The real, unseen side of The Green New Deal.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

You start strong then devolve into misinformation with crooked framing.

1. Good start. The 2018 worldwide average CO2 level was 407.4 ppm.

2. Begin the descent. A total WAG number. What is the source of this? Do you realize that at the beginning of the industrial revolution (around the mid-1700s) the concentration was about 280 ppm. That’s an increase of 127 ppm over a 270 year period. How do you know that only 20 ppm of that 127 ppm increase was to due human activity?

Source: https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/03/...lobal-warming/

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.


3. Total nonsense. There are so many things wrong with that one statement, I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll try.

Fourth: In 2017, an estimated 36.1 GT of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. China and India were responsible for (simple math – ((9.3 GT + 2.2 GT)/36.1 GT) 31.8 % of that. But yet, you attribute 50% of the problem to them? That’s bad math.

If we agree that China and India take 31.8% off the table, and add in all the other countries that likewise won't agree to a CO2 reduction treaty (I'm not sure who that includes, maybe some of the countries you mentioned, maybe the middle east, countries in South America, etc.) I am estimating we get to about 50% of man-made CO2 emissions that would not be part of a climate change accord. But let's not quibble; let's say only the 31.8% is off the table, leaving 68.2% that could be reduced. That's 13.64 Parts Per Million.

4. False argument. Show me one article that says reducing CO2 levels by 2.5 ppm would dramatically change the climate. We’ve seen an increase of 127 ppm over the last 270 years. The climate hasn’t changed “dramatically.” It is changing though.

How aggressive would CO2 reduction need to be then? If we agree a 25% reduction (3.41 Parts Per Million, using our new number) is a drop in the bucket, would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% (7 PPM?) Would that do it? Or would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions more than 50%? Seriously, and I'd LOVE to have you respond to this - what percentage of our CO2 emissions need to be reduced in order to solve this perceived problem?

Again, where to begin? Let’s go with an analogy.
Did you know that 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide is deemed as immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)? Let’s say you could obtain $1,000,000 by entering a room with 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide in it. Let’s further say that someone said they could reduce it by 0.5 ppm before you went in. Would your response be, “No need, trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.”?

Ridiculous analogy. CO2 is not a poison; quite the opposite. It is an inert gas required for all life. We exhale it with every breath. All green vegetation requires it, and therefore, all life, right up the food chain.

It’s perfectly fine not to agree with climate change. I don’t understand people who don’t agree with it, but it’s okay. What I don’t understand is, if the only why to support your denial of climate change is with misinformation, bad math, bad science, and illogical reasoning, how reasonable is your denial?

I am doing my best to use accurate information, math, and logical reasoning. As for the "science," I grew up at a time when scientists were warning about global cooling, so I know from experience they can be wrong. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of gloom and doom predictions that never came true reinforce this.

.

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Irv, do you read the articles you link to? If so, what's your point?

The first article says:
"But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown."

The second article says:
"There has historically been speculation regarding whether a particularly deep and extended solar minimum called the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s contributed to the Little Ice Age, which was a period of colder-than-average temperatures across both North America and Europe, but the evidence is weak. It’s more likely, some scientists suggest, that the temperature dip was linked to volcanic activity rather than a quiet solar period. Overall temperatures are believed to have dropped just 1 degree on average during that mini “ice age.”"

Again, what's your point?

I'm sorry you have a hard time figuring things out, Mike. The purpose of those links was to show you something that is never talked about when it comes to climate change/global warming.
Everything they spew is about man this, man that, when the truth is, many factors outside of our control affect the climate, but of course, none of that is ever talked about.
The links are from alarmist sites who are disputing and downplaying what some real scientists are talking about because it goes against their narrative/agenda.

As you will notice with my bolds, nothing is ever certain but rather just guesses. Just like the way it has always been. "12 years to save the planet", "NY city will be under water", "the great lakes will be dried up", "no more polar bears", "no more glaciers", "rain forests gone", "mass extinction", the list goes on and on and on and not one thing has ever come true, ever.

