GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[notsonice + 1,098]

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ahh a honest portrayal of your facts "Article" Out of the mouth babes comes to mind. Notsobright...you are quite illuminating, keeping in step with Green Energy failures yes the artic ICE core endeavors would have successfully obtained icesickles  the extrapolation gained would pretty much a flop. Just more Green Dogma. Windmills everywhere followed by disaster  after disaster.

Mr Magoo,

unable to understand the chart.....how they figured out ice cores and CO2 levels

it is ok, the chart is for those who made it past the 6th grade

I will post it here again for you, have another try at it

and maybe you and your dimwitted pal Ecochump together can figure it out

 

[notsonice + 1,098]

7 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Please correct me if I misunderstand this statement.

It appears the investigators found a lag of atmospheric CO2 concentration vs Temperature Anomaly, by only about 1 year?

 

 

yep......for every year CO2 goes up temperature goes up in lockstep within months of each other. Everyone would call this a direct relationship, except the real low IQ posters on this site.

and Ecochump posted the info yet he does not want to understand it........go figure

Edited July 12, 2023 by notsonice

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

13 hours ago, notsonice said:

Mr Magoo,

unable to understand the chart.....how they figured out ice cores and CO2 levels

it is ok, the chart is for those who made it past the 6th grade

I will post it here again for you, have another try at it

and maybe you and your dimwitted pal Ecochump together can figure it out

 

That's proof of environmental events occurring a hundred of thousand yrs ago? Sharp angled commentary followed by a EKG chart.. Carry on would be my only thought...LMAO 

[notsonice + 1,098]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

That's proof of environmental events occurring a hundred of thousand yrs ago? Sharp angled commentary followed by a EKG chart.. Carry on would be my only thought...LMAO 

you still do not accept facts and the record that is presented after you ask questions in how they figured out CO2 levels going back 800,000 years

EKG chart????

you must be smoking some real good shit or you are brain dead or both....

PS you still think the oilshales in the Piceace basin are reserves of oil????

lay off the weed oldman.......

[turbguy + 1,422]

10 minutes ago, notsonice said:

lay off the weed oldman.......

Actually, there could be some benefit in this case...

[notsonice + 1,098]

13 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Actually, there could be some benefit in this case...

lol...

sedation of the crazy old man is the solution to his babbling nonsense??????

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

Actually, there could be some benefit in this case...

The only value bud had was a great enhancement of a double cheeseburger and fries But alas McDonald's has forever ruined there fries, it will never be the same.

Now on to the self appointed board monitor...do you not find his thought processes extraordinary? Perhaps it is that kind of insight that has green energy failing globally on every continent.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

23 hours ago, notsonice said:

Mr Magoo,

unable to understand the chart.....how they figured out ice cores and CO2 levels

it is ok, the chart is for those who made it past the 6th grade

I will post it here again for you, have another try at it

and maybe you and your dimwitted pal Ecochump together can figure it out

 

You chart shows nothing, no correlation statistics.

Here are the real studies.

"We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO₂ always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. "

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

23 hours ago, notsonice said:

yep......for every year CO2 goes up temperature goes up in lockstep within months of each other. Everyone would call this a direct relationship, except the real low IQ posters on this site.

and Ecochump posted the info yet he does not want to understand it........go figure

I guess you skipped math? The lag structure is well known and shown above.

CO2 follows temperature change, not the other way around.

Only losers still cling to the idea that CO2 caused temperature change.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 441]

On 7/12/2023 at 6:47 AM, notsonice said:

nope

try again

CO2 is rising and temperature is moving in lockstep.....the chart shows it

and you think more CO2 is good for the planet?????

we all know right now the temperature is increasing over time and at the same time CO 2 is increasing.......

where do you think temperature will be in 20 years from today another 2 or 3 degrees centigrade warmer????

Texas is going to look pretty brown in June

just keep ignoring the facts....it is what you do best

Check you chart again at point 100 and 300 on age axis, for examples. You might be able to notice what ecocharger mentioned shown in your chart... 

[specinho + 441]

[notsonice + 1,098]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

Check you chart again at point 100 and 300 on age axis, for examples. You might be able to notice what ecocharger mentioned shown in your chart... 

chart is pretty clear ......

you just do not have the intelligence to read it????

 

here it is again......get your 2 other dimwitted pals to analyse  it with you......ha ha ha I bet all 3 of you together do not have the intelligence to understand it.........

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,098]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you skipped math? The lag structure is well known and shown above.

CO2 follows temperature change, not the other way around.

Only losers still cling to the idea that CO2 caused temperature change.

here is the chart again

Enjoy it while you live in denial

Only losers live in denial and you are the King of Denial

print the chart out....post it on your fridge....maybe someday you will understand it.......maybe ha ha ha

Edited July 13, 2023 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,098]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You chart shows nothing, no correlation statistics.

