GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[notsonice + 1,166]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

1) First, you have failed to show what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, so that is your first assignment, which you are trying to dodge.

2) Second, the patchiness of  CO2 concentrations persists throughout the weather systems and cycles.

https://earthsky.org/earth/6-things-to-know-carbon-dioxide-co2-greenhouse-gas/

"3. CO2 is not evenly distributed.

Satellite observations show carbon dioxide in the air can be somewhat patchy, with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others. For instance, the map below shows carbon dioxide levels for May 2013 in the mid-troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. At the time there was more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere because crops, grasses, and trees hadn’t greened up yet and absorbed some of the gas. The transport and distribution of CO2 throughout the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, large weather systems, and other large-scale atmospheric circulations. This patchiness has raised interesting questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one part of the atmosphere to another – both horizontally and vertically."

3) Thirdly, any anthropogenic source of CO2 is miniscule compared to the natural sources and sinks, and therefore is of insignificance in calculating contributions to greenhouse gas strengths.

"Natural sources of CO2, from forest fires to soil and plant respiration and decomposition, are much bigger — about 30 times larger than what mankind produces each year. "

Time for you and others to get a hold on perspectives and reality.

Natural sources of CO2, from forest fires to soil and plant respiration and decomposition, are much bigger — about 30 times larger than what mankind produces each year. "????
 

Bullshit

https://www.ctif.org/news/how-much-do-forest-fires-contribute-co2-emissions-depending-area-and-population-density-it-can

 

 

Worldwide, wildfires in 2021 released about 1.8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, compared to about 38 billion from fossil fuels and industry, according to Phys.org. That is less than 5 percent of total emissions. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,167]

42 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

1) First, you have failed to show what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, so that is your first assignment, which you are trying to dodge.

2) Second, the patchiness of  CO2 concentrations persists throughout the weather systems and cycles.

https://earthsky.org/earth/6-things-to-know-carbon-dioxide-co2-greenhouse-gas/

"3. CO2 is not evenly distributed.

Satellite observations show carbon dioxide in the air can be somewhat patchy, with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others. For instance, the map below shows carbon dioxide levels for May 2013 in the mid-troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs. At the time there was more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere because crops, grasses, and trees hadn’t greened up yet and absorbed some of the gas. The transport and distribution of CO2 throughout the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, large weather systems, and other large-scale atmospheric circulations. This patchiness has raised interesting questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one part of the atmosphere to another – both horizontally and vertically."

3) Thirdly, any anthropogenic source of CO2 is miniscule compared to the natural sources and sinks, and therefore is of insignificance in calculating contributions to greenhouse gas strengths.

"Natural sources of CO2, from forest fires to soil and plant respiration and decomposition, are much bigger — about 30 times larger than what mankind produces each year. "

Time for you and others to get a grip on perspectives and reality.

Uh genius: YOU CAN"T READ a damned GRAPH

When guys on YOUR OWN SIDE are telling you are an IDIOT--> you are an IDIOT!

So, No, no I do not have to say ANYTHING about source of ANYTHING other than YOU are an IDIOT who cannot read a graph. 

If you did the SIMPLE pure black body radiation of earth assuming albedo is same(its not), you should easily be able to calculate heating of earth(more from poles, just do above 45~60 degrees North/south) from the burning of nuclear, oil, coal, NG.   If you do so, what you will get is a near identical match for rise in temps seen in these regions.   HAS NOTHING to do with CO2.  You are fighting fools at windmills and becoming as big of an IDIOT as them who now can't read a damned graph(multiple times)

Not to mention CO2 region of IR spectrum is showing an increase of about ~2W/m^2 which supposedly CO2 is "blocking"(what a joke as if Albedo black body radiative physics works this way)

 

Edited June 17 by footeab@yahoo.com

[TailingsPond + 552]

59 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

"3. CO2 is not evenly distributed.

 

Time for you and others to get a grip on perspectives and reality.

 

Oh come on; trivial variances in gas concentration.  Gain perspective on reality.

You can get a small amount of layering in cold, enclosed, environments but with wind and heat, mixing is near instantaneous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

 

Edited June 17 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 552]

20 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not to mention CO2 region of IR spectrum is showing an increase of about ~2W/m^2 which supposedly CO2 is "blocking"(what a joke as if Albedo black body radiative physics works this way)

 

 

2W/m^2 say.  Do you have reference for that?  It doesn't sound right as m^2 is only two-dimensional, therefore it contains zero volume of gas.

