GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

5 hours ago, notsonice said:

average for the past ten years compared to the previous 10 years is up

the trend is up  and over the long time shows up up up

go back to school and take a stats course

Fit a curve to the data and you get a downtrend ....that is how scientists work. Of which you are not one.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

1 hour ago, bloodman33 said:

Any of you oil paid shills live in Texas or Arizona? How is the Temperature?  LOL.  I live in a cool, great healthcare, great education, high culture low cost of living state that has lots of social programs and mostly is controlled by Democrats.  You should leave the dark side and come on over if you can stand the truth. You will have to take and IQ test to prove you are smarter than Trump.  Now that I think about it I think one of you live in some Asian country where white americans go for underage women if my memory serves me correctly. 

Some of us are married and do not fool around, dummy.

Actually, your great welfare state is on the verge of collapse due to wild Democrat spending funded by printing money. It is called "irresponsible". Even the old Kennedy Democrats had more fiscal sense than to run the money presses 24 hours a day.

Now the results are coming in, public finance is in tatters and with the brain-dead climate agenda forcing the average American to shut down the family vehicle, the standard of living for most Americans is under assault by those same Democrats who promised them the moon and never delivered.

 

[notsonice + 1,102]

56 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Fit a curve to the data and you get a downtrend ....that is how scientists work. Of which you are not one.

Go for it, put a curve to the chart below....otherwise you are just a babbling BSing blowhard

you are the one that is talking about downtrends....now prove it........or you are just a blowhard

 

  

Edited July 15, 2023 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

34 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Go for it, put a curve to the chart below....otherwise you are just a babbling BSing blowhard

you are the one that is talking about downtrends....now prove it........or you are just a blowhard

 

  

Even a blind man could see that a curve fitted to this data gives a maximum point some years ago with a downward trend after that.

https://clintel.org/german-renewable-energies-expert-global-warming-is-going-to-pause-as-north-atlantic-cools/

"Why is the coming cooling in Europe not being reported?

It is astonishing that so far not a single German daily newspaper has reported on this encouraging message. In contrast, the apocalyptic delusion of the “last generation” financed with American foundation money receives wide space and benevolent judges. Hardly anyone questions the false narrative of the people who glue themselves to the street to protest.

Those who suppress such news of impending cooling are complicit in the politically induced destruction of our society. What did Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) say recently in Qatar? He needs natural gas in the next few years, but in 7 years he won’t need it anymore, because Germany will get out of gas by then anyway. Why does he want to get out if it becomes not warmer in the next 20 years in Europe, but rather colder? Won’t we need even more gas than today if it cools down?

The publication of the climate researchers from Kiel, Hamburg, Bergen, Venice and Houston brings us another important insight. The warming of the years 1980 to 2015 was significantly influenced by the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean. We can estimate that a significant part of the warming can be attributed to this natural cycle. This  period is used, among other things, to make temperature forecasts into the future. However, the models attribute the natural warming contribution to the CO2 effect. This incorrectly calculated, higher CO2 effect is carried forward into the future. Models that do not take into account the natural cyclical influences – and the models are not yet able to do so – thus arrive at warming forecasts that are far too strong.

It should not go unmentioned that there are a number of publications (such as this one involving Matthes and Omrani, Solar forcing synchronizes decadal North Atlantic climate variability) that consider a coupling of the strength of solar cycles with the North Atlantic Oscillation as likely. The last solar cycle from 2008 to 2019 was the weakest in 100 years. The current cycle so far is shaping up to be just as weak. The one-dimensionality of the climate and energy debate, culminating in the claim that CO2 emissions alone determine our climate, is quite frightening."

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Here is the article referred to above.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9268

"Quasi-decadal variability in solar irradiance has been suggested to exert a substantial effect on Earth’s regional climate. In the North Atlantic sector, the 11-year solar signal has been proposed to project onto a pattern resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with a lag of a few years due to ocean-atmosphere interactions. The solar/NAO relationship is, however, highly misrepresented in climate model simulations with realistic observed forcings. In addition, its detection is particularly complicated since NAO quasi-decadal fluctuations can be intrinsically generated by the coupled ocean-atmosphere system. Here we compare two multi-decadal ocean-atmosphere chemistry-climate simulations with and without solar forcing variability. While the experiment including solar variability simulates a 1–2-year lagged solar/NAO relationship, comparison of both experiments suggests that the 11-year solar cycle synchronizes quasi-decadal NAO variability intrinsic to the model. The synchronization is consistent with the downward propagation of the solar signal from the stratosphere to the surface."

