GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[bloodman33 + 22]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire/index.html

[bloodman33 + 22]

The reality is 3/4 th of people that post here and are lying saying C02 does not causes the earth warming will be gone in 10 years, because they are old oil company shills. Good riddance. Nobody young reads this stuffs thank god.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Well blood"man"33

Here is yet another LINEAR tidal gauge which CO2 morons pretend is assymtotic: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Troy-Hill/publication/312181480/figure/fig2/AS:614099121614868@1523424048836/a-Relative-sea-level-measured-by-tide-gauges-in-New-York-City-Annual-data-from-The.png

New York with multiple gauges by the way.  IF CO2 warming were true, we should see assymtotic amounts of warming and assymtotic glaciers melting rising sea levels.  Guess what is NOT happening?  Its linear. 

If CO2 warming were true satellite data would not show a LINEAR rise in temps.  https://wattsupwiththat.com/uah-version-6/

Guess what is ALSO happening? Albedo change: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/05/the-continuing-albedo-change-warms-the-earth-more-than-twice-as-much-as-co2/    

I'll take more green plants growing... thanks.  More CO2 please.

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

There are terrible risks to an over-reliance on Green energy, witness this catastrophe.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Xcel-Energy-May-Have-Triggered-Wildfires-in-Texas.html

"Xcel Energy’s facilities in Texas may have been the cause of a spree of wildfires that ripped through the state.

Excel, based in Minneapolis, an electric utility and natural gas delivery company, said it very well may be responsible for igniting the recent Smokehouse Creek fire—the largest wildfire in the state’s history.

The Smokehouse Creek wildfire began February 26, incinerating over a million acres, destroying more than 500 homes, and killing two before spilling into neighboring Oklahoma. The wildfires quickly spread after ignition thanks to the high winds and low humidity. Texas A&M Forest Service has said that its investigators have concluded that the fires were ignited by power lines."

[TailingsPond + 874]

On 3/7/2024 at 9:25 AM, bloodman33 said:

The reality is 3/4 th of people that post here and are lying saying C02 does not causes the earth warming will be gone in 10 years, because they are old oil company shills. Good riddance. Nobody young reads this stuffs thank god.

The great scientist Max Plank said:

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

Colloquially, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle

I agree good riddance to these "fossil humans" with their conservative ideologues and who have no understanding of the current zeitgeist.

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:06 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well blood"man"33

Here is yet another LINEAR tidal gauge which CO2 morons pretend is assymtotic: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Troy-Hill/publication/312181480/figure/fig2/AS:614099121614868@1523424048836/a-Relative-sea-level-measured-by-tide-gauges-in-New-York-City-Annual-data-from-The.png

New York with multiple gauges by the way.  IF CO2 warming were true, we should see assymtotic amounts of warming and assymtotic glaciers melting rising sea levels.  Guess what is NOT happening?  Its linear. 

If CO2 warming were true satellite data would not show a LINEAR rise in temps.  https://wattsupwiththat.com/uah-version-6/

Guess what is ALSO happening? Albedo change: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/05/the-continuing-albedo-change-warms-the-earth-more-than-twice-as-much-as-co2/    

I'll take more green plants growing... thanks.  More CO2 please.

There has been sufficient work done to identify atmospheric H2O as the primary greenhouse gas, and even the NASA reports have reluctantly acceded and accepted this view. What remains for the tiny percentage of greenhouse gas which is anthropogenic is about 1/10th of one percent, including anthropogenic CO2, not a significant contributor to any climate change.

But if you repeat a lie often enough, gullible souls will accept it provided that they do not have a science background and are ignorant of science methodology. These poor souls will gravitate to follow disturbed political crackpots and that is what we are now seeing transpire in the political context.

Reality will win out, and we are now witnessing the "morning after" effects in the failure of the EV markets, and further disruptions in stranded Green energy failures. Every failed revolution has a cost to humanity, and that will continue to be the case with this mass panic.

