GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,164]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Are you still debating the reduction of particulates in the last three decades? You really should get up to speed.

And no, most people do not work in a coal mine. Most of us are exposed to whatever particulates are in the atmosphere, that is where the progress has been made.

"from 1990 to 2017 emissions of air toxics declined by 74 percent, largely driven by federal and state implementation of stationary and mobile source regulations."

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary

The graph below shows that between 1980 and 2022, gross domestic product increased 196 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 108 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and U.S. population grew by 47 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 73 percent. The graph also shows that CO2 emissions, after having risen gradually for decades, have shown an overall decrease since 2007, and in 2021 were 7 percent higher than 1980 levels.

The decrease in CO2 since 2007 comes despite the rapid increase in fossil fuel demand. So it appears that any relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and fossil fuels is not a clear or very strong one. There are other principal sources of CO2 which are not related to the use of fossil fuels. Those other sources appear to be overriding and are not related to human activity.

Uh, CO2 is based on per capita dear genius

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

12 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Uh, CO2 is based on per capita dear genius

The numbers here are not per capita, which would not be helpful in seeing overall impact of GHG greenhouse gases on climate.

Here is another graph which amounts to the same thing, showing a reduction in greenhouse gases from 2007.

Most of that reduction is due to natural (ocean) causes, as fossil fuel usage increased over that time.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

These are American data, but it shows that the greenhouse effect must be lower beginning in 2007, and therefore recent global warming must be caused by something other than CO2, presumably by reduced atmospheric particulates.

[TailingsPond + 542]

43 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The numbers here are not per capita, which would not be helpful in seeing overall impact of GHG greenhouse gases on climate.

Here is another graph which amounts to the same thing, showing a reduction in greenhouse gases from 2007.

Most of that reduction is due to natural (ocean) causes, as fossil fuel usage increased over that time.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

These are American data, but it shows that the greenhouse effect must be lower beginning in 2007, and therefore recent global warming must be caused by something other than CO2, presumably by reduced atmospheric particulates.

That is emissions data, not the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Even if we totally stopped all GHG emissions it would still take years for the atmosphere to recover.

You should stop embarrassing yourself.  Look with your eyes, no dip starting in 2007.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 03:36 PM by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

That is emissions data, not the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Even if we totally stopped all GHG emissions it would still take years for the atmosphere to recover.

You should stop embarrassing yourself.  Look with your eyes, no dip starting in 2007.

 

 

The point remains, if emissions of anthropogenic CO2 and other GHG decline, and the net atmospheric CO2 levels are continuing to increase, then natural CO2 production is overwhelming whatever trends exist in anthropogenic CO2.

In other words, current policy to reduce atmospheric CO2 is worthless, not only minor but insignificant.

That was also the conclusion of other measurement studies of GHG.

 

Edited Saturday at 09:35 PM by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,164]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The numbers here are not per capita, which would not be helpful in seeing overall impact of GHG greenhouse gases on climate.

Here is another graph which amounts to the same thing, showing a reduction in greenhouse gases from 2007.

Most of that reduction is due to natural (ocean) causes, as fossil fuel usage increased over that time.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

These are American data, but it shows that the greenhouse effect must be lower beginning in 2007, and therefore recent global warming must be caused by something other than CO2, presumably by reduced atmospheric particulates.

Learn how to READ a graph...  Dear God, it is in percentage per power made or per person, per year.  Take your pick.  Has nothing to do with percentage of CO2 in atmosphere, but rather rate of what is GOING into said atmosphere compared to 1980.  Yikes dude. 

Plz stop embarrassing yourself like Pondscum, nobrain, boy robber, dumbblood, etc. 

[TailingsPond + 542]

26 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The point remains, if emissions of anthropogenic CO2 and other GHG decline, and the net atmospheric CO2 levels are continuing to increase, then natural CO2 production is overwhelming whatever trends exist in anthropogenic CO2.

But that is not true.

Once again you fail to understand that rates of change are different from the value.  In math we call it the derivative of the function.

You notice that the rate of EV sales have slowed down but do not understand that more EVs continue to be sold.

You notice that some technologies have reduced the rate that fossil fuel pollute the earth but do not understand that the total pollution continues to increase.

A simple example is imagine that you are abusing credit and racking up $200 per month in debt, and then you wise up and "only" rack up $100 in debt per month.  How long before your debt is paid off? 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:03 PM by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,480]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The point remains, if emissions of anthropogenic CO2 and other GHG decline, and the net atmospheric CO2 levels are continuing to increase, then natural CO2 production is overwhelming whatever trends exist in anthropogenic CO2.

In other words, current policy to reduce atmospheric CO2 is worthless, not only minor but insignificant.

That was also the conclusion of other measurement studies of GHG.

 

Gee!

It really hasn't changed much, has it.

I guess it just makes sense that CO₂ would just keep building up (and up) in our atmosphere.

Then, I believe there are some other "contributors" beyond the USA's borders.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 02:54 AM by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

But that is not true.