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Global warming is taking a break.

https://klimanachrichten.de/2023/01/07/fritz-vahrenholt-globale-erwaermung-wird-eine-pause-einlegen/

"The unusually mild weather at the turn of the year in Central Europe has encouraged some people in this country to believe that CO2-related global warming is in full swing. Globally - and that's all that matters - temperatures are developing in a different direction. If one forms the average of the last years, the global temperature has been constant for 8 years and 4 months. In December, the global temperature deviation from the 30-year mean of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama (UAH) fell again, to 0.05 degrees Celsius. (see graphic above). There is a long-term increase in temperature until 2015. But it has averaged just 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade since 1979. But it gets even better : the latest scientific studies show for Europe,"

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 71]

3 hours ago, NWMan said:

"once again you post nothing but garbage."  If you are such an intellect why do you post insulting remarks.  Why do you not stick to the facts.  If you were sitting talking to these people face to face would you make these comments.  You are actually stopping people from commenting by being so rude.

Wow, you have some thin skin. And Ecocharger might be the rudest person/bot in this forum.

[turbguy + 1,436]

10 hours ago, notsonice said:

go ahead and fit a curve to the data for the whole chart (no cherry picking as you state) ....we are waiting....its your idea

or are you once again babbling BS???

LOESS fit.

(In general, LOESS is a good choice for data that is noisy or has a non-linear trend. It is also a good choice for data that contains outliers, as LOESS can be used to smooth out the data without completely removing the outliers).

Appears something happened around the start of WWII. Perhaps not...

Next argument??

Edited July 15, 2023 by turbguy

[bloodman33 + 20]

Okay Monkeys.

Why is the surface temperature cooling down if the earth is cooking?

As the Earth and the air above the earth heat up the ice melts cooling the oceans and creating a cooler surface temperature.   

That is why ALL the climate scientists are looking a temperatures across the globe and years taking into account the seasons.

What does this mean? Once enough ice melts the earth will become like Mars unless a huge Volcano or Volcanoes does not blow dumping a bunch of dust in the atmosphere cooling it, or a massive nuclear war.  Either way humanity is toast. 

We can thank the oil and coal companies and the industrial revolution for this.

Yes most of us are all responsible but it is because there has really been no choice, even now. 

Why do the oil and coal companies need to be severely punished?  It is because they did and still are attempting to lie to the world by saying they have nothing to do with this by paying shills or maybe just ignorant fools on this board and a handful of NON climate scientists for the most part to perpetuate the lie, like big tobacco did.  More importantly they knew they were responsible and started this campaign of lies 40 year ago!

Ecocharger always saying I am part of the cause and I should thank the industry is a child's argument. It is not that the industry caused it and we use the stuff.  It is because they have actively lied and put up propaganda campaigns against green energy and in the process it is most probable we have already passed the tipping point and your children's quality of life and humanity for hundreds or thousands of years to come will live like crap. 

That said buy TNK, STNG, VLO, CVI, PXD, MTDR etc and make me rich now!   Oil and coal company reparations NOW!   All of their profit should be used to fund AOC and green energy and that is a fact jack.  

[specinho + 441]

On 7/13/2023 at 6:31 PM, notsonice said:

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.........

 

 

Was in an online course regarding climate change some times ago. Was shown similar chart to indicate correlation between temperature increment and co2 level.

I clicked into the chart, enlarged the scale to see clearer...... Oh no.... 'n'

Discovered " scale" matters. The reverse from what was taught is observed.

Clarification:  did not mean to tarnish reputation of that prestigious university on purpose.... 'n'

But, fortunately, all others do not know. And no one cares... 😳🤭

Therefore, enlarge your chart. You will see clearer that the peak of co2 at point near to 100 age axis is pointing at the lowest point of temperature.