 

[TailingsPond + 552]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Here are graphs for anthropogenic CO2 showing some interesting results.

Both America and Europe have greatly reduced anthropogenic CO2 since 2000.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region

You still fail to understand that lower rates do not equal lower overall values.

If you save $10/month for 10 months then only save $5/month for the last two months, how much money did you save that year?  The answer is $110 despite the fact the rate of saving went down by %50 at one point.  Furthermore, despite the reduction in the rate of saving the bank account balance continued to rise every month.

Fact is, global CO2 levels are rising. 

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

The Green Transition was a non-starter from the initial talking phase and it is now becoming clear that this wild scheme will never get off the ground, just another dead end in the history of foolish ideas.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Funding-the-Global-Energy-Transition-Remains-a-Major-Challenge.html

"Despite plenty of progress being made, the cost of transitioning to renewable energy is rising.

Developed countries are supposed to help developing countries with climate finance, but some have been providing loans with high interest rates instead of grants.

It is unclear how the trillions of dollars needed for climate finance will be raised."

"An investigation by the Big Local News journalism program at Stanford University revealed that G7 members of the OECD had routinely provided so-called climate finance to poor nations in the form of loans rather than grants, with market-rate interest attached to them rather than the discount interest typical of such loans. The loans also came with strings attached: the borrower had to hire companies from the lender country for the projects that were financed."

"The European Union has been doing everything it can to support greater adoption, including tax incentives for buyers, punitive taxes for ICE car owners, and a splurge on charging infrastructure. However, as national governments start to phase out subsidies for electric vehicles, sales are taking a plunge, and none of the above matters. Short of making EVs mandatory, the EU is really out of options."

" USA Today reported on a survey that found 15% of U.S. counties had successfully stopped the construction of utility-scale wind and solar projects. While the report described the trend as a negative one, those communities often have quite sound reasons for their opposition, such as environmental destruction or energy supply reliability issues."

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Uh genius: YOU CAN"T READ a damned GRAPH

When guys on YOUR OWN SIDE are telling you are an IDIOT--> you are an IDIOT!

So, No, no I do not have to say ANYTHING about source of ANYTHING other than YOU are an IDIOT who cannot read a graph. 

If you did the SIMPLE pure black body radiation of earth assuming albedo is same(its not), you should easily be able to calculate heating of earth(more from poles, just do above 45~60 degrees North/south) from the burning of nuclear, oil, coal, NG.   If you do so, what you will get is a near identical match for rise in temps seen in these regions.   HAS NOTHING to do with CO2.  You are fighting fools at windmills and becoming as big of an IDIOT as them who now can't read a damned graph(multiple times)

Not to mention CO2 region of IR spectrum is showing an increase of about ~2W/m^2 which supposedly CO2 is "blocking"(what a joke as if Albedo black body radiative physics works this way)

 

In other words, you cannot find any reference to the proportion of atmospheric CO2 which is derived from anthropogenic emissions....okay, just say it. You have no graph.

It must be miniscule given the fact that natural sources are thirty times the scale of the anthropogenic component.

The reality is that CO2 plays less than a bit part in the global warming calculations, and the most probable big explanations for global warming are related to the reduction of atmospheric particulates in recent decades.

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Oh come on; trivial variances in gas concentration.  Gain perspective on reality.

You can get a small amount of layering in cold, enclosed, environments but with wind and heat, mixing is near instantaneous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases

 

No one is suggesting anything like near instantaneous, rather that climate patterns move en masse and carry existing CO2 concentrations with them. 

And if the satellites can identify large masses of different CO2 concentrations, that is hardly trivial.

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

You still fail to understand that lower rates do not equal lower overall values.

If you save $10/month for 10 months then only save $5/month for the last two months, how much money did you save that year?  The answer is $110 despite the fact the rate of saving went down by %50 at one point.  Furthermore, despite the reduction in the rate of saving the bank account balance continued to rise every month.

Fact is, global CO2 levels are rising. 

You seem to have trouble understanding that lower rates are reflected in changes to the slope of growth curves, I still have trouble believing that this is news to you.

And that declining CO2 growth curves are precisely what the bewildered governments and their climate panic schemes are trying to accomplish. Now you think that this is not important?

