GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

13 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All that excess CO2 sure does capture the Sun's heat. Once we get it back to normal this won't be such a problem. But what about Eco? he's been telling us for years that the Sun was entering a cooling phase and everything was about to get cold.

It appears from your data that we are cooling, so that is fine with me.

But your faith in a non-existent CO2 effect is misplaced. Solar variables run the show, as many studies have demonstrated.

[NWMan + 89]

58 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Something that is even more important, water vapor content.

If air temperature increases by 1 degree Celsius, the atmosphere can hold about 7% more water vapor. This means that for every cubic meter of air, there will be about 0.4 grams more water vapor present.

For example, if the air temperature is 20 degrees Celsius, it can hold about 17.3 grams of water vapor per cubic meter. If the temperature increases by 1 degree Celsius, the air can hold about 18.0 grams of water vapor per cubic meter.

This increase in the amount of water vapor that can be held in the atmosphere is one of the reasons why climate change is causing more extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts.

The climate is a chaotic system, but this variable is particularly important.   If the atmosphere holds more moisture, it deposits more moisture upon condensation.

I was asking about the absolute average temperature because of the blow temperature anomaly plot which is always used and looks catastrophic.  The temperature was apparently 17.18 a few days ago.  Therefore, based on the temperature anomaly plot below I back calculated the temperature at 1880 to be 15.98 degrees C.  I then produced based on the same input graph an absolute average temperature graph since records began (also below)

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So they update once a month:

Figures in PDF. last modified 2023/06/14,

The end of the blue line is from 2023/06/14

This is from the very top of the page.

 

Looks like the  last eight years have been slightly downhill, so thanks for that.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, NWMan said:

I was asking about the absolute average temperature because of the blow temperature anomaly plot which is always used and looks catastrophic.  The temperature was apparently 17.18 a few days ago.  Therefore, based on the temperature anomaly plot below I back calculated the temperature at 1880 to be 15.98 degrees C.  I then produced based on the same input graph an absolute average temperature graph since records began (also below)

 

Ok, I don't think that is a secret. The anomaly graphic clearly states that the period of dramatic increase starting in 1970 has been 0.18C per decade. 

The central objective of the Paris Agreement is its long-term temperature goal to hold global average temperature increase to “well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. This is referred to by the CAT as the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ok, I don't think that is a secret. The anomaly graphic clearly states that the period of dramatic increase starting in 1970 has been 0.18C per decade. 

The central objective of the Paris Agreement is its long-term temperature goal to hold global average temperature increase to “well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. This is referred to by the CAT as the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal.

Smoke and mirrors. The recent ten year period appears to be what the climate panic folks call a temporary "step" or pause in temperature increase.

But it is also consistent with the studies of solar factors  showing a decline in temperatures beginning about 2020.

Not just a "step".

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ecocharger

[NWMan + 89]

I am trying to convince myself.  Not interested in Paris agreement.  The reality is the graph that is used throughout the world is graphically miss leading and is fundamentally anchored by the calculation of the global average temperature in 1880.  I would like the debate on global warming to be more scientific and realistic and for people like myself who are not sure not to be ridiculed and dismissed as crack pots. 

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

1 minute ago, NWMan said:

I am trying to convince myself.  Not interested in Paris agreement.  The reality is the graph that is used throughout the world is graphically miss leading and is fundamentally anchored by the calculation of the global average temperature in 1880.  I would like the debate on global warming to be more scientific and realistic and for people like myself who are not sure not to be ridiculed and dismissed as crack pots. 

The real crackpots are the climate agitators.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Smoke and mirrors. The recent ten year period appears to be what the climate panic folks call a temporary "step" or pause in temperature increase.

But it is also consistent with the studies of solar factors  showing a decline in temperatures beginning about 2020.

Not just a "step".

And we still haven't dropped below the best fit line from 1970. This year is hotter than last.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And we still haven't dropped below the best fit line from 1970. This year is hotter than last.

One year is cherry-picking to an absurd degree. Look at the past ten years.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

19 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ok, I don't think that is a secret. The anomaly graphic clearly states that the period of dramatic increase starting in 1970 has been 0.18C per decade. 

The central objective of the Paris Agreement is its long-term temperature goal to hold global average temperature increase to “well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. This is referred to by the CAT as the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal.

Will never happen, people will not abandon their fossil fuel vehicles, nor should they.