The realities remain unchanged,

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti

"The price of oil is the most important value on the international commodity markets. Crude oil is the most important commodity and emerging industrial markets such as China, India and Latin America greatly influence the price of oil, since they require more and more oil to support their economic growth and resulting rise in energy consumption. "

 

Edited March 10 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,540]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:14 PM, Ecocharger said:

There are terrible risks to an over-reliance on Green energy, witness this catastrophe.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Xcel-Energy-May-Have-Triggered-Wildfires-in-Texas.html

"Xcel Energy’s facilities in Texas may have been the cause of a spree of wildfires that ripped through the state.

Excel, based in Minneapolis, an electric utility and natural gas delivery company, said it very well may be responsible for igniting the recent Smokehouse Creek fire—the largest wildfire in the state’s history.

The Smokehouse Creek wildfire began February 26, incinerating over a million acres, destroying more than 500 homes, and killing two before spilling into neighboring Oklahoma. The wildfires quickly spread after ignition thanks to the high winds and low humidity. Texas A&M Forest Service has said that its investigators have concluded that the fires were ignited by power lines."

Ahhh...

A downed pole on a distribution system owned by an electric utility represents what part of "over-reliance  on Green Energy"??

Do you use electricity?

Addicting stuff, ain't it?

The withdrawal symptoms are ugly.

Then, there's this event called "Deepwater Horizon".

One might say that there's an over-reliance on petroleum.

Edited March 10 by turbguy

[Polyphia + 83]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

There has been sufficient work done to identify atmospheric H2O as the primary greenhouse gas, and even the NASA reports have reluctantly acceded and accepted this view. What remains for the tiny percentage of greenhouse gas which is anthropogenic is about 1/10th of one percent, including anthropogenic CO2, not a significant contributor to any climate change.

That is not even close to what NASA reports and accepts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

But if you repeat a lie often enough, gullible souls will accept it provided that they do not have a science background and are ignorant of science methodology. These poor souls will gravitate to follow disturbed political crackpots and that is what we are now seeing transpire in the political context.

Yes--you and the other Trumpers are doing exactly this.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

6 hours ago, Polyphia said:

That is not even close to what NASA reports and accepts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Yes--you and the other Trumpers are doing exactly this.

 

When have I supported Trump? You are grasping at straws.

I will say this, Trump is not foolish enough to accept the crackpot ideas about CO2 causing climate change. He deserves credit for that.

NASA has accepted that H2O is responsible for "about half" of the greenhouse gas effect.

Here is one description of NASA ongoing research on atmospheric H2O, which is only in the initial phases.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/studying-earths-stratospheric-water-vapor/#:~:text=Water vapor is also an,which can increase the temperature.

"Water vapor is also an important component in Earth’s evolving climate system. As a major greenhouse gas – a gas that traps heat – water vapor absorbs heat produced by Earth’s surface and the shining Sun. The water molecules then emit that heat back to Earth’s surface which can increase the temperature. This relationship between an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere contributing to warming temperatures, and warmer temperatures causing an increase in water vapor is called a positive feedback loop."

There are no direct measures in your linked report to the relative contributions of greenhouse gases. That type of calculation shows that anthropogenic CO2 is a very tiny contributor to the greenhouse effect.

https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/05/05/study-finds-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutant/101322116/

 

"About 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. (DOE 2000). About 44% of man-made CO2 is coming from coal-fired power plants worldwide. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019), so that makes coal-fired CO2 about 1.4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.

America burns about 9% of the total worldwide coal usage (Enerdata, 2017), so that makes the total U.S. contribution to atmospheric CO2 about 0.126%. For example, Coal Creek plant in North Dakota was emitting about 10 million tons of CO2 annually. That comes to about 0.7% of America’s coal-fired CO2 emissions stated by EIA (1.36 billion tons per year).

So this brings Coal Creek’s CO2 contribution to the reservoir of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere to a whopping 0.0009 percent."

Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.

So roughly calculating from the numbers below, 3% of 25% is about .0075. Less than 1% using these numbers, and the total amount of temperature change due to anthropogenic CO2 over the last century is miniscule, less than 1/10th of 1% according to some studies.

https://iedro.org/articles/water-vapor-and-global-warming/

"Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared."

