GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

If you won't read your own reference I can't help you.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, the 33K is the greenhouse, the 255K includes solar and particulates, BUT NOT GREENHOUSE just as I said.

 

So the baseline is now wrong, as I predicted you would say.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

If you won't read your own reference I can't help you.

I showed you in your own quote how it breaks down, 33K for greenhouse, 255K is NOT greenhouse. Your own quote.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

So the baseline is now wrong, as I predicted you would say.

 

 

No, this is great, shows that H2O dominates the greenhouse effect.

He shows that CO2 greenhouse effect is insignificant to temperature change.

You can now drive your car without feeling guilty, that is good news for you personally.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I showed you in your own quote how it breaks down, 33K for greenhouse, 255K is NOT greenhouse. Your own quote.

Well duh, that is not the question nor the problem. Next you will talk about heat from radioactive decay in the crust.  Who cares?  The baseline is not the topic of discussion. The topic of discuss is temperature change and what caused the change. These authors attribute all the change here to greenhouse effect.

You don't have to agree with them, but that is what the paper is saying.  Nothing else.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

12 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Well duh, that is not the question nor the problem. Next you will talk about heat from radioactive decay in the crust.  Who cares?  The baseline is not the topic of discussion. The topic of discuss is temperature change and what caused the change. These authors attribute all the change here to greenhouse effect.

You don't have to agree with them, but that is what the paper is saying.  Nothing else.

 

No, they just look at the change attributable to greenhouse. I have no doubt that they know that the sun shines and changes earth temperature at different times of the year, but they specifically say that the 33K which they further break down into greenhouse gases is ONLY due to greenhouse.

That leaves 255K due to other factors such as the sun shining, particulates and volcanoes. I am sure they understand that those also impact temperature. Even you know that much.

In terms of greenhouse effect alone, H2O is the dominant factor, but also there are other atmospheric impacts of H2O which are driven by solar variables. CO2 plays zero role in the most important atmospheric impacts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334093488_Intensified_East_Asian_winter_monsoon_during_the_last_geomagnetic_reversal_transition

The Japanese team commented,

"“The Intergovernmental IPCC has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” Dr. Masayuki Hyodo of the University of Kobe.
Hyodo added that “When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”

The low cloud cover is caused by increasing cosmic rays reaching earth due to changes in the earth’s magnetic field."

A Finnish study reached similar conclusions.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

"In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature."

 

This research is consistent with the studies correlating cosmic rays (ie. solar variables) with earth temperature change. So now the pathway is solar radiation impacting earth atmospheric H20 impacting earth temperature change. The other work above showing the overwhelming significance of atmospheric H2O as a driver of climate change can be related into a larger model of solar activity with the transfer mechanism now elucidated.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 

That leaves 255K due to other factors such as the sun shining, particulates and volcanoes. I am sure they understand that those also

They were not attempting to do a total planetary energy balance like you are imagining.  Sure they understand other factors are at play but that is not the topic at hand.  From the paper:

"The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO₂, but also CH₄ and N₂O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations."

They are just attempting simplify, not further confound like you want. 

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

They were not attempting to do a total planetary energy balance like you are imagining.  Sure they understand other factors are at play but that is not the topic at hand.  From the paper:

"The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO₂, but also CH₄ and N₂O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations."

They are just attempting simplify, not further confound like you want. 

 

 

Exactly, they were only looking at possible greenhouse gas contributions to temperature, not the effects of solar variable changing or particulates changing or cloud cover changes. Those other possible changes also have temperature effects, and I am sure that the authors were aware of that.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Exactly, they were only looking at possible greenhouse gas contributions to temperature, not the effects of solar variable changing or particulates changing or cloud cover changes. Those other possible changes also have temperature effects, and I am sure that the authors were aware of that.

You're learning.

At least you now understand they were not discussing any other of your other nonsense so you should not bring that up when using that data set and conclusions.

They certainly do believe in greenhouse warming and 3.3K (10%) of the increase is from CO2.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

You're learning.

At least you now understand they were not discussing any other of your other nonsense so you should not bring that up when using that data set and conclusions.

They certain do believe in greenhouse warming and 3.3K or 10% is from CO2.

 

The other impacts on temperature change dwarf that, so you are only talking about perhaps 1% overall attributable to CO2. As shown in the other papers, particulates probably explain most recent warming, and cloud cover shading related to particulates have enormous and rapid impacts.

Only 3.3K of 255K is a very marginal impact. H2O is 900% more than the CO2 in this study which you like.

Glad to see we agree on this.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 

Only 3.3K of 255K is a very marginal impact.

No it's 3.3K of the 33K change not 3.3 of 255K.  The baseline 255K is not in discussion.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

No it's 3.3K of the 33K not 255K.

No it is 3.3K as a marginal contribution to the 255K. But I am happy to see that you like this paper which claims that CO2 contribution is insignificant. That is real progress.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

I really like that you think 10% is nothing.  We could implement 10% carbon tax and you wouldn't care!