EVs are piling up in inventories as the market is now showing signs of saturation for EVs. Done.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, NWMan said:

I am trying to convince myself.  Not interested in Paris agreement.  The reality is the graph that is used throughout the world is graphically miss leading and is fundamentally anchored by the calculation of the global average temperature in 1880.  I would like the debate on global warming to be more scientific and realistic and for people like myself who are not sure not to be ridiculed and dismissed as crack pots. 

The information is extremely scientific, I think that is what you are struggling with. The change we are worried about is 1.5C and that has always been made clear. You couldn't find the data I found with a simple google search and then proceeded to create a graph that tells us what you can read anywhere, particularly in the Paris agreement. Telling us you are not interested in the Paris agreement rather seals the deal. There is a reason you get dismissed, try and think about it. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

One year is cherry-picking to an absurd degree. Look at the past ten years.

You are the one who said the temp started coming down 3 years ago so 1 year is an appropriate comparison.

Look at the past 50 years.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are the one who said the temp started coming down 3 years ago so 1 year is an appropriate comparison.

Look at the past 50 years.

Nonsense. There were two papers where the authors identified this 2020-2021 period as the beginning of a downturn due to solar cycles, but they did not suggest that it would be a straight-line change. You are just pulling that out of your hat.

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The information is extremely scientific, I think that is what you are struggling with. The change we are worried about is 1.5C and that has always been made clear. You couldn't find the data I found with a simple google search and then proceeded to create a graph that tells us what you can read anywhere, particularly in the Paris agreement. Telling us you are not interested in the Paris agreement rather seals the deal. There is a reason you get dismissed, try and think about it. 

Jay, you have to show that CO2 is the cause of temperature change, and that is where the climate agitators have fallen flat, the historic series do not support such a claim.

[NWMan + 89]

25 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

try and think about it.

I will do my best

[specinho + 441]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:01 AM, notsonice said:

Texas a magnet state???? for the braindead.... and Ercot is an example what happens when the braindead all get together

 

The smart people leave Texas and the slow ones stay or move to Texas. Can you explain why Texas is #41 ......

ha ha ha

 

please note where Texas is ....number 41 on the list of brains

I sure would not be bragging that people are moving to your state in droves , as the people moving to Texas are not playing with a full deck of cards, the same as those already in the state. Ercot ...yes the nation is laughing at Texas along with the joyful braindead ones that move to Texas

yep You are in the State that ranks 41 in brains out of 50

Quality and attainment: 2023’s most—and least—educated states in America

 

• 1 Massachusetts: Educational Attainment (1), Quality of Education (1)
• 2 Maryland: Educational Attainment (4), Quality of Education (2)
• 3 Connecticut: Educational Attainment (6), Quality of Education (4)
• 4 Vermont: Educational Attainment (3), Quality of Education (15)
• 5 Colorado: Educational Attainment (2), Quality of Education (37)
• 6 New Jersey: Educational Attainment (10), Quality of Education (6)
• 7 Virginia: Educational Attainment (5), Quality of Education (16)
• 8 New Hampshire: Educational Attainment (7), Quality of Education (11)
• 9 Minnesota: Educational Attainment (8), Quality of Education (24)
• 10 Utah: Educational Attainment (11), Quality of Education (12)
• 11 Washington: Educational Attainment (9), Quality of Education (25)
• 12 Rhode Island: Educational Attainment (24), Quality of Education (5)
• 13 Delaware: Educational Attainment (21), Quality of Education (7)
• 14 New York: Educational Attainment (18), Quality of Education (14)
• 15 Oregon: Educational Attainment (12), Quality of Education (41)
• 16 Illinois: Educational Attainment (17), Quality of Education (18)
• 17 Hawaii: Educational Attainment (14), Quality of Education (35)
• 18 Maine: Educational Attainment (15), Quality of Education (31)
• 19 Montana: Educational Attainment (13), Quality of Education (46)
• 20 Wisconsin: Educational Attainment (25), Quality of Education (10)
• 21 Florida: Educational Attainment (35), Quality of Education (3)
• 22 Nebraska: Educational Attainment (20), Quality of Education (38)
• 23 North Dakota: Educational Attainment (22), Quality of Education (26)
• 24 Wyoming: Educational Attainment (23), Quality of Education (30)
• 25 Kansas: Educational Attainment (16), Quality of Education (49)
• 26 North Carolina: Educational Attainment (28), Quality of Education (13)
• 27 Michigan: Educational Attainment (26), Quality of Education (28)
• 28 California: Educational Attainment (37), Quality of Attainment (8)
• 29 Alaska: Education Attainment (19), Quality of Education (50)
• 30 Pennsylvania: Education Attainment (27), Quality of Education (36)
• 31 Iowa: Educational Attainment (29), Quality of Education (29)
• 32 Georgia: Educational Attainment (33), Quality of Education (22)
• 33 Missouri: Educational Attainment (31), Quality of Education (33)
• 34 Ohio: Educational Attainment (36), Quality of Education (21)
• 35 South Dakota: Educational Attainment (30), Quality of Education (40)
• 36 Idaho: Educational Attainment (34), Quality of Education (32)
• 37 Arizona: Educational Attainment (32), Quality of Education (44)
• 38 Indiana: Educational Attainment (41), Quality of Education (9)
• 39 South Carolina: Educational Attainment (38), Quality of Education (34)
• 40 Tennessee: Educational Attainment (40), Quality of Education (19)
• 41 Texas: Educational Attainment (42), Quality of Education (17)
• 42 New Mexico: Educational Attainment (39), Quality of Education (48)
• 43 Kentucky: Educational Attainment (46), Quality of Education (19)
• 43 (Tied for 43) Nevada: Educational Attainment (45), Quality of Education (23)
• 44 Oklahoma: Educational Attainment (43), Quality of Education (42)
• 45 Alabama: Educational Attainment (44), Quality of Education (39)
• 46 Arkansas: Educational Attainment (47), Quality of Education (27)
• 47 Louisiana: Educational Attainment (48), Quality of Education (43)
• 48 Mississippi: Educational Attainment (49), Quality of Education (45)
• 49 West Virginia: Educational Attainment (50), Quality of Education (47)

