GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Earth hasn't been over 400ppm in 20 million years. That is a hella lot of sod!

Jay are you suffering from Co2 poisoning?

Do you see people dropping dead or becoming deformed due to C02 being over 400ppm? I dont

To poison humans it would have to be more than 10 times what it currently is.

I see people dropping dead from pollution which was my point

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And there is a lot more to the world than just human physiology. The negative climate changes here in western N. America during my life time are dramatic and accelerating. 

Climate change is not related to C02 levels its BS

As @Ecocharger has shown you by the latest studies of the sun, these models are 97% accurate, show me a climate model that approaches anywhere near that accuracy!

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Climate change is not related to C02 levels its BS

As @Ecocharger has shown you by the latest studies of the sun, these models are 97% accurate, show me a climate model that approaches anywhere near that accuracy!

The people who claim they are 97% accurate are the people who made the models. No other scientists agree. Go figure.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Climate change is not related to C02 levels its BS

As @Ecocharger has shown you by the latest studies of the sun, these models are 97% accurate, show me a climate model that approaches anywhere near that accuracy!

Oh and those people who made the models still agree that high CO2 is correlated with mass extinctions.

[Rob Plant + 2,617]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The people who claim they are 97% accurate are the people who made the models. No other scientists agree. Go figure.

Still waiting for your accurate climate change model

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Rob Plant said:

Still waiting for your accurate climate change model

I'm still waiting for you to provide one that a consensus of scientists agree with.

In the mean time 

This is from the work you are citing:

A prominent 15 million-year CO₂ cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO₂, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm

Other interesting research shows:

When plants take in an excess of CO2, their chemical makeup changes in a way that that’s harmful to the humans and animals that depend on them for nutrition: higher concentrations of CO2, increases the synthesis of carbohydrates like sugars and starches, and decrease the concentrations of proteins and nutrients like zinc, iron, and B-vitamins. “This is very important for how we think about food security going forward,” Ebi says. https://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving#:~:text=Not only will climate change,of CO2%2C increases the synthesis

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Global power demand is rising so fast this year after the 2020 slump that even the continued strong growth of renewable electricity generation will not be enough to meet it, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday, warning that coal power generation will jump and threaten efforts of emissions reduction.

This year, global electricity demand is expected to surge by 5 percent from the levels of 2020, when power consumption fell by around 1 percent due to the effects of the pandemic, the IEA said in its semi-annual Electricity Market Report published on Thursday.

Thanks to the global economic recovery, electricity demand worldwide is also expected to rise by another 4 percent in 2022, the agency added.

Despite the strong momentum of renewable power generation, renewables alone will not be anywhere close to meeting with rising global power demand, the IEA said. This means that nearly half of the rise in electricity demand will be met by power generation from fossil fuels, most notably coal.

The Asia Pacific region, China and India in particular, will be the largest contributors to rising electricity demand, the IEA said.

According to the agency’s estimates, fossil fuel electricity generation is set to cover 45 percent of additional demand this year and 40 percent next year, while nuclear power would make up the rest of the increase in global power demand. As a result, carbon emissions from the electricity sector – which fell in both 2019 and 2020 – are expected to rise by 3.5 percent in 2021 and by 2.5 percent in 2022, reaching an all-time high next year.

Despite the growth in renewables, the annual rise in green energy generation outpaced the growth in electricity demand only in 2019 and 2020, but it was due to very slow or declining demand in those years. This suggests that “renewables outpacing the rest of the electricity sector is not yet the new normal,” the IEA said.

“Renewable power is growing impressively in many parts of the world, but it still isn’t where it needs to be to put us on a path to reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century,” said Keisuke Sadamori, the IEA Director of Energy Markets and Security. “As economies rebound, we’ve seen a surge in electricity generation from fossil fuels,” Sadamori added

GO GREENIES YOUR ALL NUTS

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, RichieRich216 said:

Global power demand is rising so fast this year after the 2020 slump that even the continued strong growth of renewable electricity generation will not be enough to meet it, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday, warning that coal power generation will jump and threaten efforts of emissions reduction.