And the most comprehensive calculations of all, showing a very tiny role for anthropogenic CO2,

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/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."

And anthropogenic CO2 is very small,

"5.2. 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."

 

Edited March 10 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 874]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

When have I supported Trump? You are grasping at straws.

I will say this, Trump is not foolish enough to accept the crackpot ideas about CO2 causing climate change. He deserves credit for that.

[ ]

This relationship between an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere contributing to warming temperatures, and warmer temperatures causing an increase in water vapor is called a positive feedback loop."

[ ]

About 44% of man-made CO2 is coming from coal-fired power plants worldwide. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019), so that makes coal-fired CO2 about 1.4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.

America burns about 9% of the total worldwide coal usage (Enerdata, 2017), so that makes the total U.S. contribution to atmospheric CO2 [from coal alone] about 0.126%. For example, Coal Creek plant in North Dakota was emitting about 10 million tons of CO2 annually. That comes to about 0.7% of America’s coal-fired CO2 emissions stated by EIA (1.36 billion tons per year).

So this brings Coal Creek’s CO2 contribution to the reservoir of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere to a whopping 0.0009 percent."

Your first lines are very similar to "not to be racist" but... then making a racist statement.  You support Trump, why are you ashamed of that?

I like that you acknowledge the positive feedback loop with regards CO2 and water vapour.  Now factor in the methane gas from ocean gas hydrates if the world heats too much.  It will be an unrecoverable positive feedback loop; even you can admit that methane is a very potent greenhouse gas.

The "math" presented was also a joke.  The fraction of the USA CO2 emissions he is commenting on is just from coal. 

Think it out, 44% of CO2 emissions globally from coal alone, USA coal usage accounts for nine percent of that (0.44 x 0.09 = 0.04 or 4%). 

Then they do deceptive stats to say "only 3.2% of current CO2 is anthropogenic" and then slap on a 0.032 "correction" to get their 0.13% number (significant figures matter).  The thing is this is just the fraction from coal, none of the petroleum carbon emissions were included!

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

When have I supported Trump? You are grasping at straws.

I will say this, Trump is not foolish enough to accept the crackpot ideas about CO2 causing climate change. He deserves credit for that.

NASA has accepted that H2O is responsible for "about half" of the greenhouse gas effect.

Here is one description of NASA ongoing research on atmospheric H2O, which is only in the initial phases.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/studying-earths-stratospheric-water-vapor/#:~:text=Water vapor is also an,which can increase the temperature.

"Water vapor is also an important component in Earth’s evolving climate system. As a major greenhouse gas – a gas that traps heat – water vapor absorbs heat produced by Earth’s surface and the shining Sun. The water molecules then emit that heat back to Earth’s surface which can increase the temperature. This relationship between an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere contributing to warming temperatures, and warmer temperatures causing an increase in water vapor is called a positive feedback loop."

There are no direct measures in your linked report to the relative contributions of greenhouse gases. That type of calculation shows that anthropogenic CO2 is a very tiny contributor to the greenhouse effect.

https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/05/05/study-finds-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutant/101322116/

 

"About 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. (DOE 2000). About 44% of man-made CO2 is coming from coal-fired power plants worldwide. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019), so that makes coal-fired CO2 about 1.4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.

America burns about 9% of the total worldwide coal usage (Enerdata, 2017), so that makes the total U.S. contribution to atmospheric CO2 about 0.126%. For example, Coal Creek plant in North Dakota was emitting about 10 million tons of CO2 annually. That comes to about 0.7% of America’s coal-fired CO2 emissions stated by EIA (1.36 billion tons per year).

So this brings Coal Creek’s CO2 contribution to the reservoir of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere to a whopping 0.0009 percent."

Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.

So roughly calculating from the numbers below, 3% of 25% is about .0075. Less than 1% using these numbers, and the total amount of temperature change due to anthropogenic CO2 over the last century is miniscule, less than 1/10th of 1% according to some studies.

https://iedro.org/articles/water-vapor-and-global-warming/

"Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared."

And the most comprehensive calculations of all, showing a very tiny role for anthropogenic CO2,

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/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."