Education Attainment = level of education achieved?

Being #41 but with quality of education ranking #17 might mean they do not need university degree to make decent money than people in top 20 of the list?

Employment rate would be interesting... If top 20 listed with the most graduates, postgraduates, are also those with the highest unemployment rate? 

It is not deniable there is a difference between those ranked #44 and above and those ranked before them.

You must learn to interprete data correctly before making your conclusion. Wrong interpretation brings you wrong conclusion, yes? '-'

[specinho + 441]

2 hours ago, NWMan said:

I was asking about the absolute average temperature because of the blow temperature anomaly plot which is always used and looks catastrophic.  The temperature was apparently 17.18 a few days ago.  Therefore, based on the temperature anomaly plot below I back calculated the temperature at 1880 to be 15.98 degrees C.  I then produced based on the same input graph an absolute average temperature graph since records began (also below)

 

This chart is probably inappropriate...

1. 12 months running mean presumed to be the average of ( highest temperature - lowest temperature) per month?

 

2. Annual mean presumed to be the average global temperature per year?

-  you have global temperature always below 0.2'C until post 1980s to be 0.4'C to 1.4 'C?

3. The graph is "temperature anomaly" vs "year"?

- shouldn't it be average annual temperature vs year?

- by definition, the temperature has been assumed to be abnormal since 1880s? That might have been 30 to 50 years ahead of the initial concern raised against fast increasing population, possible increase of temperature etc?

- by using global mean or everage, many info obscured.

 

Allow me to make suggestions to the criteria of graph used...

a) temperature should be recorded exactly per highest temperature and lowest temperature measured per day. Then there is a middle line represent mean.

Three lines should be drawn in a graph with data measured. Not extrapolated. Not assumed weather report where 7 days a week or per month where the temperature would remain unchanged...

 

b) from this, one gets mean highest, lowest per month. Accummulated data measured per 12 months gives highest, lowest and mean per year.

c) seperate zones should be allocated to represent data more accurately i.e.

i) tropical region ( one country or average of a few)

ii) temperate region

iii) polar region

- from here, you can see anomaly per region, per year or per month... If there is any.

We should not assume until data shows per record.

Otherwise, we will interprete data according to our preset mind and assumption, skew data to fit our assumption but turn very blind to the fact shown. 

 

On 7/5/2023 at 11:29 AM, NWMan said:

Hi,

I have a few questions I can never get the answer to concerning global warming.

What is the average temperature of the earth today?

What are the names of the 5 species that will be extinct by 2040?

What is the error range when measuring hydrogen atoms in air trapped in ice core and relating that value to temperature of the air in a frozen part of the world and extrapolating that value around the world to come up with a global temperature 100,000 years ago?

