GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is new technology

Pyrolysis is very old technology.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

19 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Post it again, it clearly showed CO2 as a driver.  Saying it is "less significant" than water is not the same as no effect.

PS the word "significant" has special meaning in science.  Do not toss around "insignificant" when you do not understand p values. 

Why would I cry? You are the one supporting losers.  Personally I like winners.  I must be painful for you living in a world where no one listens to you.

"Significant" has different meanings, not just the statistical one. I guess they did not teach you that in grade school.

Here is the article.

One thing we do know is that CO2 is an insignificant factor in green house gas impact.

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

 "From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to CH₄ and N₂O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact."

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

47 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Pyrolysis is very old technology.

 

You missed the mark again, old boy. It is a "NEW process" or technology. We should soon be able to recycle our used plastic bags into higher value products. I cannot wait!

"In this new process, the UW-Madison team recovers olefins from pyrolysis oil and uses them in a much less energy-intensive chemical process called homogenous hydroformylation catalysis. This process converts olefins into aldehydes, which can then be further reduced into important industrial alcohols.

“These products can be used to make a wide range of materials that are higher value,” said George Huber, a professor of chemical and biological engineering who led the work alongside postdoctoral researcher Houqian Li and PhD student Jiayang Wu."

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

25 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

No it doesn't, and it does move the needle.

CO2 does not move the needle. Here is the full context of atmospheric effects from H2O which give a better explanation of climate change that the changes in CO2.

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

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 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Another piece of the atmospheric puzzle is now coming into focus in recent research, namely reduced particulate levels, which could explain recent warming trends.

Here is from one of the the articles above quoted, indicating that reduced air pollution levels due to stricter rules in North America and Europe can potentially explain most of the observed temperature change in recent decades.

 

And yet again, CO2 plays ZERO role in this important factor.

https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth

In more recent work, they take this analysis a step further, calculating the amount of cooling associated with the tracks’ brightening effect and the way the pollution extended the lifetime of the clouds. IMO rules have warmed the planet by 0.1 watts per square meter—double the warming caused by changes to clouds by airplanes, they conclude in a paper under review. The impact is magnified in regions of heavy shipping, like the north Atlantic, where the disappearing clouds are “shock to the system,” Yuan says. The increase in light, which was worsened by a lack of reflective Saharan dust over the ocean this year, “can account for most of the warming observed” in the Atlantic this summer, he says."

And along the same lines,

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2874/Study-Reducing-human-caused-air-pollution-in-North-America-and-Europe-brings-surprising-result-more-hurricanes

"Over the last 40 years, Europe and North America have been leaders in reducing particulate air pollution from industry, autos, energy and other sources. The increasing absence of human-caused air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, estimated to be a 50-percent drop in concentration from 1980 to 2020, has led to surface warming over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to more frequent tropical cyclones. Without significant amounts of particulate pollution to reflect sunlight, the ocean absorbs more heat and warms faster. A warming Atlantic Ocean has been a key ingredient to a 33-percent increase in the number of tropical cyclones during this 40-year period, Murakami said.  The decrease in pollution has also led to a warming of the mid- and high-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere."

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

40 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

with CO₂ contributing 3.3K

There you go, CO2 moves thee needle plenty (3.3K is a lot).

You are not debunking anything. 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

39 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

"Significant" has different meanings, not just the statistical one.

 

We are discussing science.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

20 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Another piece of the atmospheric puzzle is now coming into focus in recent research, namely reduced particulate levels, which could explain recent warming trends.

Getting off track now.  Focus.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

There you go, CO2 moves thee needle plenty (3.3K is a lot).

You are not debunking anything

 

You are math challenged, old boy.

"H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. "

And

"This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact."

I guess this a real gut wrenching reality for your cult leaders. Too bad.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

with CO₂ contributing 3.3K

Read it out loud for yourself.  Turn you thermostat of your house up from 70F to 78F and say it's insignificant.

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

6 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

We are discussing science.

Even in science, "significant" has different meanings, as I just proved to you above.

 "...increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature"

So sad for your cult people....oh well, feel good about your next visit to the gasoline station nearest you.