Once again you fail to understand that rates of change are different from the value.  In math we call it the derivative of the function.

You notice that the rate of EV sales have slowed down but do not understand that more EVs continue to be sold.

You notice that some technologies have reduced the rate that fossil fuel pollute the earth but do not understand that the total pollution continues to increase.

A simple example is imagine that you are abusing credit and racking up $200 per month in debt, and then you wise up and "only" rack up $100 in debt per month.  How long before your debt is paid off? 

 

 

No, increases or decreases in additions in amounts of CO2 emissions certainly have an impact on totals, that is just simple math.

In this case, declines in amounts of annual emissions should impact rates of increase or decrease in atmospheric CO2, but here we do not see any alteration in the atmospheric CO2 curve in response to declines in amounts of anthropogenic emissions.

That indicates that CO2 levels are not responsive to changes in anthropogenic emissions rates, and the only conclusion we can draw is that natural CO2 emissions are controlling the CO2 levels.

Furthermore, we do not see any response at all in atmospheric CO2 levels to positive or negative changes in anthropogenic emissions, which requires some explanation. There should be some clear relationship.

You don't need to be an Einstein to understand that.

Edited Sunday at 04:27 AM by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Gee!

It really hasn't changed much, has it.

I guess it just makes sense that CO₂ would just keep building up (and up) in our atmosphere.

Then, I believe there are some other "contributors" beyond the USA's borders.

 

 

There should be some noticeable change in CO2 atmospheric levels in response to changes in anthropogenic emissions levels, that is just a clear result of assuming that anthropogenic emissions are important in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

If atmospheric CO2 levels do not respond to changes in anthropogenic emissions levels, then obviously something else is controlling the narrative.

Natural CO2 production is acknowledged to be the prime driver in CO2 levels, not anthropogenic.

Edited Sunday at 04:49 AM by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

6 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

But that is not true.

Once again you fail to understand that rates of change are different from the value.  In math we call it the derivative of the function.

You notice that the rate of EV sales have slowed down but do not understand that more EVs continue to be sold.

You notice that some technologies have reduced the rate that fossil fuel pollute the earth but do not understand that the total pollution continues to increase.

A simple example is imagine that you are abusing credit and racking up $200 per month in debt, and then you wise up and "only" rack up $100 in debt per month.  How long before your debt is paid off? 

 

 

Your EV comparison from above is inaccurate, by the way.

EV sales in the example above did not just slow down in terms of rate of growth, but they actually declined 7% from one month to the next month, that is not a slowdown in growth rate but an actual decline in numbers of vehicles sold. It did not slow down from 10% to 7%, it actually went south to -7%. That is like driving off the edge of a cliff. It hurts.

Not sure how you could miss that.

Edited Sunday at 04:52 AM by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

Reason and rationality is emerging from the ruins of climate panic.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Will-The-Far-Right-Upsurge-Slow-Europes-Energy-Transition-Efforts.html

"The center and center-right parties of the Group of the European People’s Party will continue to be the largest group in the 720-seat EU Parliament. The left-leaning groups have also retained most seats. The Greens were the big losers in the elections, also because of the “greenlash” from voters who punished environmentalists for the high costs of going green."

"...the far-right parties are expected to attack the EU’s ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035. As part of the efforts to slash emissions from the transportation sector, the EU approved in 2023 legislation saying that from 2035, all new cars that come on the market cannot emit any carbon dioxide (CO2), effectively banning the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines. This measure is set for review in 2026."

It is time to reopen for review and elimination the climate panic policies which threaten the well-being of Americans. 

[TailingsPond + 542]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your EV comparison from above is inaccurate, by the way.

EV sales in the example above did not just slow down in terms of rate of growth, but they actually declined 7% from one month to the next month, that is not a slowdown but an actual decline in numbers of vehicles sold. It did not slow down from 10% to 7%, it actually went south to -7%. That is like driving off the edge of a cliff. It hurts.

Not sure how you could miss that.

You think there were negative sales?  Like people returned cars?

Use a hypothetical example for me; seriously, I want to understand your logic on this.

Lets say company XYZ sells 100 units of product in January.  In February sales go down to 90 units and this pattern repeats.  Please describe how the sales rate is changing, the total sales at the end of the year, and the predicted sales for January of the next year.

Jan: 100 units sold (year sales total 100)

Feb: 90 units sold (year sales total 190)

Mar: 80 units sold (year sales total 270)

Apr: 70 units sold (year sales total 340)

and so on...

 

[TailingsPond + 542]

Month	Sales / Month	Total Sales
Jan	100	100
Feb	90	190
Mar	80	270
Apr	70	340
May	60	400
Jun	50	450
Jul	40	490
Aug	30	520
Sep	20	540
Oct	10	550
Nov	0	550
Dec	0	550

[TailingsPond + 542]

25 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Your EV comparison from above is inaccurate, by the way.

Describe the pattern I posted above.

Use your best words.

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

5 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

You think there were negative sales?  Like people returned cars?

Use a hypothetical example for me; seriously, I want to understand your logic on this.