This year, global electricity demand is expected to surge by 5 percent from the levels of 2020, when power consumption fell by around 1 percent due to the effects of the pandemic, the IEA said in its semi-annual Electricity Market Report published on Thursday.

Thanks to the global economic recovery, electricity demand worldwide is also expected to rise by another 4 percent in 2022, the agency added.

Despite the strong momentum of renewable power generation, renewables alone will not be anywhere close to meeting with rising global power demand, the IEA said. This means that nearly half of the rise in electricity demand will be met by power generation from fossil fuels, most notably coal.

The Asia Pacific region, China and India in particular, will be the largest contributors to rising electricity demand, the IEA said.

According to the agency’s estimates, fossil fuel electricity generation is set to cover 45 percent of additional demand this year and 40 percent next year, while nuclear power would make up the rest of the increase in global power demand. As a result, carbon emissions from the electricity sector – which fell in both 2019 and 2020 – are expected to rise by 3.5 percent in 2021 and by 2.5 percent in 2022, reaching an all-time high next year.

Despite the growth in renewables, the annual rise in green energy generation outpaced the growth in electricity demand only in 2019 and 2020, but it was due to very slow or declining demand in those years. This suggests that “renewables outpacing the rest of the electricity sector is not yet the new normal,” the IEA said.

“Renewable power is growing impressively in many parts of the world, but it still isn’t where it needs to be to put us on a path to reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century,” said Keisuke Sadamori, the IEA Director of Energy Markets and Security. “As economies rebound, we’ve seen a surge in electricity generation from fossil fuels,” Sadamori added

GO GREENIES YOUR ALL NUTS

Ten years ago renewables weren't even on the map. Now they are expected to cover 50% or more of increasing power demand. If you think fossils are the future you are an intellectual cow patty.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I suppose you are one of those people who think we rode dinosaurs.

You were there? I sometimes use the term dinosaur for those who cannot keep up with the new science, but this is ridiculous.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, it is another of the pesky ideas they are about to make law. Being only 14 years away European car companies will stop all investment in new ice and put all their money into EV development. Then before you know it they will be producing EVs and not ICE. 

Laws can be changed, and modified, and changed again....don't hold your breath on oil disappearing.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Good grief!

Yes some animals and fauna lived at 3,000ppm but they weren't human or even close.

This is from the link you provided:

The last time we were at 3,000 was 200 million years ago. This is what we looked like then:

The entirety of the evolution of the monkeys, apes and us all happened in less than 400ppm. Your personal incredulity at the level only being 400ppm is some real Dunning Kruger. Since we did evolve at under 400ppm the burden of proof is on you to show that we will thrive in an environment of much higher CO2 and you have absolutely no proof that we will. You even seem to contradict yourself.

You say "What says humans (and other fauna) cant live just fine at 3000ppm or a lot higher," But just before that you state that 5,000 could be harmful. Are we supposed to run it up to those numbers and then think about doing something about it?

And there is a lot more to the world than just human physiology. The negative climate changes here in western N. America during my life time are dramatic and accelerating. 

Many of us don't want to run out your experiment for your amusement.

How about you show us how climate change is related to CO2? Actually, climate change is not related to CO2, we know that for a fact. You are swimming upstream against the new science.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The people who claim they are 97% accurate are the people who made the models. No other scientists agree. Go figure.

You obviously are not well read on the subject, Jay.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

How about you show us how climate change is related to CO2? Actually, climate change is not related to CO2, we know that for a fact. You are swimming upstream against the new science.

Your "new science" is not accepted by 99.9% of scientists. How about you get a few of them to agree with it?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You obviously are not well read on the subject, Jay.

There aren't more than a couple papers on the subject to read and I have read them both.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I'm still waiting for you to provide one that a consensus of scientists agree with.