 

ECOCHUMP states..............

"About 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. (DOE 2000). About 44% of man-made CO2 is coming from coal-fired power plants worldwide. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019), so that makes coal-fired CO2 about 1.4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.????
 

THIS IS BULLSHIT

There is no report ever published by the DOE that 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. 

this is a false claim with madeup numbers that crackpots such as Ecochump repost over and over again...the 1.4 percent is Australia's contribution of the increase of CO2 worldwide since 1850 

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about 33% of that, not 3%, since 1850. Australia has contributed around 1.4% of accumulated human CO2 emissions during that timeframe. However, that's 1.4% of around 33%, not 1.4% of 3% (or 1.3% of 3%) as claimed 

In 1850, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 280 parts per million. The increase to the current level of 421 parts per million is all a result of human activity.

So roughly a third, not 3%, of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since 1850.

 

Edited March 10 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

21 hours ago, Polyphia said:

That is not even close to what NASA reports and accepts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Yes--you and the other Trumpers are doing exactly this.

 

Here is the NASA reference to "about half". This must have been very painful for this man to admit that H2O is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

Poor man, but science must rule.

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

"Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder. Water vapor is also a key part of Earth’s water cycle: the path that all water follows as it moves around Earth’s atmosphere, land, and ocean as liquid water, solid ice, and gaseous water vapor."

I will gladly loan him my handkerchief to dry his tears.

And here is the pathetic nonsense about anthropogenic CO2 exposed for all to see.

 

And anthropogenic CO2 is very small,

"5.2. 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."

The feedback effect is very curious.

"3.6. Temperature Feedback There is a further feedback which is often overlooked. As temperature increases the Planck radiation emitted by the earth increases proportionally to T4 . The peak intensity also moves towards shorter wavelengths. This changes slightly the overall absorption by the greenhouse gases, since their absorptivity is also wavelength dependent. Figure 18 shows the total atmospheric absorption variation with earth temperature. It is an almost linear relationship with a negative gradient. As temperature increases the absorptivity decreases. This leads to a negative feedback effect, not dissimilar to the H2O feedback effect, but in the opposite direction. The decrease in absorptivity produces a corresponding decrease in temperature, and so on. Figure 19 gives the relationship for the temperature decrease produced by a decrease in absorptivity.

 Just as for the H2O feedback, the change in temperature ∆T is given by the infinite series ∆T=∆T0·Σn(p·q)n for n=0 to ∞ Where “p” is the slope of the absorption v temperature in Figure 18 in %Kelvin, and q is the slope of the temperature increase resulting from an increase in absorptivity in Figure 19 in Kelvin%. p=- 0.08555 %Kelvin and q=0.6173 Kelvin% resulting in a value for p x q of - 0.0528 and a value, for the infinite series Σn(p·q)n of 0.9498, a feedback factor which actually opposes the H2O feedback. A total feedback multiplier is found by multiplying the two contributing feedback factors 0.9498 x 1.183=1.124 thus reducing the feedback effect of H2O by one third from an increase of 18,3% to one of 12.4%."

No wonder the net feedback effect is "often overlooked"!

Edited March 11 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

Ahhh...

A downed pole on a distribution system owned by an electric utility represents what part of "over-reliance  on Green Energy"??

Do you use electricity?

Addicting stuff, ain't it?

The withdrawal symptoms are ugly.

Then, there's this event called "Deepwater Horizon".

One might say that there's an over-reliance on petroleum.

This was a major catastrophe...and it can happen any time.

Edited March 10 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

When have I supported Trump? You are grasping at straws.

I will say this, Trump is not foolish enough to accept the crackpot ideas about CO2 causing climate change. He deserves credit for that.

NASA has accepted that H2O is responsible for "about half" of the greenhouse gas effect.

Here is one description of NASA ongoing research on atmospheric H2O, which is only in the initial phases.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/studying-earths-stratospheric-water-vapor/#:~:text=Water vapor is also an,which can increase the temperature.