 

2. Have you noticed it is a dynamic chart i.e. it goes up and down with a rather regular interval?

This might mean temperature variation, with highest peak and lowest peak for an interval period of time, is a cyclical event...... 

 

[specinho + 441]

On 7/14/2023 at 2:01 AM, 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.”

Was on a discussion space regarding "satellite images" once. The title was rapid melting of ice and rising sea level...

Posted a question:

- what is the percentage of  ice coverage during winter? 

 

According to another report, ice coverage during winter has enlarged in area covered... 'o' '-'

 

If we give it space to find out why has the sea level arisen, and attribute all to melting of ice, it might not stand at certain point.

Mentioned somewhere here by using an example given by a commenter i e. a glass of coke with ice cubes. 

When ice cube melted, there would be a layer of plain colour liquid distinct from coke. Hence, it affects the water level directly.

 

On the other hand, if ice sheets in the sea are formed from top layer of sea water, than the volume freezes out would not change the ultimate water level when melted.

 

Melting of permafrost would be worrisome.

Amount of snow that melts. 

And expansion of sea volume due to heat absorbed. Not melting of ice. ( You can observe this phenomena by  sitting facing sea front connected to an ocean, not water in a strait. The water level further out would look menacingly higher - reaching eye level, than the one hitting the shore - below chin level.....)

 

 

Despite so, shoreline regression is something not to be ignored in the tropics.

Witnessed a regression of more than 50 cm within a short few years living by the coast...

According to the elders living there for long, the shoreline was further down 50 meters out into the sea ~ 50 years ago. One could walk to the pile of stones that far out on low tide. 

This regression is eroding the land and falling trees on occasional unusual  high tides. It also caused landslide at the front portion of a home located in a row of 3 houses. ~ 45 cm away from the doorstep.... 

Australia might have reported similar phenomena where houses purchased by the beach washed away after 30 to 50 years... 

 

As mentioned in a book submitted to a scientific committee for joint publication, ozone hole might be the culprit. Why, how, solution provided too. But they have ignored me for years... 'n' >.<

Edited July 15, 2023 by specinho

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

11 hours ago, Polyphia said:

Wow, you have some thin skin. And Ecocharger might be the rudest person/bot in this forum.

I think you mean the most straightforward and detailed.

Would you like me to quote the language of some of your fellow climate alarmists on this thread? I didn't think so.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

11 hours ago, turbguy said:

LOESS fit.

(In general, LOESS is a good choice for data that is noisy or has a non-linear trend. It is also a good choice for data that contains outliers, as LOESS can be used to smooth out the data without completely removing the outliers).

Appears something happened around the start of WWII. Perhaps not...

Next argument??

Your straight-line source ignores the recent curve and the long-term picture. By the way, who is your source? You should identify the source. Mr. Anonymous is not good enough. Here is the larger picture,

fter that.

https://clintel.org/german-renewable-energies-expert-global-warming-is-going-to-pause-as-north-atlantic-cools/

"Why is the coming cooling in Europe not being reported?

It is astonishing that so far not a single German daily newspaper has reported on this encouraging message. In contrast, the apocalyptic delusion of the “last generation” financed with American foundation money receives wide space and benevolent judges. Hardly anyone questions the false narrative of the people who glue themselves to the street to protest.

Those who suppress such news of impending cooling are complicit in the politically induced destruction of our society. What did Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) say recently in Qatar? He needs natural gas in the next few years, but in 7 years he won’t need it anymore, because Germany will get out of gas by then anyway. Why does he want to get out if it becomes not warmer in the next 20 years in Europe, but rather colder? Won’t we need even more gas than today if it cools down?

The publication of the climate researchers from Kiel, Hamburg, Bergen, Venice and Houston brings us another important insight. The warming of the years 1980 to 2015 was significantly influenced by the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean. We can estimate that a significant part of the warming can be attributed to this natural cycle. This  period is used, among other things, to make temperature forecasts into the future. However, the models attribute the natural warming contribution to the CO2 effect. This incorrectly calculated, higher CO2 effect is carried forward into the future. Models that do not take into account the natural cyclical influences – and the models are not yet able to do so – thus arrive at warming forecasts that are far too strong.