90% of the gas cost is from the fossil fuels!

You should also turn your thermostat up by 3.3K.  It's only represents a tiny fraction of the difference between a normal room temperature and absolute zero!

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

I really like that you think 10% is nothing.  We could implement 10% carbon tax and you wouldn't care!

Well the marginal contribution in this study  of CO2  is 3.3K to a base of 255K which is about 1.29%, so that really is insignificant, as the author states.

I am delighted to see that this research is liked by you, we are really getting somewhere now.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Well the marginal contribution in this study  of CO2  is 3.3K to a base of 255K which is about 1.29%, so that really is insignificant, as the author states.

 

Again you should also turn your thermostat up by 3.3K.  It's only represents a tiny fraction of the difference between a normal room temperature and absolute zero!

Your comfort will be unaffected.

You accept a 1.29% carbon tax, sweet.

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

Again you should also turn your thermostat up by 3.3K.  It's only represents a tiny fraction of the difference between a normal room temperature and absolute zero!

Your comfort will be unaffected.

Well the contribution of CO2 of only 1.29% of any temperature increase shows how insignificant CO2 is in terms of  temperature change.

I am pleased to see that you agree with this calculation, There is still hope for you.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

The authors give a separate calculation for CO2 contribution, as follows.

" Effect of Recently Increased Atmospheric CO2 It is of some interest to calculate the increase in temperature that has occurred due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the 280ppm prior at the start of the industrial revolution to the current 420ppm registered at the Mona Loa Observatory. (K. W. Thoning et. al. 2019) [17]. The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140ppm CO2, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date."

So that is a grand contribution for CO2 since Industrial Revolution of .24K or about .09%. Almost nothing at all.

Happy to see that this is acceptable to TailingsPond.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

33 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Well the contribution of CO2 of only 1.29% of any temperature increase shows how insignificant CO2 is in terms of  temperature change.

I am pleased to see that you agree with this calculation, There is still hope for you.

If you do the home thermostat experiment you might notice that a 3.3K change from your normal room temp has a larger effect on your life than your 1.29% suggests.  Please try it, the people you live with, if any, won't notice such a trivial difference! 

The difference between ice and liquid water is less than 1K.  Clearly the same!

Do you like skim milk?  It tastes exactly the same as 1% or 2%, trust me. 

Tap water with 0.01% lead will kill your family.

Your use of percentages to "understand" life and the environment is foolish.  Poor logic makes you prefer small percentages of large numbers over larger percentages of small numbers - even when they represent the same magnitude of change.  Overuse of percentages is almost always an attempt by crappy "statisticians" to deceive.

 

 

 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The authors give a separate calculation for CO2 contribution, as follows.

" Effect of Recently Increased Atmospheric CO2 It is of some interest to calculate the increase in temperature that has occurred due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the 280ppm prior at the start of the industrial revolution to the current 420ppm registered at the Mona Loa Observatory. (K. W. Thoning et. al. 2019) [17]. The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140ppm CO2, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date."

So that is a grand contribution for CO2 since Industrial Revolution of .24K or about .09%. Almost nothing at all.

Happy to see that this is acceptable to TailingsPond.

Glad you finally read the paper.

You also agree that:

1) there is warming

2) some of the warming is from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

No need to "argue" any further - welcome to the bright side!  The exact magnitude of the changes we now agree upon will continued to be measured instead of predicted.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, the 33K is the greenhouse, the 255K includes solar and particulates, BUT NOT GREENHOUSE just as I said.

The 255K is without the greenhouse ("atmospheric warming")

255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming,

 

Dude, talk in physics.  There is no such thing as greenhouse unless you throw out the whole set of chemistry/physics and only claim a small subset of the atmosphere as their "greenhouse".  Stop using their purposefully perverted propaganda language. 

Temperature of earth = Solar(EMS distance from sun and changes in sun solar storms etc) + Radioactive decay inside earths core + burning of fuels by humankind which was stored there by the sun to begin with...  + cosmic rays = heat balance of earth radiated to space.  If one sits down and calculates heat of burnt fuel one gets about 1C boost in temperatures. 

News flash: So, if you absorb more EMS spectrum, you also RADIATE more EMS spectrum.  For radiation balance incoming verses outgoing to space it is irrelevant what the atmospheric gas composition is.  Total Atmospheric height does matter as that is radiative area to space.    So unless CO2 cult members are saying adding more CO2 is shrinking the atmosphere and decreasing the area from which radiation to space is happening, you know they are lying.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

If you do the home thermostat experiment you might notice that a 3.3K change from your normal room temp has a larger effect on your life than your 1.29% suggests.  Please try it, the people you live with, if any, won't notice such a trivial difference! 

The difference between ice and liquid water is less than 1K.  Clearly the same!

Do you like skim milk?  It tastes exactly the same as 1% or 2%, trust me. 

Tap water with 0.01% lead will kill your family.

Your use of percentages to "understand" life and the environment is foolish.  Poor logic makes you prefer small percentages of large numbers over larger percentages of small numbers - even when they represent the same magnitude of change.  Overuse of percentages is almost always an attempt by crappy "statisticians" to deceive.