"Water vapor is also an important component in Earth’s evolving climate system. As a major greenhouse gas – a gas that traps heat – water vapor absorbs heat produced by Earth’s surface and the shining Sun. The water molecules then emit that heat back to Earth’s surface which can increase the temperature. This relationship between an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere contributing to warming temperatures, and warmer temperatures causing an increase in water vapor is called a positive feedback loop."

There are no direct measures in your linked report to the relative contributions of greenhouse gases. That type of calculation shows that anthropogenic CO2 is a very tiny contributor to the greenhouse effect.

https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/05/05/study-finds-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutant/101322116/

 

"About 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. (DOE 2000). About 44% of man-made CO2 is coming from coal-fired power plants worldwide. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019), so that makes coal-fired CO2 about 1.4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.

America burns about 9% of the total worldwide coal usage (Enerdata, 2017), so that makes the total U.S. contribution to atmospheric CO2 about 0.126%. For example, Coal Creek plant in North Dakota was emitting about 10 million tons of CO2 annually. That comes to about 0.7% of America’s coal-fired CO2 emissions stated by EIA (1.36 billion tons per year).

So this brings Coal Creek’s CO2 contribution to the reservoir of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere to a whopping 0.0009 percent."

Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.

So roughly calculating from the numbers below, 3% of 25% is about .0075. Less than 1% using these numbers, and the total amount of temperature change due to anthropogenic CO2 over the last century is miniscule, less than 1/10th of 1% according to some studies.

https://iedro.org/articles/water-vapor-and-global-warming/

"Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared."

And the most comprehensive calculations of all, showing a very tiny role for anthropogenic CO2,

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/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."

And anthropogenic CO2 is very small,

"5.2. 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."

 

ECOCHUMP states..............

"About 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. (DOE 2000). About 44% of man-made CO2 is coming from coal-fired power plants worldwide. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019), so that makes coal-fired CO2 about 1.4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.????
 

THIS IS BULLSHIT

There is no report ever published by the DOE that 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. 

this is a false claim with madeup numbers that crackpots such as Ecochump repost over and over again...the 1.4 percent is Australia's contribution of the increase of CO2 worldwide since 1850 

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about 33% of that, not 3%, since 1850. Australia has contributed around 1.4% of accumulated human CO2 emissions during that timeframe. However, that's 1.4% of around 33%, not 1.4% of 3% (or 1.3% of 3%) as claimed 

In 1850, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 280 parts per million. The increase to the current level of 421 parts per million is all a result of human activity.

So roughly a third, not 3%, of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since 1850.

[notsonice + 1,255]

13 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the NASA reference to "about half". This must have been very painful for this man to admit that H2O is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

Poor man, but science must rule.

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

"Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder. Water vapor is also a key part of Earth’s water cycle: the path that all water follows as it moves around Earth’s atmosphere, land, and ocean as liquid water, solid ice, and gaseous water vapor."

I will gladly loan him my handkerchief to dry his tears.

And here is the pathetic nonsense about anthropogenic CO2 exposed for all to see.

 

And anthropogenic CO2 is very small,

"5.2. 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."

The feedback effect is very curious.

"3.6. Temperature Feedback There is a further feedback which is often overlooked. As temperature increases the Planck radiation emitted by the earth increases proportionally to T4 . The peak intensity also moves towards shorter wavelengths. This changes slightly the overall absorption by the greenhouse gases, since their absorptivity is also wavelength dependent. Figure 18 shows the total atmospheric absorption variation with earth temperature. It is an almost linear relationship with a negative gradient. As temperature increases the absorptivity decreases. This leads to a negative feedback effect, not dissimilar to the H2O feedback effect, but in the opposite direction. The decrease in absorptivity produces a corresponding decrease in temperature, and so on. Figure 19 gives the relationship for the temperature decrease produced by a decrease in absorptivity.