Lets say company XYZ sells 100 units of product in January.  In February sales go down to 90 units and this pattern repeats.  Please describe how the sales rate is changing, the total sales at the end of the year, and the predicted sales for January of the next year.

Jan: 100 units sold (year sales total 100)

Feb: 90 units sold (year sales total 190)

Mar: 80 units sold (year sales total 270)

Apr: 70 units sold (year sales total 340)

and so on...

 

The number sold was 7% lower than the previous month, that is simple to understand.

If the number of units sold increased month to month but at a slower rate than the previous month, that is slower growth.

If the actual numbers of  units sold did not grow at all but actually fell by 7%, that is not slow growth but rather a decline in units sold. 

That simple enough for you?

 

[TailingsPond + 542]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The number sold was 7% lower than the previous month, that is simple to understand.

If the number of units sold increased month to month but at a slower rate than the previous month, that is slower growth.

If the actual numbers of  units sold did not grow at all but actually fell by 7%, that is not slow growth but rather a decline in units sold. 

That simple enough for you?

 

Describe the pattern I presented.  Use your best words.

Look at the numbers provided, do not use your imaginary "-7%" or anything like that.

Edited Sunday at 05:06 AM by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Month	Sales / Month	Total Sales
Jan	100	100
Feb	90	190
Mar	80	270
Apr	70	340
May	60	400
Jun	50	450
Jul	40	490
Aug	30	520
Sep	20	540
Oct	10	550
Nov	0	550
Dec	0	550

Just as I pointed out to you, we are not talking about slower rates of growth but an actual 7% decline in units sold from one to another month.

You still having trouble with that? Amazing.

[TailingsPond + 542]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Just as I pointed out to you, we are not talking about slower rates of growth but an actual 7% decline in units sold from one to another month.

You still having trouble with that? Amazing.

Describe the pattern of numbers I presented.  Do NOT use "-7%" at all as clearly nothing in that data set implies a 7% change...

Edited Sunday at 05:08 AM by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

5 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Describe the pattern of numbers I presented.  Do NOT use "-7%" at all as clearly nothing in that data set implies a 7% change...

I do not see where your problem is, old boy. This seems to be your time for problems, just like the CO2 issue above.

A drop in units sold by 7% is a big problem, you cannot wriggle out of that one.

"Tumbling private demand for electric vehicles (EVs) has dominated media headlines throughout this year, fuelling car owners’ concerns over the high cost of making the transition.

Car industry data, provided by the sector’s trade body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), showed sales to private buyers had fallen 7.7 per cent in April."

Here is what counts, 

"...the far-right parties are expected to attack the EU’s ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035. As part of the efforts to slash emissions from the transportation sector, the EU approved in 2023 legislation saying that from 2035, all new cars that come on the market cannot emit any carbon dioxide (CO2), effectively banning the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines. This measure is set for review in 2026."

It is time to reopen for review and elimination the climate panic policies which threaten the well-being of Americans. 

Edited Sunday at 05:13 AM by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 542]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

I do not see where your problem is, old boy. A drop in units sold by 7% is a big problem, you cannot wriggle out of that one.

You can't describe the data set presented?

At the end of the year wasn't there still 550 units sold despite reducing sales rate each month?  At what point were there negative sales?

[TailingsPond + 542]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I do not see where your problem is

Look internally - the problem lies within.

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

5 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Look internally - the problem lies within.

Here is your problem, and it is worse than 7%,

"Tumbling private demand for electric vehicles (EVs) has dominated media headlines throughout this year, fuelling car owners’ concerns over the high cost of making the transition.

Car industry data, provided by the sector’s trade body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), showed sales to private buyers had fallen 7.7 per cent in April."

Again, we are not talking about tumbling sales "rates", that is where you became confused. This is a catastrophic fall of 7.7% in units sold, that is not an increase at all.

Here is what counts, 

"...the far-right parties are expected to attack the EU’s ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035. As part of the efforts to slash emissions from the transportation sector, the EU approved in 2023 legislation saying that from 2035, all new cars that come on the market cannot emit any carbon dioxide (CO2), effectively banning the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines. This measure is set for review in 2026."

It is time to reopen for review and elimination the climate panic policies which threaten the well-being of Americans. 

Edited Sunday at 05:18 AM by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 542]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is your problem, and it is worse than 7%,

 

Don't post links. Describe the pattern I described. It should be easy

 

Edited Sunday at 05:16 AM by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 542]

Guy pretends to understand math.

Challenge him to explain a simple data set in scientific terms and he can't.

[Ecocharger + 1,392]

7 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Guy pretends to understand math.

Challenge him to explain a simple data set in scientific terms and he can't.

Some of us have actually been employed in the statistical trade...does that exclude you?

Furthermore, EVs are continuing to lose market share to fossil fuel vehicles.

"the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) revealed the steep dip in private retail demand, The trade body said it now expected battery electric models' market share to reduce to 21 per cent in 2024, down from a previous 23.3 per cent forecast."

Edited Sunday at 05:29 AM by Ecocharger