It should not go unmentioned that there are a number of publications (such as this one involving Matthes and Omrani, Solar forcing synchronizes decadal North Atlantic climate variability) that consider a coupling of the strength of solar cycles with the North Atlantic Oscillation as likely. The last solar cycle from 2008 to 2019 was the weakest in 100 years. The current cycle so far is shaping up to be just as weak. The one-dimensionality of the climate and energy debate, culminating in the claim that CO2 emissions alone determine our climate, is quite frightening."

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

Who is this guy? Well, here is a recent interview.

https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/17/german-scientist-fritz-vahrenholt-attributes-part-of-modern-warming-to-the-decrease-in-clouds/

"A number of scientists don’t agree that the global warming seen since 1860 is solely attributed to man-made CO2. Other factors such as solar cycles, cloud cover and oceanic cycles are also significant climate drivers, many have argued."

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Polyphia + 71]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I think you mean the most straightforward and detailed.

Would you like me to quote the language of some of your fellow climate alarmists on this thread? I didn't think so.

As Ty Webb once said, "Don't sell yourself short, Judge. You're a tremendous slouch."

[turbguy + 1,436]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Your straight-line source ignores the recent curve and the long-term picture. By the way, who is your source? You should identify the source. Mr. Anonymous is not good enough. Here is the larger picture,

So, my chosen "flavor" of statistical analysis does not suit you?

Show my YOURS?

Source:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2022

YOU can play all you want.

Edited July 15, 2023 by turbguy

[Polyphia + 71]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Your straight-line source ignores the recent curve and the long-term picture. By the way, who is your source? You should identify the source. Mr. Anonymous is not good enough. Here is the larger picture,

fter that.

https://clintel.org/german-renewable-energies-expert-global-warming-is-going-to-pause-as-north-atlantic-cools/

"Why is the coming cooling in Europe not being reported?

It is astonishing that so far not a single German daily newspaper has reported on this encouraging message. In contrast, the apocalyptic delusion of the “last generation” financed with American foundation money receives wide space and benevolent judges. Hardly anyone questions the false narrative of the people who glue themselves to the street to protest.

Those who suppress such news of impending cooling are complicit in the politically induced destruction of our society. What did Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens) say recently in Qatar? He needs natural gas in the next few years, but in 7 years he won’t need it anymore, because Germany will get out of gas by then anyway. Why does he want to get out if it becomes not warmer in the next 20 years in Europe, but rather colder? Won’t we need even more gas than today if it cools down?

The publication of the climate researchers from Kiel, Hamburg, Bergen, Venice and Houston brings us another important insight. The warming of the years 1980 to 2015 was significantly influenced by the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean. We can estimate that a significant part of the warming can be attributed to this natural cycle. This  period is used, among other things, to make temperature forecasts into the future. However, the models attribute the natural warming contribution to the CO2 effect. This incorrectly calculated, higher CO2 effect is carried forward into the future. Models that do not take into account the natural cyclical influences – and the models are not yet able to do so – thus arrive at warming forecasts that are far too strong.

It should not go unmentioned that there are a number of publications (such as this one involving Matthes and Omrani, Solar forcing synchronizes decadal North Atlantic climate variability) that consider a coupling of the strength of solar cycles with the North Atlantic Oscillation as likely. The last solar cycle from 2008 to 2019 was the weakest in 100 years. The current cycle so far is shaping up to be just as weak. The one-dimensionality of the climate and energy debate, culminating in the claim that CO2 emissions alone determine our climate, is quite frightening."

Ha! Look up Fritz Vahrenholt's background--not  a very credible source (and not even a climatologist). But that shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

3 minutes ago, turbguy said:

So, my chosen "flavor" of statistical analysis does not suit you?

Show my YOURS?

Source:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2022

YOU can play all you want.