Will

 

1. Was on an online course about backyard weather last year. Recorded temperature for ~ two weeks. Share here as reference:

Date: roughly end of august to mid september 2022.

Average temperature: 

Highest: 18'C to 20'C

Lowest: 14'C to 16'C.

This is more than 10'C lower than usual 38'C - 26'C. 

Or, 32'C - 23'C more than 30 years ago. 

Mean temperature half of 2023 might have been lower than average also. It should have been burning hot but the everage has been 18'C to 26'C on most days and months. 

 

2. Thousands estimated extinct per year...

There used to be biological indexes at the back of EIA report to show original flora-fauna and possible impact. Have a quick look on a public reading version. Whatever no longer there when you take a walk in the same area could possibly be assumed extincted. 

 

3. Hydrogen might not be accurate, too many variant. Was it carbon dating that they used? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Nonsense. There were two papers where the authors identified this 2020-2021 period as the beginning of a downturn due to solar cycles, but they did not suggest that it would be a straight-line change. You are just pulling that out of your hat.

 

No the numbers clearly show that 2022 was hotter than 2021 and this year is so far hotter than last year.

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 57]

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Will never happen, people will not abandon their fossil fuel vehicles, nor should they.

EVs are piling up in inventories as the market is now showing signs of saturation for EVs. Done.

If it is cheaper and more convenient to drive an EV than an ICE, then we will go EV. Otherwise it will stay ICE for a bit longer. 

Is it cheaper to drive an EV? yes, cradle-to-grave, this is already the case in most of the western world. And even more so as rooftop-PV is getting so cheap and you can charge at home for pretty much nothing. Is it more convenient? That depends on your car usage and where you live. Your mileage may vary. 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 57]

On 7/1/2023 at 2:25 AM, Ecocharger said:

You will have to accept large increases in Chinese coal output, if electricity in China is to be made available for the carbon-intense EV sector.

China has a larger percentage share for renewable power generation in its 5-year plan (from 33% now to 39% in 2025), so there might be some increase in coal output, but it will definitely not be "large".

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No the numbers clearly show that 2022 was hotter than 2021 and this year is so far hotter than last year.

 

Garbage, Jay. Look st the ten-year trend, at the very least. The solar cycle models have done a better job explaining the current "pause" which has been accepted by all the climate scientists as a reality.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

The wind energy system has run into a brick wall in Britain, with even the climate agitators giving up on wind as a source of affordable energy.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/Wind-Lobbyists-Push-UK-Government-For-More-Subsidies.html

"Wind industry lobbyists have urged the UK government to revise auction rules, create new targets for floating offshore wind.

The proposed changes, if agreed upon by the government, would not only amplify the total subsidy but also secure industry shares in the energy market.

The climate lobby group, Net Zero Watch, has called upon the government to refuse these demands."

"Dr. John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s Energy Director, said:

“It would be both absurd and counterproductive for Government to bail out the wind industry in spite of the evident failure to reduce costs. A refusal to learn from mistakes will be disastrous.”

In a press release, the organisation argued the Government should “reject the self-serving demands” because the U.K. economy should not be expected to continue to subsidise a sector “that is still uneconomic after nearly 20 years of above-market prices and guaranteed market share”.

“The wind experiment has failed and must be wound down,” it adds."

Edited July 6, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

44 minutes ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

China has a larger percentage share for renewable power generation in its 5-year plan (from 33% now to 39% in 2025), so there might be some increase in coal output, but it will definitely not be "large".

It is already large.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

54 minutes ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

If it is cheaper and more convenient to drive an EV than an ICE, then we will go EV. Otherwise it will stay ICE for a bit longer. 

Is it cheaper to drive an EV? yes, cradle-to-grave, this is already the case in most of the western world. And even more so as rooftop-PV is getting so cheap and you can charge at home for pretty much nothing. Is it more convenient? That depends on your car usage and where you live. Your mileage may vary. 

It is extremely inconvenient to recharge even with a home charger. Hours and hours and hours and hours and hours.....

[AlBub + 14]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are the one who said the temp started coming down 3 years ago so 1 year is an appropriate comparison.

Look at the past 50 years.

Why not look at the last 10,000 years then/ It is only a random period of time.

Let's not forget the "adjustment" of data for the last 100 years by governmental weather agencies 10 or 12 years ago because they just knew the old-timers couldn't read a thermometer. Funny how the older data had to be revised downward.

Numbers mean nothing when they can be changed to fit the political science, as they were.