June 2021: Earth’s fifth-warmest June on record, warmest over land areas

[watsup]

Asking for proof of your ignorant and unfounded assertions is never foolish when lives and livelihoods are at stake

You guys are the ones pushing the anti human agenda after all

There is nothing anti-human about trying to save the human race and all the other flora and fauna from the potential degradations of AGW.

 

[watsup]

I'm betting you don't even know what AR6 even is much less have read it, hence your total inability to cite any of it when challenged to do so, which is odd given that it is your bible

Still making excuses for not doing any actual research regarding AGW, I see. No one is the least bit surprised, so just keep asking your ridiculously simplistic "questions". It's apparently the "best" that you can do......

 

[flogger]

There is nothing anti-human about trying to save the human race and all the other flora and fauna from the potential degradations of AGW.

Still making excuses for not doing any actual research regarding AGW, I see. No one is the least bit surprised, so just keep asking your ridiculously simplistic "questions". It's apparently the "best" that you can do......

Heads up tying a tourniquet around the collective economic throat of humanity in order to staunch some imagined future nosebleed is doing the exact opposite of 'saving the human race' and until you answer the fundamental questions put to you on the whole AGW premise then I'll just keep asking them (and doubtless you'll keep dodging them) . Sorry if its confusing.

 

[Glitch]

There is nothing benign about an increase in ratio of CO2. That's been scientifically established which you, obviously, refuse to accept as the science denier you are. Protein is beneficial, and necessary, to the health of the human body. Too much protein is damaging.

For someone who believes that there are 63 different genders I wouldn't be calling others "science denier" if I were you.

 

[Glitch]

So if humans are actually benefitting the biosphere by greening it via the provision of extra CO2 then whats not to like ?

Where is the scientific validation for your replies I asked you for ?

You will never get an intelligent response from watsup. He has no education to speak of. He just likes going around calling people names, because that is the limit of his intelligence.

 

[watsup]

Heads up tying a tourniquet around the collective economic throat of humanity in order to staunch some imagined future nosebleed is doing the exact opposite of 'saving the human race' and until you answer the fundamental questions put to you on the whole AGW premise then I'll just keep asking them (and doubtless you'll keep dodging them) . Sorry if its confusing.

Conspiracy theory.

 

[watsup]

You will never get an intelligent response from watsup. He has no education to speak of. He just likes going around calling people names, because that is the limit of his intelligence.

Would you consider the sobriquet “filthy leftist” to be name-calling? Do you know anyone who does that?

 

[bluesmoke]

What action did we take, and what difference did it make?

Post #150, for one example.

 

[longview]

Post #150, for one example.

Hum,
A Brief History of US Fuel Efficiency Standards
Are you attempting to claim that the 1975 fuel efficiency standards started in response to the 1973 oil embargo,
were actually in response to AGW?
I am not sure you realize that those standards, could have contributed as much to the energy imbalance as CO2, perhaps more.
Do not get me wrong, they drastically reduced the actual pollution from passenger vehicles,
but in so doing allowed a higher percentage of available sunlight to reach the ground.

This brings up an interesting idea.
The changeover from leaded to unleaded gasoline, was accomplished by making the fuel nozzle size smaller,
unleaded fuel could go into both, but fuel with lead could not easily be put into a vehicle designed to use unleaded gasoline.
From your cited article.

These new standards will reduce average global warming emissions of new passenger cars and light trucks to 163 grams per mile (g/mi) in model year 2025.
This is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg), if the standards were met exclusively with fuel efficiency improvements 1.

The global warming emissions from every vehicle currently on the road, would meet the 2025 standard, if the fuel were man made carbon neutral fuel.
One way to ensure that only carbon neutral fuel was used, would be to somehow key the fuel input, so only that pump nozzle would fit!

Change the fuel, change the world!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hum,
A Brief History of US Fuel Efficiency Standards
Are you attempting to claim that the 1975 fuel efficiency standards started in response to the 1973 oil embargo,
were actually in response to AGW?

I thought that was silly too, but my response would he long and I don't have the time.

 

[flogger]

Conspiracy theory.

Prove it ?