Your statistical analysis shows a decline in recent years, just click on "Smoothed Time Series" and "Binomial Filter" to see this.

Thanks for the support.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

6 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

Ha! Look up Fritz Vahrenholt's background--not  a very credible source (and not even a climatologist). But that shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum.

These guys are not climate scientists? You must have eaten something bad this morning.

"The publication of the climate researchers from Kiel, Hamburg, Bergen, Venice and Houston brings us another important insight. The warming of the years 1980 to 2015 was significantly influenced by the warm phase of the Atlantic Ocean. We can estimate that a significant part of the warming can be attributed to this natural cycle. This  period is used, among other things, to make temperature forecasts into the future. However, the models attribute the natural warming contribution to the CO2 effect. This incorrectly calculated, higher CO2 effect is carried forward into the future. Models that do not take into account the natural cyclical influences – and the models are not yet able to do so – thus arrive at warming forecasts that are far too strong.

It should not go unmentioned that there are a number of publications (such as this one involving Matthes and Omrani, Solar forcing synchronizes decadal North Atlantic climate variability) that consider a coupling of the strength of solar cycles with the North Atlantic Oscillation as likely. The last solar cycle from 2008 to 2019 was the weakest in 100 years. The current cycle so far is shaping up to be just as weak. The one-dimensionality of the climate and energy debate, culminating in the claim that CO2 emissions alone determine our climate, is quite frightening."

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

13 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

As Ty Webb once said, "Don't sell yourself short, Judge. You're a tremendous slouch."

Would you like me to quote the language of some of your fellow climate alarmists on this thread? I didn't think so.

[Ecocharger + 1,384]

17 minutes ago, Polyphia said:

Ha! Look up Fritz Vahrenholt's background--not  a very credible source (and not even a climatologist). But that shouldn't surprise anyone on this forum.

His resume looks pretty good, he is part of the renewables movement. He has published articles in climatology journals. You got something against renewables? You should know that "climate scientists" include sociologists who never possessed any natural science degree or studied any chemistry or physics.

Information about the author

Follow authors for publication updates and improved recommendations.

 

Fritz Vahrenholt

Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, was Hamburg's Senator for the Environment from 1991 to 1997. Vahrenholt then went to Deutsche Shell AG as a board member for renewable energies, and in 2001 he became chairman of the board of wind energy plant manufacturer REpower Systems AG. He then managed the newly founded group company for renewable energies of RWE AG, Innogy GmbH, until 2012.

Since 1999 he has been an honorary professor in the chemistry department at the University of Hamburg. He is a member of the German Academy for Engineering Sciences Acatech. His bestseller Seveso is Everywhere was one of the most influential books published in the early years of the environmental movement. In 2012, together with Sebastian Lüning, the successful title "The Cold Sun" was published and in 2020 the bestseller "Unwanted Truths", also with Lüning. In February 2022 his bestseller "The great energy crisis and how we can overcome it" was published.

Vahrenholt is Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Aurubis, Europe's largest copper producer, and a member of the Supervisory Board of Encavis AG, one of the largest investors in renewable energies in Europe.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 506]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Who is this guy? Well, here is a recent interview.

https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/17/german-scientist-fritz-vahrenholt-attributes-part-of-modern-warming-to-the-decrease-in-clouds/

"A number of scientists don’t agree that the global warming seen since 1860 is solely attributed to man-made CO2. Other factors such as solar cycles, cloud cover and oceanic cycles are also significant climate drivers, many have argued."

You posted a link supporting that the planet is warming. Haha

"the global warming seen since 1860..."

[notsonice + 1,102]

On 7/14/2023 at 9:21 AM, Ecocharger said:

Your trend over the past ten years is down...sorry.

 

still waiting for you to show us a trend over the past ten years is down

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by notsonice

[turbguy + 1,436]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Your statistical analysis shows a decline in recent years, just click on "Smoothed Time Series" and "Binomial Filter" to see this.

Thanks for the support.

I thought your "choice of statistics" would be at odds with other choices.

Statistics don't lie?

Here ya' go!

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

In April coal in the US fell to a new all time low and for the first time was less than wind.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Jay McKinsey