Here are the real studies.

"We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO₂ always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. "

You chart shows nothing, no correlation statistics.???

not my chart...... was put together by the foremost experts in ice core data

deal with it ....all your BS babble that you post is just BS

here is the chart again........enjoy it and the clear correlation it presents

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

You chart shows nothing, no correlation statistics.???

not my chart...... was put together by the foremost experts in ice core data

deal with it ....all your BS babble that you post is just BS

here is the chart again........enjoy it and the clear correlation it presents

Your chart is not a statistical study, old boy. No tests here, no correlation coefficients....your stuff doesn't count as a science exercise. Eyeballing means nothing without a statistical result.

As I say, you must have skipped your stats courses.

Here are the real studies.

"We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO₂ always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. "

 

 

[notsonice + 1,098]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your chart is not a statistical study, old boy. No tests here, no correlation coefficients....your stuff doesn't count as a science exercise. Eyeballing means nothing without a statistical result.

As I say, you must have skipped your stats courses.

Here are the real studies.

"We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO₂ always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. "

 

 

yawn...

the chart is based on ice core tests ...real science...take a look at the chart and the references used in building the chart.....

Real tests, real samples taken to get the data

you just live in denial

here it is again as you dismiss anything that proves you wrong

The damage to the planet earth is real from burning large amounts of Coal...The earth is getting hotter than it has been in the past 1000000 years and the increase in CO2 is lockstep with the increase in temperature.

the only question is how much hotter it will get because of our past burning large amounts of coal and how much hotter will it get from burning more coal.....

what do you think ??? (come on you can do it)1?  2? 3? 4? 5? degrees C hotter  in the next 20 years?????? going to be a real scorcher in Texas....hell on earth??? maybe you like that? Step up and put out a number......

you seem to think you know everything....make an educated guess......or do you hide when you are asked real questions or do you just keep babbling BS

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,098]

no wonder why insurance companies are no longer offering insurance in Florida........sea level rise/increase in surface temps of the ocean is not going to end well for those who live in Florida

 

 

‘Devastating’ melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found

 

FILE - A boat navigates at night next to large icebergs near the town of Kulusuk, in eastern Greenland on Aug. 15, 2019. A new massive study finds that Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana, File)

By Seth Borenstein

Published 2:01 AM MDT, April 20, 2023

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago, according to a new comprehensive international study.

Using 50 different satellite estimates, researchers found that Greenland’s melt has gone into hyperdrive in the last few years. Greenland’s average annual melt from 2017 to 2020 was 20% more a year than at the beginning of the decade and more than seven times higher than its annual shrinkage in the early 1990s.

The new figures “are pretty disastrous really,” said study co-author Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. “We’re losing more and more ice from Greenland.”

Study lead author Ines Otosaka, a glaciologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, said speeded-up ice sheet loss is clearly caused by human-caused climate change.

From 1992 to 1996, the two ice sheets – which hold 99% of the world’s freshwater ice – were shrinking by 116 billion tons (105 billion metric tons) a year, two-thirds of it from Antarctica.

 

But from 2017 to 2020, the newest data available, the combined melt soared to 410 billion tons (372 billion metric tons) a year, more than two-thirds of it from Greenland, said the study in Thursday’s journal Earth System Science Data.

“This is a devastating trajectory,” said U.S. National Snow and Ice Center Deputy Lead Scientist Twila Moon, who wasn’t part of the study. “These rates of ice loss are unprecedented during modern civilization.”

Since 1992, Earth has lost 8.3 trillion tons (7.6 trillion metric tons) of ice from the two ice sheets, the study found. That’s enough to flood the entire United States with 33.6 inches (almost 0.9 meters) of water or submerge France in 49 feet (nearly 15 meters).

But because the world’s oceans are so huge, the melt just from the ice sheets since 1992 still only adds up to a little less than inch (21 millimeters) of sea level rise, on average. Globally sea level rise is accelerating and melt from ice sheets has gone from contributing 5% of the sea level rise to now accounting for more than one-quarter of it, the study said. The rest of the sea rise comes from warmer water expanding and melt from glaciers.

A team of more than 65 scientists regularly calculates ice sheet loss in research funded by NASA and the European Space Agency with Thursday’s study adding three more years of data. They use 17 different satellite missions and examine ice sheet melt in three distinct techniques, Otosaka said, and all the satellites, radar, on the ground observations and computer simulations basically say the same thing -- ice sheet melting is accelerating.

Greenland from 2017 to 2020 averaged about 283 billion tons (257 billion metric tons) of melting a year, compared to just 235 billion tons (213 billion metric tons) annually from 2012 to 2016.

The latest figures also showed what looks like a slowing of melting in parts of Antarctica, which has much more ice than Greenland. That’s mostly due to smaller and fleeting weather changes and the overall longer-term trend still shows an acceleration of melting in Antarctica, Mottram said.