In the mean time 

This is from the work you are citing:

A prominent 15 million-year CO₂ cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO₂, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76/htm

Other interesting research shows:

When plants take in an excess of CO2, their chemical makeup changes in a way that that’s harmful to the humans and animals that depend on them for nutrition: higher concentrations of CO2, increases the synthesis of carbohydrates like sugars and starches, and decrease the concentrations of proteins and nutrients like zinc, iron, and B-vitamins. “This is very important for how we think about food security going forward,” Ebi says. https://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving#:~:text=Not only will climate change,of CO2%2C increases the synthesis

There is no consensus about climate change, that is a pipedream which frustrated climate agitators cling to as a last straw.

There are new scientific models showing that solar variables account for 97% of climate change. How many scientists have challenged these new models? Tell me that, Jay. You need some scientific support for your position. A refutation of the solar models. I have not seen one yet.

But we have many refutations of the discredited CO2 models. That tells where the state of the science is now.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There aren't more than a couple papers on the subject to read and I have read them both.

Nonsense, Jay, there is a whole school of solar researchers on this issue, I only cited a few of them.

The onus is on your people to attempt a refutation, such as the refutations which have discredited the CO2 models.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

There is no consensus about climate change, that is a pipedream which frustrated climate agitators cling to as a last straw.

There are new scientific models showing that solar variables account for 97% of climate change. How many scientists have challenged these new models? Tell me that, Jay. You need some scientific support for your position. A refutation of the solar models. I have not seen one yet.

But we have many refutations of the discredited CO2 models. That tells where the state of the science is now.

You are delusional. No one has challenged your new models because they have more important things to do. No one is paying attention to your new science.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are delusional. No one has challenged your new models because they have more important things to do. No one is paying attention to your new science.

No Jay, you are the one being deluded by junk science. Of course I have read knee-jerk comments from the CO2 scientists, who have not attempted a serious rebuttal. That is where things stand now.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Nonsense, Jay, there is a whole school of solar researchers on this issue, I only cited a few of them.

The onus is on your people to attempt a refutation, such as the refutations which have discredited the CO2 models.

HaHa, no the onus is not on me, I'm with the vast majority of scientists. You are the one's making the new claims, it is up to you to get the scientific world to notice you.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHa, no the onus is not on me, I'm with the vast majority of scientists. You are the one's making the new claims, it is up to you to get the scientific world to notice you.

Your "majority" rely on discredited models, and have not attempted to challenge the solar models, and I doubt that they ever will. There is sea change in progress, that is how science works.

If the CO2 crowd wants to be taken seriously, they have to challenge the new science.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Your "majority" rely on discredited models, and have not attempted to challenge the solar models, and I doubt that they ever will, There is sea change in progress, that is how science works.

The only sea change happening is the demise of fossil fuels being accelerated.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The only sea change happening is the demise of fossil fuels being accelerated.

Don't you wish....just watch the science progressing on this in the next few years, Jay. Science never stands still, new models replace old models. Every good scientist knows that.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Don't you wish....just watch the science progressing on this in the next few years, Jay. Science never stands still, new models replace old models. Every good scientist knows that.

In a few years it will be all over. Renewables will be resoundingly cheaper than fossil and then it is all about economics.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In a few years it will be all over. Renewables will be resoundingly cheaper than fossil and then it is all about economics.

That is not what anyone is projecting, oil will continue to rise in production, possibly as a less dominant percentage of the overall market, but still rising in absolute terms. Renewables are aleady experiencing a run-up in input costs and price increases. Dead end.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

That is not what anyone is projecting, oil will continue to rise in production, possibly as a less dominant percentage of the overall market, but still rising in absolute terms. Renewables are aleady experiencing a run-up in input costs and price increases. Dead end.

Fossil fuel costs have increased more than renewable inputs. Renewables are still cheaper.

Oil demand will be decreasing in absolute terms by the end of the decade as EVs pass 50% new market share.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Jay McKinsey