Man, get it straightened out, what do you think is important?

If CO2 levels continue to rise at reduced rates, that should be good news for you.

But to pretend that anthropogenic factors are responsible for the atmospheric  CO2 growth is just plain counterfactual.

Here are some estimates of changes in the anthropogenic CO2 profile for major nations, showing that America and Europe are experiencing reductions of large magnitudes in anthropogenic CO2 emissions despite increasing demand and consumption of  fossil fuels.

 

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/

 

" Regionally, fossil emissions in 2023 are expected to decrease by 7.4% in the European Union (0.7 Gt C, 2.6 Gt CO2) and by 3.0% in the United States (1.3 Gt C, 4.9 Gt CO2), but they are expected to increase by 4.0 % in China (3.2 Gt C, 11.9 Gt CO2), 8.2 % in India (0.8 Gt C, 3.1 Gt CO2), and −0.4 % for the rest of the world (3.8 Gt C, 14.0 Gt CO2)."

 

The major importance of forestry in CO2 emissions is highlighted in this study.

Deforestation is the major cause of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Failing to address deforestation would overwhelm and destroy any expected CO2 reductions from reducing use of fossil fuels.

"Global CO2 emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) averaged 1.3±0.7 Gt C yr−1 (4.7±2.6 Gt CO2 yr−1) for the 2013–2022 period with a preliminary projection for 2023 of 1.1±0.7 Gt C yr−1 (4.0±2.6 Gt CO2 yr−1). A small decrease over the past 2 decades is not robust given the large model uncertainty. Emissions from deforestation, the main driver of global gross sources, remain high at around 1.9 Gt C yr−1 over the 2013–2022 period, highlighting the strong potential of halting deforestation for emissions reductions. Sequestration of 1.3 Gt C yr−1 through re-/afforestation and forestry offsets two-thirds of the deforestation emissions. Emissions from other land-use transitions and from peat drainage and peat fire add further smaller contributions. The highest emitters during 2013–2022 in descending order were Brazil, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with these three countries contributing more than half of global land-use CO2 emissions."

 

Natural sources of CO2 and natural CO2 sinks are much more important in terms of effects on CO2 levels.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

"Natural sources of CO2, from forest fires to soil and plant respiration and decomposition, are much bigger — about 30 times larger than what mankind produces each year. "

 

 

 

Edited June 18 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

Natural sources of CO2, from forest fires to soil and plant respiration and decomposition, are much bigger — about 30 times larger than what mankind produces each year. "????
 

Bullshit

https://www.ctif.org/news/how-much-do-forest-fires-contribute-co2-emissions-depending-area-and-population-density-it-can

 

 

Worldwide, wildfires in 2021 released about 1.8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, compared to about 38 billion from fossil fuels and industry, according to Phys.org. That is less than 5 percent of total emissions. 

 

Your source is a joke.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,167]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

In other words, you cannot find any reference to the proportion of atmospheric CO2 which is derived from anthropogenic emissions....okay, just say it. You have no graph.

It must be miniscule given the fact that natural sources are thirty times the scale of the anthropogenic component.

The reality is that CO2 plays less than a bit part in the global warming calculations, and the most probable big explanations for global warming are related to the reduction of atmospheric particulates in recent decades.

Have you honestly never seen something like this: https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

What is humorous is that Humanity has put more CO2 into the atmosphere via farming and building of cities turning forests into said cities and farms than burning of Coal/Oil/NG.    Yet... crickets.

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Have you honestly never seen something like this: https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

What is humorous is that Humanity has put more CO2 into the atmosphere via farming and building of cities turning forests into said cities and farms than burning of Coal/Oil/NG.    Yet... crickets.

Now we are in agreement, you seem to wander around.

Yes, human intervention in deforestation has tipped the carbon cycle out of balance and is the most powerful factor in the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not industry or transportation.

I gave a link above to a detailed study,

 

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/

"Emissions from deforestation, the main driver of global gross sources, remain high at around 1.9 Gt C yr−1 over the 2013–2022 period, highlighting the strong potential of halting deforestation for emissions reductions. "

But total atmospheric CO2 is only a small contributor to warming. Reduced particulates in the northern hemisphere is probably the main cause.

 

[notsonice + 1,166]

12 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your source is a joke.

you and your posts are a joke...