Antarctica from 2017 to 2020 is still losing about 127 billion tons (115 billion metric tons) of ice a year, down 23% from earlier in the decade, but overall up 64% from the early 1990s.

“While mass loss from Greenland is outpacing that from Antarctica, there are troublesome wild cards in the south, notably behavior of the Thwaites glacier,” which is nicknamed the Doomsday Glacier, said Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. snow and ice center, who wasn’t part of the study.

Study authors used changes in gravity and in ice height and measured how much snow fell, how much snow melted, how much ice was lost in icebergs calving and eaten away from underneath by warmer water etching through the ice.

“This matters because rising sea levels will displace and/or financially impact hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, and will likely cost trillions of dollars,” said University of Colorado ice researcher and former NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati, who wasn’t part of the study.

The study “is not so much surprising as it is disturbing,” Abdalati said in an email “A few decades ago, it was assumed that these vast reservoirs of ice changed slowly, but with through the use of satellite observations, field observations and modeling techniques, we have come to learn that ice responds rapidly to our changing climate.”

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

17 minutes ago, notsonice said:

yawn...

the chart is based on ice core tests ...real science...take a look at the chart and the references used in building the chart.....

Real tests, real samples taken to get the data

you just live in denial

here it is again as you dismiss anything that proves you wrong

The damage to the planet earth is real from burning large amounts of Coal...The earth is getting hotter than it has been in the past 1000000 years and the increase in CO2 is lockstep with the increase in temperature.

the only question is how much hotter it will get because of our past burning large amounts of coal and how much hotter will it get from burning more coal.....

what do you think   5 degrees C hotter  in the next 20 years?????? going to be a real scorcher in Texas....hell on earth??? maybe you like that? Step up and put out a number......

you seem to think you know everything....make an educated guess......or do you hide when you are asked real questions or do you just keep babbling BS

 

The only conclusions one can come to observing your postings/ thoughts would be the below image. Now observe carefully there are more than a few..possibilities.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[notsonice + 1,098]

5 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

The only conclusions one can come to observing your postings/ thoughts would be the below image. Now observe carefully there are more than a few..possibilities.

 

 

once again you post nothing but garbage......

 

we are at over 420 ppmv of CO2 today

what do you think that the temperature will rise to on average ?????

try posting some real observations...instead of your usual BS babble

here is the chart for you once again.....

]

Edited July 13, 2023 by notsonice

[AlBub + 14]

8 minutes ago, notsonice said:

no wonder why insurance companies are no longer offering insurance in Florida........sea level rise/increase in surface temps of the ocean is not going to end well for those who live in Florida

 

 

‘Devastating’ melt of Greenland, Antarctic ice sheets found

 

FILE - A boat navigates at night next to large icebergs near the town of Kulusuk, in eastern Greenland on Aug. 15, 2019. A new massive study finds that Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana, File)

By Seth Borenstein

Published 2:01 AM MDT, April 20, 2023

 

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing more than three times as much ice a year as they were 30 years ago, according to a new comprehensive international study.

Using 50 different satellite estimates, researchers found that Greenland’s melt has gone into hyperdrive in the last few years. Greenland’s average annual melt from 2017 to 2020 was 20% more a year than at the beginning of the decade and more than seven times higher than its annual shrinkage in the early 1990s.

The new figures “are pretty disastrous really,” said study co-author Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. “We’re losing more and more ice from Greenland.”

Study lead author Ines Otosaka, a glaciologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, said speeded-up ice sheet loss is clearly caused by human-caused climate change.

From 1992 to 1996, the two ice sheets – which hold 99% of the world’s freshwater ice – were shrinking by 116 billion tons (105 billion metric tons) a year, two-thirds of it from Antarctica.

 

But from 2017 to 2020, the newest data available, the combined melt soared to 410 billion tons (372 billion metric tons) a year, more than two-thirds of it from Greenland, said the study in Thursday’s journal Earth System Science Data.

“This is a devastating trajectory,” said U.S. National Snow and Ice Center Deputy Lead Scientist Twila Moon, who wasn’t part of the study. “These rates of ice loss are unprecedented during modern civilization.”

Since 1992, Earth has lost 8.3 trillion tons (7.6 trillion metric tons) of ice from the two ice sheets, the study found. That’s enough to flood the entire United States with 33.6 inches (almost 0.9 meters) of water or submerge France in 49 feet (nearly 15 meters).

But because the world’s oceans are so huge, the melt just from the ice sheets since 1992 still only adds up to a little less than inch (21 millimeters) of sea level rise, on average. Globally sea level rise is accelerating and melt from ice sheets has gone from contributing 5% of the sea level rise to now accounting for more than one-quarter of it, the study said. The rest of the sea rise comes from warmer water expanding and melt from glaciers.