Enjoy!

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Even in science, "significant" has different meanings, as I just proved to you above.

Generally looking for p<0.05.

You "proved" nothing.  You found a paper that was wrong, that is not evidence of anything.  Remember you believe most papers are wrong. 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Generally looking for p<0.05.

You "proved" nothing.  You found a paper that was wrong, that is not evidence of anything.  Remember you believe most papers are wrong. 

 

"Significant" depends on the context. The proper context for your view is "statistcially significant" which is not the context in this paper.

No, I believe that papers must be taken into a fuller context to be of any actual value, just focusing on one variable and ignoring the full context leads to wild inaccuracies, such as the CO2 theory claiming that CO2 is the dominant climate driver. That is wild nonsense caused by reducing the focus to just one variable.

Poor science.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are math challenged, old boy.

"H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. "

 

3.3K of 33K is 10% of the damn change.  Would you argue a 10% sales tax applied to gas would be insignificant?  Doubt it.

You are digging your own grave here.

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, I believe that papers must be taken into a fuller context to be of any actual value, just focusing on one variable and ignoring the full context leads to wild inaccuracies,

Really why didn't you post the full abstract instead a small portion?  The authors do not hold your opinion and accept the greenhouse effect model.

Abstract

It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H₂O and CO₂. What is surprising is the wide variation in the estimated warming potential of CO₂, the gas held responsible for the modern concept of climate change. Estimates published by the IPCC for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂ concentration vary from 1.5 to 4.5°C based upon a plethora of scientific papers attempting to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics to determine their results. 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. The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to CH₄ and N₂O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact.

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

3.3K of 33K is 10% of the damn change.  Would you argue a 10% sales tax applied to gas would be insignificant?  Doubt it.

You are digging your own grave here.

You have just dug yours, old boy.

What is 29.4 K of 33 K? That is 89% of the change, almost 90% which is overwhelming.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

You have just dug yours, old boy.

What is 29.4 K of 33 K? That is 89% of the change, almost 90% which is overwhelming.

Your point?  Fact remains 10% is a lot.  Continue wasting ten percent of your income as it doesn't matter because 90% is spent on useful stuff.

Faulty logic.

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

Really why didn't you post the full abstract instead a small portion?  The authors do not hold your opinion and accept the greenhouse effect model.

Abstract

It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H₂O and CO₂. What is surprising is the wide variation in the estimated warming potential of CO₂, the gas held responsible for the modern concept of climate change. Estimates published by the IPCC for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂ concentration vary from 1.5 to 4.5°C based upon a plethora of scientific papers attempting to analyse the complexities of atmospheric thermodynamics to determine their results. 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. The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to CH₄ and N₂O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact.

The paper shows the relative importance of various greenhouse gases, and the overwhelming importance of the H2O impact.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Take note people.  Ecocharger is on record saying ten percent change is nothing. 

Yet if oil goes up 1% he wets his pants.

Edited August 17, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 8/15/2023 at 6:46 PM, TailingsPond said:

Your point?  Fact remains 10% is a lot.  Continue wasting ten percent of your income as it doesn't matter because 90% is spent on useful stuff.

Faulty logic.

The impact of H2O is therefore about 90% of the CO2 effect. 

CO2 is bullied by H2O.

Edited March 10 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

The paper shows the relative importance of various greenhouse gases, and the overwhelming importance of the H2O impact.

It clearly shows the impact of CO2, you should stop posting it. 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Take note people.  Ecocharger is on record saying ten percent change is nothing. 

Yet if oil goes up 1% and he wets his pants.

Not "nothing" but "insignificant" compared to H2O. You seem to have a problem with quotes, old man.

Here is the exact quote from the paper,

 "increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature "

Sound good? Rejoice, you can now fill your gas tank without feeling guilty.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

I'm done for now, you've got nothing except for evidence against your claims.

Try harder.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

I'm done for now, you've got nothing except for evidence against your claims.

Try harder.

Man, you just got owned.

Go and fill your gas tank, drive around the area and ENJOY your fossil fuel vehicle.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Man, you just got owned.

 

The rest of the world disagrees. The consensus remains.