 

is reputable and you?????? you post nothing to back up your BS as usual

 

[notsonice + 1,166]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Now we are in agreement, you seem to wander around.

Yes, human intervention in deforestation has tipped the carbon cycle out of balance and is the most powerful factor in the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not industry or transportation.

I gave a link above to a detailed study,

 

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/

"Emissions from deforestation, the main driver of global gross sources, remain high at around 1.9 Gt C yr−1 over the 2013–2022 period, highlighting the strong potential of halting deforestation for emissions reductions. "

But total atmospheric CO2 is only a small contributor to warming. Reduced particulates in the northern hemisphere is probably the main cause.

 

But total atmospheric CO2 is only a small contributor to warming. Reduced particulates in the northern hemisphere is probably the main cause.??????????????

 

glad to see you make up BS with nothing to back it up

 

reality

 

Black carbon, a component of fine particulate matter, is one of the largest contributors to global warming after CO2. Black carbon warms the earth's atmosphere by absorbing sunlight, thereby accelerating the melting of snow and ice.

 

Climate impacts of air pollution - World Health Organization (WHO)

[TailingsPond + 552]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

But to pretend that anthropogenic factors are responsible for the atmospheric  CO2 growth is just plain counterfactual.

 

 

We burn literally tonnes of carbon based fossil fuels and the CO2 is released into atmosphere.  It is a simple mass-balance equation.  Good grief.

Oh FYI we can show that the CO2 increase is from anthropogenic sources.  Ever heard of carbon dating? The air has more "old" carbon than it should have.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

[TailingsPond + 552]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Humanity has put more CO2 into the atmosphere via farming and building of cities turning forests into said cities and farms than burning of Coal/Oil/NG.    Yet... crickets.

Farms both consume and release CO2, if you want to tip the farm into a net producer of huge amounts of food (and carbon-based farm waste) you need to add a bunch of energy, and that energy comes from fossil fuels.  Without the Haber process the farms wouldn't be super-charged.  Do you really need me to show you links to industrial agriculture based pollution?  Farms are nothing like children's storybooks.

As for cities you don't get many concrete structures without cement plants running off fossil fuels.  Wood construction can actually temporarily sequester carbon.

You can't simultaneously claim that fossil fuels are what allows for modern civilization and then blame modern civilization for all the problems.  That is like blaming all drug related crime on junkies without accepting there would be no junkies without meth and opiates etc.  If you left the opium as natural it would be less addictive... Hmm how do they make fentanyl?

Yes, harnessing fire was a great turning point for humanity, we just got a little too addicted to it.

No crickets...  consider yourself challenged as Eco likes to phrase it. 

 

Edited June 18 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 552]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Now we are in agreement, you seem to wander around.

Yes, human intervention in deforestation has tipped the carbon cycle out of balance and is the most powerful factor in the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not industry or transportation.

I gave a link above to a detailed study,

 

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/

"Emissions from deforestation, the main driver of global gross sources, remain high at around 1.9 Gt C yr−1 over the 2013–2022 period, highlighting the strong potential of halting deforestation for emissions reductions. "

But total atmospheric CO2 is only a small contributor to warming. Reduced particulates in the northern hemisphere is probably the main cause.

 

Did you read any of that?

The numbers it presents are from the climate modelling you hate.  Few of the numbers are direct measurements.  Do you now trust their models?  Once you start leaning on mainstream climate science models your alternative viewpoints lose power.

"emissions from land-use change (E_LUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models."

"ocean CO₂ sink (S_OCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models"

"terrestrial CO₂ sink (S_LAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models."

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

Wild-eyed activist shareholders have reached the limits and are now being forced to behave appropriately going forward.

This looks bad on the anti-CO2 mania, which normally does nothing to justify their actions.

Free-market democracy works!

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Judge-Dismisses-Exxons-Lawsuit-Against-Activist-Investor.html

"The lawsuit and the dispute which Exxon chose to pursue in court, instead of at the SEC, highlighted the growing divide between small activist shareholders and major oil and gas companies that are fed up with their day-to-day business challenged by proposals for shareholder resolutions.

“Our lawsuit put a spotlight on the abuse of the shareholder-access system," Exxon said in a statement carried by Reuters.

“The court has made absolutely clear that Arjuna cannot continue abusing the process. Shareholder democracy is only as strong as the rules that govern it, which must be fairly and consistently applied.”"