 Just as for the H2O feedback, the change in temperature ∆T is given by the infinite series ∆T=∆T0·Σn(p·q)n for n=0 to ∞ Where “p” is the slope of the absorption v temperature in Figure 18 in %Kelvin, and q is the slope of the temperature increase resulting from an increase in absorptivity in Figure 19 in Kelvin%. p=- 0.08555 %Kelvin and q=0.6173 Kelvin% resulting in a value for p x q of - 0.0528 and a value, for the infinite series Σn(p·q)n of 0.9498, a feedback factor which actually opposes the H2O feedback. A total feedback multiplier is found by multiplying the two contributing feedback factors 0.9498 x 1.183=1.124 thus reducing the feedback effect of H2O by one third from an increase of 18.3% to one of 12.4%. "

MORE BS POSTED BY A CRACKPOT

Carbon dioxide is responsible for 53% of the level of global warming. It is the result of processes such as fuel use, deforestation and production of cement and other materials.

CO₂ produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming. By 2020, its concentration in the atmosphere had risen to 48% above its pre-industrial level (before 1750). Other greenhouse gases are emitted by human activities in smaller quantities.

According to NOAA's 2023 Annual Climate Report the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade since 1850, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast: 0.36° F (0.20° C) per decade.Jan 18, 2024

 

[turbguy + 1,540]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

This was a major catastrophe...and it can happen any time.

Yeah, ya gotta watch out for those Zionist space lasers!

Yes, catastrophes happen.  

I still scratch my head  on how this ties into "green energy"...

[turbguy + 1,540]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

When have I supported Trump? You are grasping at straws.

I will say this, Trump is not foolish enough to accept the crackpot ideas about CO2 causing climate change. He deserves credit for that.

NASA has accepted that H2O is responsible for "about half" of the greenhouse gas effect.

Here is one description of NASA ongoing research on atmospheric H2O, which is only in the initial phases.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/studying-earths-stratospheric-water-vapor/#:~:text=Water vapor is also an,which can increase the temperature.

"Water vapor is also an important component in Earth’s evolving climate system. As a major greenhouse gas – a gas that traps heat – water vapor absorbs heat produced by Earth’s surface and the shining Sun. The water molecules then emit that heat back to Earth’s surface which can increase the temperature. This relationship between an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere contributing to warming temperatures, and warmer temperatures causing an increase in water vapor is called a positive feedback loop."

There are no direct measures in your linked report to the relative contributions of greenhouse gases. That type of calculation shows that anthropogenic CO2 is a very tiny contributor to the greenhouse effect.

https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/05/05/study-finds-carbon-dioxide-not-pollutant/101322116/

 

"About 3.2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. (DOE 2000). About 44% of man-made CO2 is coming from coal-fired power plants worldwide. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019), so that makes coal-fired CO2 about 1.4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere.

America burns about 9% of the total worldwide coal usage (Enerdata, 2017), so that makes the total U.S. contribution to atmospheric CO2 about 0.126%. For example, Coal Creek plant in North Dakota was emitting about 10 million tons of CO2 annually. That comes to about 0.7% of America’s coal-fired CO2 emissions stated by EIA (1.36 billion tons per year).

So this brings Coal Creek’s CO2 contribution to the reservoir of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere to a whopping 0.0009 percent."

Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.

So roughly calculating from the numbers below, 3% of 25% is about .0075. Less than 1% using these numbers, and the total amount of temperature change due to anthropogenic CO2 over the last century is miniscule, less than 1/10th of 1% according to some studies.

https://iedro.org/articles/water-vapor-and-global-warming/

"Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared."

And the most comprehensive calculations of all, showing a very tiny role for anthropogenic CO2,

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/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."

And anthropogenic CO2 is very small,

"5.2. 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."

 

"Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council"?  That's a new one. 

https://www.edf.org/media/supreme-court-rejects-challenges-epas-endangerment-finding

"EPA’s determination that climate pollution harms people’s health and well-being is solidly anchored in science and the law, which EPA and the courts have found numerous times in the face of repeated and flawed attacks".

If H₂O is a factor, i suspect that aviation's exhaust doesn't help much.  Particularly "depositing it" so high in our atmosphere.

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

If H₂O is a factor, i suspect that aviation's exhaust doesn't help much.  Particularly "depositing it" so high in our atmosphere.

Ya Don't Say..sounds like a manmade air purification process. Unless of course nature decides no to rain anymore. 

