue to become cheaper as technology contantly improves then what is not to like???

That so called "NEW" battery is what everyone ignored for decades due to fire/explosion problems.  The culmination was S-Li batteries IMMOLATED about 100 Chinese in several VERY public accidents the worst of which was a BYD Lithium Sulfur battery bus explosion/fire which killed ~30 people.  In any other country BYD would have been sued into oblivion.  In China this is just business as usual and why no Chinese woman will buy Chinese baby formula as TWICE the same company who has twice killed a huge number of infants with their baby formula with poisons knowingly added, to get rid of the junk, never spent a single day in jail and the people running the company are still in charge.  Same goes for BYD and their sulfur battery fires.. 

Until the explosive fire problems are solved and SHOWN via open testing with everyone watching regarding sulfur lithium, this is nothing but the usual brain dead "journalism" or propaganda trying to drum up $$$ for a start up company.   As the same problem exists due to a dendrite short or a crash exposing the battery elements to oxygen.  KABOOM BABY!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The above may never happen, but someone somewhere will make something like this happen in the next 5 years IMHO and that will end ICE as the go to vehicle of choice, its inevitable!

@footeab@yahoo.com I did also say the above, besides you have no idea how the Theion battery differs to the Chinese one that kept catching fire.

As they are promoting this with the space  industry and air taxis I am presuming it doesnt catch fire like the Chinese one did or it will most definitely kill people.

"Unfortunately, Theion isn’t initially going to be delivering its technologies to the EV industry. “We’re currently talking to the space industry,” says Ehmes. “We will hand over the R&D surplus to the air taxi next. Then mobile devices like handhelds, laptops, mobile phones, and wearables.” But EVs are definitely on the roadmap for Theion, and production has been designed to scale up to the quantities required by electric cars."

As I said technology moves on or you would still be riding a horse to work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

@footeab@yahoo.com I did also say the above, besides you have no idea how the Theion battery differs to the Chinese one that kept catching fire.

As they are promoting this with the space  industry and air taxis I am presuming it doesnt catch fire like the Chinese one did or it will most definitely kill people.

"Unfortunately, Theion isn’t initially going to be delivering its technologies to the EV industry. “We’re currently talking to the space industry,” says Ehmes. “We will hand over the R&D surplus to the air taxi next. Then mobile devices like handhelds, laptops, mobile phones, and wearables.” But EVs are definitely on the roadmap for Theion, and production has been designed to scale up to the quantities required by electric cars."

As I said technology moves on or you would still be riding a horse to work!

Sulfur-lithium is all you need to know... and the article said graphene which does nothing to stop the explosive potential of Li-S.  Until we can figure out how to bind the Li-S to keep it from oxidizing while at the same time allowing free electrons to flow.  Good Trick that one. 

Hrmm... no oxygen in space... Of course how do they operate at negate 250C🙄

  • Upvote 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.