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Did you read any of that?

The numbers it presents are from the climate modelling you hate.  Few of the numbers are direct measurements.  Do you now trust their models?  Once you start leaning on mainstream climate science models your alternative viewpoints lose power.

"emissions from land-use change (E_LUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models."

"ocean CO₂ sink (S_OCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models"

"terrestrial CO₂ sink (S_LAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models."

 

 

The point is, did the Prez and his people read any of that.

There is nothing wrong with mainstream science, the problem is how it has been misrepresented.

All of the work I cite is mainstream from established climate scientists. But their work is usually ignored or obfuscated in the interests of political animals.

Politics and science are in a toxic relationship now.

[notsonice + 1,166]

Coal is doomed..........Peak Coal already happened

 

https://renews.biz/93905/global-solar-additions-hit-447gw-in-2023/#:~:text=Annual global solar installations grew,in 447GW of new capacity.

Annual global solar installations grew by 87% in 2023, compared with the previous year, resulting in 447GW of new capacity.

The data, provided by SolarPower Europe’s annual Global Market Outlook for Solar Power 2024-2028, reveals that the world’s total solar capacity is close to 1.6TW, with cumulative global installed capacity likely to reach 2TW by the end of 2024, after reaching 1TW in 2022.

Global solar installed capacity up 87% to 447GW in 2023

Prometheus Institute

https://prometheus.org › 2024/06/18 › global-solar-inst...

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago — Solar additions have seen increased importance in the last three years, with solar accounting for 56% and 66% of new additions in 2021 and ...

Missing: hit ‎| Show results with: hit

[bloodman33 + 22]

Exon has agreed to cancel its dividend and give the money to AOC.  Go Exon!

[turbguy + 1,491]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Politics and science are in a toxic relationship now.

Hit that nail right on the head.

The treatment of Anthony Fauci is a current "best example".

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,185]

15 hours ago, notsonice said:

Coal is doomed..........Peak Coal already happened

India’s New Coal Power Capacity Is Set to Soar in 2024

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Jun 19, 2024, 5:51 AM CDT

India expects to add as much as 15.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity this year, the most in nearly a decade, anonymous sources with knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg on Wednesday.

India, the world’s second-largest coal consumer, looks to boost baseload capacity amid surging power demand and continues to bet big on coal to provide most of the increased electricity supply.

Despite booming renewable capacity additions, India continues to rely on coal to meet most of its power demand as authorities also look to avoid blackouts in cases of severe heat waves.

The heat waves and India’s economic growth well above the global average are driving power demand and peak demand higher every year.

Amid a heatwave and reduced hydropower generation, India boosted its coal consumption to a record high in the first quarter of this year, which also drove up emissions from the power sector to an all-time high.

More coal-fired units were fired up at the start of the year in the country, amid a prolonged heat wave with above-normal temperatures which pushed electricity consumption higher.

Utilities in India have also tried to limit the possibility of power outages ahead of the general election which was held between the middle of April and early June.

India raised the share of coal in its power generation in April as sharply lower hydropower output has threatened blackouts as summer approaches.

Last week, India’s Minister of Coal and Mines, G. Kishan Reddy, said that the country plans to increase its domestic coal production and reduce imports.

In the 2023-2024 fiscal year ending March 2024, India’s total coal production rose by 11.65% to 997.25 million tons, according to data from the Ministry of Coal. So far into the 2024/2025 fiscal year, Indian coal production increased by 8.82% in April and May 2024 compared to the same period of 2023/2024, the data showed.  

[TailingsPond + 552]

12 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

India’s New Coal Power Capacity Is Set to Soar in 2024

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Jun 19, 2024, 5:51 AM CDT

India expects to add as much as 15.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity this year, the most in nearly a decade, anonymous sources with knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg on Wednesday.

 

Do we want to emulate India?  Probably should do the opposite of them if you like living a long life.

Air quality in Delhi is currently 199 (unhealthy). 

https://www.iqair.com/ca/india

The air is over ten times more polluted than WHO guidelines.

 

Edited June 19 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 552]

Leading coal state (Texas) is only at 112... they need to burn more coal to keep up with India pollution levels!

https://www.iqair.com/ca/usa/texas

Meanwhile in oil country (Go Oilers!) the air quality is 20 (good).  We stopped burning coal.

 

Edited June 19 by TailingsPond