Then again it my understanding Wyoming moutian ranges are somewhat of a arid environment...perhaps your foundation of thought?

[TailingsPond + 874]

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ya Don't Say..sounds like a manmade air purification process. Unless of course nature decides no to rain anymore. 

Then again it my understanding Wyoming moutian ranges are somewhat of a arid environment...perhaps your foundation of thought?

You are essentially illiterate - your ability to stack so many errors into short spaces is amazing.

Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent coward?

Edited March 10 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 874]

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ya Don't Say..sounds like a manmade air purification process. Unless of course nature decides no to rain anymore. 

Then again it my understanding Wyoming moutian ranges are somewhat of a arid environment...perhaps your foundation of thought?

I can write, you can't.  However, I can translate your word pollution.

"You don't say? It sounds like a man-made air purification process - unless, of course, nature decides not to rain anymore.

Then again, it is my understanding that Wyoming mountain ranges are somewhat of an arid environment; do you have any comments on that?"

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

8 hours ago, turbguy said:

"Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council"?  That's a new one. 

https://www.edf.org/media/supreme-court-rejects-challenges-epas-endangerment-finding

"EPA’s determination that climate pollution harms people’s health and well-being is solidly anchored in science and the law, which EPA and the courts have found numerous times in the face of repeated and flawed attacks".

If H₂O is a factor, i suspect that aviation's exhaust doesn't help much.  Particularly "depositing it" so high in our atmosphere.

 

Ah yes, a bunch of bureaucrats who run around trying to justify their jobs by grabbing ever MORE and MORE POWER every year...

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

"Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council"?  That's a new one. 

https://www.edf.org/media/supreme-court-rejects-challenges-epas-endangerment-finding

"EPA’s determination that climate pollution harms people’s health and well-being is solidly anchored in science and the law, which EPA and the courts have found numerous times in the face of repeated and flawed attacks".

If H₂O is a factor, i suspect that aviation's exhaust doesn't help much.  Particularly "depositing it" so high in our atmosphere.

 

Even the NASA research claims that H2O is the most significant greenhouse gas, this is not a subject of controversy.

[turbguy + 1,540]

9 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Even the NASA research claims that H2O is the most significant greenhouse gas, this is not a subject of controversy.

I can agree that H₂O is a significant greenhouse gas, more effective than CO₂. 

We don't have to add a non-condensable to the mix, do we?  Particularly up high...

[notsonice + 1,255]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Even the NASA research claims that H2O is the most significant greenhouse gas, this is not a subject of controversy.

can you read ??????? increasing  water is the atmosphere does not cause global warming today ....it is caused by an increase in CO2 levels

Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

 “As humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, small changes in climate are amplified by changes in water vapor. This makes carbon dioxide a much more potent greenhouse gas than it would be on a planet without water vapor.”

 

 

ASK NASA CLIMATE | February 8, 2022, 07:55 PST

Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

 

 

 

 

Credit: John Fowler on Unsplash

Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder. Water vapor is also a key part of Earth’s water cycle: the path that all water follows as it moves around Earth’s atmosphere, land, and ocean as liquid water, solid ice, and gaseous water vapor.

A simplified animation of the greenhouse effect.

Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius). Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the laws of thermodynamics.

Get NASA's Climate Change News

 

Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.

 

Earth's water cycle. Credit: NASA

It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response. This increases evaporation from both water and land areas. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone.

 

This diagram shows the mechanisms behind a positive water vapor feedback loop. Increases in carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, cause a rise global air temperatures. Due to increased evaporation and since warmer air holds more water, water vapor levels in the atmosphere rise, which further increases greenhouse warming. The cycle reinforces itself. The background is a sunset through altocumulus clouds. Credit: NASA and NOAA Historic NWS Collection

A Different Breed of Greenhouse Gas

The greenhouse gases in the dry air in Earth’s atmosphere include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons. While making up around 0.05% of Earth’s total atmosphere, they play major roles in trapping Earth’s radiant heat from the Sun and keeping it from escaping into space. Each is driven directly by human activities.