 

[bluesmoke]

And what did this action achieve and how much cooler are we now as a consequence of taking it ?

Evidence please ?

It is well evidenced as published which you should know that reduction of CO2 emission slows global warming and thus the ensuing negative effects on the planet. Or, are you claiming that human CO2 emission does not contribute to climate change of any consequence? In which case you can't provide any proof accepted by science that says so.

 

[flogger]

It is well evidenced as published which you should know that reduction of CO2 emission slows global warming and thus the ensuing negative effects on the planet. Or, are you claiming that human CO2 emission does not contribute to climate change of any consequence? In which case you can't provide any proof accepted by science that says so.

Answer my question. Quantify what the massive funding to date has achieved and who has benefitted from it ?

If its as well evidenced as you claim then you should have no bother quantifying its supposedly beneficial impact to date on global temperature with a link

 

[watsup]

Answer my question. Quantify what the massive funding to date has achieved and who has benefitted from it ?

If its as well evidenced as you claim then you should have no bother quantifying its supposedly beneficial impact to date on global temperature with a link

What is the effect of human-produced CO2 on the atmosphete?

 

[flogger]

What is the effect of human-produced CO2 on the atmosphete?

To date pure non empirical climate modelled guesswork



No shonky climate models = no crisis. Add money and politics into the mix and we are where we are today

 

[watsup]

To date pure non empirical climate modelled guesswork

View attachment 67355694

No shonky climate models = no crisis. Add money and politics into the mix and we are where we are today

Denier talking points.
Plus you did not provide the required link for your chart. Please do so in concordance with DP rules.

 

[bluesmoke]

Your question, what exactly was your question, I see posts # 151,

As for a link to the theoretical math (Not mine), There was a good paper from Dr. Heather D. Willauer of the Naval Research Labs from 2010.
Table 2 in the 2010 paper show that it takes 2.5 MW to make 1000 gallons of jet fuel a day.
2.5 MW times 24 hours is 60 MWh, so 60 MWh /1000 gallons is 60 KWh per gallon, or an efficiency of 58%. (Jet Fuel is ~35 Kwh per gallon)
Now that was in 2010, and they have 11 year of improving the process, and while the NRL said in 2014 the efficiency was up to 60%,
Sunfire has recently reported that at scale efficiencies could get to 80%.

My post stated: ' I don't think it practicable for the oil industry to switch to carbon neutral manmade fuels via "market forces" to an significant degree. Maybe you have evidence of a recognized source you can cite with a link than your theoretical math. '

You gave reasoning with evidence as to how conversion would work. But, you can't show any realistic industry acceptance of such a path, making it impracticable. You only have theory based on figures of what it could be under blue sky and apple pie market force condition. It was not market forces alone that increased fuel efficiency of motor vehicles. It took govt regs that the auto and oil industry fought tooth and nail.

 

[longview]

My post stated: ' I don't think it practicable for the oil industry to switch to carbon neutral manmade fuels via "market forces" to an significant degree. Maybe you have evidence of a recognized source you can cite with a link than your theoretical math. '

You gave reasoning with evidence as to how conversion would work. But, you can't show any realistic industry acceptance of such a path, making it impracticable. You only have theory based on figures of what it could be under blue sky and apple pie market force condition. It was not market forces alone that increased fuel efficiency of motor vehicles. It took govt regs that the auto and oil industry fought tooth and nail.

The practicality of a path comes down to money! They pay a dollar amount for oil as a raw material, a feedstock to make finished fuel products.
When the cost of making their own feedstock from CO2, Hydrogen and electricity is less than buying and refining oil, that is the practical path they will take!
The question is, where is that price cutoff? The variables are the price of oil, the price the refineries can acquire electricity, and the efficiency of the process.
Since the Navy's publication in 2010 at an efficiency of 58%, the published efficiencies have climbed to 80%.
We still do not know what the big oil companies have come up with, but know they have large groups devoted to this research.
Keep in mind, the big oil companies do not sell oil, but finished fuel products, so a path that can sustainably allow them to continue to sell their product,
is a desirable path from their perspective.