A team of more than 65 scientists regularly calculates ice sheet loss in research funded by NASA and the European Space Agency with Thursday’s study adding three more years of data. They use 17 different satellite missions and examine ice sheet melt in three distinct techniques, Otosaka said, and all the satellites, radar, on the ground observations and computer simulations basically say the same thing -- ice sheet melting is accelerating.

Greenland from 2017 to 2020 averaged about 283 billion tons (257 billion metric tons) of melting a year, compared to just 235 billion tons (213 billion metric tons) annually from 2012 to 2016.

The latest figures also showed what looks like a slowing of melting in parts of Antarctica, which has much more ice than Greenland. That’s mostly due to smaller and fleeting weather changes and the overall longer-term trend still shows an acceleration of melting in Antarctica, Mottram said.

Antarctica from 2017 to 2020 is still losing about 127 billion tons (115 billion metric tons) of ice a year, down 23% from earlier in the decade, but overall up 64% from the early 1990s.

“While mass loss from Greenland is outpacing that from Antarctica, there are troublesome wild cards in the south, notably behavior of the Thwaites glacier,” which is nicknamed the Doomsday Glacier, said Mark Serreze, director of the U.S. snow and ice center, who wasn’t part of the study.

Study authors used changes in gravity and in ice height and measured how much snow fell, how much snow melted, how much ice was lost in icebergs calving and eaten away from underneath by warmer water etching through the ice.

“This matters because rising sea levels will displace and/or financially impact hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, and will likely cost trillions of dollars,” said University of Colorado ice researcher and former NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati, who wasn’t part of the study.

The study “is not so much surprising as it is disturbing,” Abdalati said in an email “A few decades ago, it was assumed that these vast reservoirs of ice changed slowly, but with through the use of satellite observations, field observations and modeling techniques, we have come to learn that ice responds rapidly to our changing climate.”

You're using the AP an a few scientist doing research for government agencies that have been assigned to "prove" climate change is due to CO2?

No wonder ecocharger is wiping the floor with you.

By the way, real "climate scientists", rather than "political" scientists have shown that CO2 lags climate warming by quite a lot. And another note. more CO2 means more plant growth and more for us to eat. If you choose not to eat, we won't force you.

So sad!

 

[notsonice + 1,098]

37 minutes ago, AlBub said:

You're using the AP an a few scientist doing research for government agencies that have been assigned to "prove" climate change is due to CO2?

No wonder ecocharger is wiping the floor with you.

By the way, real "climate scientists", rather than "political" scientists have shown that CO2 lags climate warming by quite a lot. And another note. more CO2 means more plant growth and more for us to eat. If you choose not to eat, we won't force you.

So sad!

 

so sad???? no more insurance in Florida ........reality what do you think the solution is???? ha ha ha

 

what are you posting ??????.....garbage

CO2 lags climate warming by quite a lot....they are lock step same as the chart posted below

 

 

do you have any comments on the chart????

as usual you and your dimwitted pals do not have anything to say except garbage

wiping the floor??? sounds like a job that you might be able to handle......

here is the chart ....do you understand it????

Edited July 13, 2023 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,098]

you burn coal you get heat........ask anyone in Florida and then you get higher sea levels and then no more insurance as you wait for the nest big hurricane to wipe it all out

 

On Wednesday, Miami and the Florida Keys city both set daily heat records, again. Miami soared to 97, breaking the July 12 record of 95 set in 1981. Marathon baked at 98, the hottest in Florida, breaking the July 12 record of 97 for the Middle Keys city set in 2022.3 hours ago

 

Why is this city in the Keys the hottest spot in Florida? Weather service has answers - Miami Herald

Edited July 13, 2023 by notsonice

[TailingsPond + 501]

1 hour ago, AlBub said:

 

No wonder ecocharger is wiping the floor with you.

 

He thinks tailpipe emissions have a "negligible amount of pollution."   He loses all credibility at that point as there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Yet, I bet he won't huff exhaust despite his claims.

You seem to be a newbie who exists only to up-vote his backwards ideas...  Hmm.

Edited July 13, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Polyphia + 71]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your chart is not a statistical study, old boy. No tests here, no correlation coefficients....your stuff doesn't count as a science exercise. Eyeballing means nothing without a statistical result.

As I say, you must have skipped your stats courses.

Here are the real studies.

"We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO₂ always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. "

 

 

You keep trotting out the same Humlum et al. (2013) research that has had its methodology and conclusions criticized by a ton of other scientists. You and I went around and around on this topic not long ago. Please stop.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,550]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

once again you post nothing but garbage......

 

we are at over 420 ppmv of CO2 today

what do you think that the temperature will rise to on average ?????

try posting some real observations...instead of your usual BS babble

here is the chart for you once again.....

]

Time for intervention, take a deep breath. Environmental change is almost upon us.