 

Composition of Earth's atmosphere by molecular count, excluding water vapor. Lower pie represents trace gases that together compose about 0.0434% of the atmosphere (0.0442% at August 2021 concentrations). Numbers are mainly from 2000, with CO₂ and methane from 2019, and do not represent any single source. Credit: Public domain

All five of these greenhouse gases are non-condensable. Non-condensable gases can’t be changed into liquid at the very cold temperatures present at the top of Earth’s troposphere, where it meets the stratosphere. As atmospheric temperatures change, the concentration of non-condensable gases remains stable.

But water vapor is a different animal. It’s condensable – it can be changed from a gas into a liquid. Its concentration depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. This makes water vapor the only greenhouse gas whose concentration increases because the atmosphere is warming, and causes it to warm even more.

If non-condensable gases weren’t increasing, the amount of atmospheric water vapor would be unchanged from its pre-industrial revolution levels.

Carbon Dioxide Is Still King

Carbon dioxide is responsible for a third of the total warming of Earth’s climate due to human-produced greenhouse gases. Small increases in its concentration have major effects. A key reason is the length of time carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere.

Methane, carbon dioxide, and chlorofluorocarbons don’t condense, and they aren’t particularly chemically reactive or easily broken down by light in the troposphere. For these reasons, they remain in the atmosphere for anywhere from years to centuries or even longer, depending on the gas.

 

This table shows 100-year global warming potentials, which describe the effects that occur over a period of 100 years after a particular mass of a gas is emitted. Global warming potentials and lifetimes come from Table 8.A.1 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I contribution.

* Carbon dioxide’s lifetime cannot be represented with a single value because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves among different parts of the ocean–atmosphere–land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide is absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments.

** The lifetimes shown for methane and nitrous oxide are perturbation lifetimes, which have been used to calculate the global warming potentials shown here. Credit: EPA

In contrast, a molecule of water vapor stays in the atmosphere just nine days, on average. It then gets recycled as rain or snow. Its amounts don’t accumulate, despite its much larger relative quantities.

“Carbon dioxide and other non-condensable greenhouse gases act as control knobs for the climate,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University in College Station. “As humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, small changes in climate are amplified by changes in water vapor. This makes carbon dioxide a much more potent greenhouse gas than it would be on a planet without water vapor.”

 

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) showed that there has been an increase in the flow between the various stages of the water cycle over most the U.S. in the past seven decades. The rates of ocean evaporation, terrestrial evapotranspiration, and precipitation have been increasing. In other words, water has been moving more quickly and intensely through the various stages.

This map shows where the water cycle has been intensifying or weakening across the continental U.S. from 1945-1974 to 1985-2014. Areas in blue show where the water cycle has been speeding up—moving through the various stages faster or with more volume. Red areas have seen declines in precipitation and evapotranspiration and experienced less intense or slower cycles. Larger intensity values indicate more water was cycling in that region, primarily due to increased precipitation. Credit: NASA Earth Observatory image by Lauren Dauphin, using data from Huntington, Thomas, et al. (2018).

Wreaking Havoc on the Global Water Cycle

 

Flooding in Roman Forest, Texas, on September 19, 2019, from Tropical Storm Imelda. Credit: Photo by Jill Carlson, used under Creative Commons license.

Increases in atmospheric water vapor also amplify the global water cycle. They contribute to making wet regions wetter and dry regions drier. The more water vapor that air contains, the more energy it holds. This energy fuels intense storms, particularly over land. This results in more extreme weather events.

But more evaporation from the land also dries soils out. When water from intense storms falls on hard, dry ground, it runs off into rivers and streams instead of dampening soils. This increases the risk of drought.

In short, when atmospheric water vapor meets increased levels of other greenhouse gases, its impacts on Earth’s climate are substantial.

Edited March 11 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

I can agree that H₂O is a significant greenhouse gas, more effective than CO₂. 

We don't have to add a non-condensable to the mix, do we?  Particularly up high...

Nope, H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas and CO2 is just not enough to be a significant contributor to global warming.

"5.2. 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."

"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 March 11 by Ecocharger