 

[bluesmoke]

What is scientifically established, and how was it established?
Added CO2 will likely cause some warming, but the actual amount of warming per unit increase is by no means scientifically established!

This is what you do. You attempt to deny the greater science by fragmenting the argument into insignificant parcels that have no effect on the total science, being that practically all of global warming is caused by human release of CO2. There is no evidence of significance that has changed the IPCC position on AGW, nor has garnered and significant support in the science community. You keep throwing your own crap against the wall and, when it doesn't stick, you throw another crap to contend with. But you've never had a consistent argument with any significant support in the science community. You are nothing more than a science denier.

 

[longview]

This is what you do. You attempt to deny the greater science by fragmenting the argument into insignificant parcels that have no effect on the total science, being that practically all of global warming is caused by human release of CO2. There is no evidence of significance that has changed the IPCC position on AGW, nor has garnered and significant support in the science community. You keep throwing your own crap against the wall and, when it doesn't stick, you throw another crap to contend with. But you've never had a consistent argument with any significant support in the science community. You are nothing more than a science denier.

If that is what you think, then you did not understand the question!
What is scientifically established, and how was it established?
The IPCC says that a doubling of the CO2 level, would increase the energy imbalance (forcing) by 3.71 Watts per meter squared.
How was this number scientifically established?
Every prediction about future warming from added CO2 starts with that forcing number, if it is inaccurate, the error would permeate
every subsequent model result.
I think I know where the number came from, but it does not inspire confidence.
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect

In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.

and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect.

CO2 is responsible for 20% of the calculated 150 W/m2 of the greenhouse effect (30 W/m2), and this number has been around since the nineteenth century or 280 ppm.
If one counts doublings of CO2 from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, there are 8 doublings between 1 ppm and 256 ppm, and 0.09 doublings between 256 ppm and 280 ppm,
for a total of 8.09 doublings. 30 W/m2 / 8.09 doublings = 3.708 W/m2 per doubling!
The number at the core of AGW, is itself based on an assumption that CO2 accounts for 20% of the greenhouse effect,
but the actual attribution is a range from 9% to 26%
Greenhouse gas

 

[bluesmoke]

Prove by citing scientific validation that having an extra 100PPM of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere is in any way harmful ?

It doesn't get down to a lab experiment of your 100PPM validation. It gets down to the fact of our greater science community observing increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, that is known to cause warming has, has been practically caused by human emission. It's been published and posted on this forum ad infinitum. You can deny the greater science all you want by demanding proof of what is inconsequential against the entirety of scientific observation that has the science community conclude the planet is warming, detrimentally, due to AGW. That just makes you a science denier.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It doesn't get down to a lab experiment of your 100PPM validation. It gets down to the fact of our greater science community observing increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, that is known to cause warming has, has been practically caused by human emission. It's been published and posted on this forum ad infinitum. You can deny the greater science all you want by demanding proof of what is inconsequential against the entirety of scientific observation that has the science community conclude the planet is warming, detrimentally, due to AGW. That just makes you a science denier.

Are you talking about a lab experiment large enough to capture all the variables and interactions between variables?

I never heard of one existing. Where please.

We already know the characteristics of CO2 changes. We just have no accurate means of seeing the final results after all the variables interact.

 

[bluesmoke]

For someone who believes that there are 63 different genders I wouldn't be calling others "science denier" if I were you.

Where do you get 63 diff genders? Who believes that? Besides, gender is a social, not scientific, construct. Sex is biological, or scientific. Gender is not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Where do you get 63 diff genders? Who believes that? Besides, gender is a social, not scientific, construct. Sex is biological, or scientific. Gender is not.

Remind us. How many genders did you clam then?

 

[bluesmoke]

Answer my question. Quantify what the massive funding to date has achieved and who has benefitted from it ?

If its as well evidenced as you claim then you should have no bother quantifying its supposedly beneficial impact to date on global temperature with a link

There comes the point when what has been historically established and published such as reducing carbon emission as a benefit need not be repeated in citation to the uneducated in debate for what is by that time their responsibility to know in as common knowledge. I should not need to provide scientific evidence to you that a triangle has 3 sides, the earth revolves around the sun, and is not flat. See you on another thread.