 

 

 

That appears to be 3.3K over a gigantic time frame, so, no, you will not notice any change in your lifespan.

 

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

Glad you finally read the paper.

You also agree that:

1) there is warming

2) some of the warming is from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

No need to "argue" any further - welcome to the bright side!  The exact magnitude of the changes we now agree upon will continued to be measured instead of predicted.

 

Yes the global warming attributable to CO2 is at at .24K for the period since the Industrial Revolution which I calculate at .09% increase in temperature.

In other words, NOTHING, NADA, CAPUT to the CO2 theory.

I am pleased to see that you agree with me and that this was an ultimately productive enterprise.

I am happy that we could finally agree that the CO2 climate panic business is a mindless cult designed for shady political purposes.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

21 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Dude, talk in physics.  There is no such thing as greenhouse unless you throw out the whole set of chemistry/physics and only claim a small subset of the atmosphere as their "greenhouse".  Stop using their purposefully perverted propaganda language. 

Temperature of earth = Solar(EMS distance from sun and changes in sun solar storms etc) + Radioactive decay inside earths core + burning of fuels by humankind which was stored there by the sun to begin with...  + cosmic rays = heat balance of earth radiated to space.  If one sits down and calculates heat of burnt fuel one gets about 1C boost in temperatures. 

News flash: So, if you absorb more EMS spectrum, you also RADIATE more EMS spectrum.  For radiation balance incoming verses outgoing to space it is irrelevant what the atmospheric gas composition is.  Total Atmospheric height does matter as that is radiative area to space.    So unless CO2 cult members are saying adding more CO2 is shrinking the atmosphere and decreasing the area from which radiation to space is happening, you know they are lying.

You are probably correct and certainly the studies correlating solar variables with temperature change show that solar variables account for about 90% of earth temperature change.

However, even assuming that claimed figure of the IPCC is correct at 3.3K for a huge range of time, that translates into a change since Industrial Revolution of .24 K attributable to CO2 and a change of .09% or a proportion of .0009 in temperature over that time span, which is a microscopic temperature change. Not even worth thinking about. Certainly insufficient to support a world wide political pseudo-scientific cult.

I like this study because we can confront the cultists on their own turf using their own assumptions and show that it still is a miniscule issue not worth getting into a sweat about.

Here is the full article.

DOI:1 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12  

Edited August 16, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

55 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 Radioactive decay inside earths core

Called it!

Confound and downplay.  Classic denialist tactics.

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

That appears to be 3.3K over a gigantic time frame, so, no, you will not notice any change in your lifespan.

I am happy that we could finally agree that the CO2 climate panic business is a mindless cult designed for shady political purposes.

So like slowly boiling a frog?

You did, for all intents and purposes, accept that a 120ppm increase in CO2 will increase global temp by at least 0.24K. So letting CO2 run wild is still not really acceptable.

The planet cares not about politics.

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Where do you see that? There is no realistic alternative to ICE, and the politics are showing that, with governments in Europe being challenged whenever they attempt to enforce Green nonsense.

"Angst over a law to phase out oil and gas heating brought Germany's ruling coalition close to breaking point, while in the Netherlands, anger at plans to cut nitrogen pollution led to a shock poll win for a new farmers' protest party."

"...officials say it is getting harder to pass green laws, with some EU governments resisting new emissions limits for cars and seeking to weaken pollution controls for livestock farms. A proposal to improve the energy efficiency of buildings faces pushback from countries worried by the cost.

Poland's government, which faces October elections, is even suing Brussels over climate policies.

"Does the EU want to make authoritarian decisions about what kind of vehicles Poles will drive?" its Minister of Climate and Environment Anna Moskwa asked last month."

Eco if you sign up to be part of the EU then yes it is an authoritarian system and what is right for some countries isnt for others.

Can you imagine the US being in a coalition government system with Canada and Mexico, and the US being outvoted on something and having to go along with a law you didnt agree with? Welcome to the EU!

If you like being told what to do without thinking (like a sheep) then I guess its perfect.

Generally I give people more credit than that and ultimately laws that didnt suit the UK were one of the main drivers of Brexit as people had had enough.

Green authoritarian laws I disagree with strongly, in fact I disagree with any authoritarian government laws, however green issues are at the forefront and its a multi trillion $ industry and where all the investment is going, like it or not. Historical oil & gas companies and utility companies in Europe are having to diversify into green industries in order to survive.

We disagree on many things but I think that is more of a geographical reason and recent experience issue. Over here its all green green green, you cannot get funding for almost any investment into anything oil + gas whereas in the US I guess that is much easier. EV's in Europe make a lot more sense as there is a defined infrastructure and range anxiety is far less of an issue than it is for US citizens.

Green is not a fad and will happen in Europe, the US is quite a way behind Europe and if and when you do start the transition it will be a very slow process, thats for sure. Maybe it will never happen, who knows, but my guess is it will.