Alarmists, like the bold above, use words like maybe, likely, we're not sure, could, might, etc, and the sheep lap that right up as fact rather than recognize those words are just guesses, speculation and conjecture.

One would think, after decades of getting things wrong, one would open their eyes and say, wait a minute, you clowns have been spewing this crap forever but nothing has ever come true. But no, I guess the sheep, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, can't see that so they just keep on believing what they are fed because it fits their narrative and continues to feed their brainwashed belief system.

Curious, Mike, what are your thoughts on the record breaking cold spring that many places had this year? Is that all part of global warming as well? I know the alarmists say it is all connected and that we shouldn't even consider those temps we seen, but I'm curious on your thoughts?
"Record Cold Spring at Several Locations"
https://www.weather.gov/abr/coldspring
https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/04/...-cold-weather/
https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/articl...navik_nunavut/
https://www.freshdaily.ca/news/2020/...pring-weather/

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

I'm sorry you have a hard time figuring things out, Mike.

Yeah, I apologize. I have a hard time following illogical ramblings that have no point. My bad.

Originally Posted by irv

The purpose of those links was to show you something that is never talked about when it comes to climate change/global warming.
Everything they spew is about man this, man that, when the truth is, many factors outside of our control affect the climate, but of course, none of that is ever talked about. The links are from alarmist sites who are disputing and downplaying what some real scientists are talking about because it goes against their narrative/agenda.

So, the links you posted to are about "something that is never talked about." If it's something never talked about, why are there sites you can link to discussing it? Furthermore, the links are downplaying what "real" scientists are talking about. Again, you claimed nobody is talking about these subjects. But apparently some "real" scientists are talking about it. And even though some "real" scientists are talking about it, you link to "alarmists" who are downplaying the "something." What is the point of anything you say or link to. That's right, there is no logical point. All you can do is call people who don't agree with you names.

Originally Posted by irv

One would think, after decades of getting things wrong, one would open their eyes and say, wait a minute, you clowns have been spewing this crap forever but nothing has ever come true. But no, I guess the sheep, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, can't see that so they just keep on believing what they are fed because it fits their narrative and continues to feed their brainwashed belief system.

So, if someone disagrees with you, they're "sheep." They're "incapable of thinking for themselves." And I guess, what, anyone who agrees with you is a genius and clearly able to think for their self? More pointless, juvenile name calling.

Originally Posted by irv

Curious, Mike, what are your thoughts on the record breaking cold spring that many places had this year? Is that all part of global warming as well? I know the alarmists say it is all connected and that we shouldn't even consider those temps we seen, but I'm curious on your thoughts?

That last quote pretty much sums you up. There are countless sites that discuss your question. If you had the slightest bit of curiosity you could investigate it yourself. But you don't. You don't want to upset your bliss. Even though I know you won't look at it, here's one:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ld-weather.htm

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.

You seem to be saying that since CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are so low, it can't be a problem. Yet, I showed you how a minuscule change in concentration can have drastic consequences. You blew that off because CO2 isn't a poison. It may not be a poison but it does help trap heat in the atmosphere. Therefore, any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will result in more heat being trapped in the atmosphere. I'm sure even you won't deny that.

And linking to an article by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about won't help your case. How do I know he doesn't know what he's talking about? "And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions." Really? CO2 in the atmosphere is typically talked about in terms of concentration in parts per million by volume (ppmv). CO2 emissions are typically talked about in tons per year. So he's saying, of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, humans cause a percentage of the tons per year of CO2 emissions. What does that even mean? It's just something that someone thinks sounds good. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by Mark17

let's say only the 31.8% is off the table, leaving 68.2% that could be reduced. That's 13.64 Parts Per Million.

More very bad math. If I understand what you're saying, you seem to be sticking with the 20 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're then taking that times a supposed 68.2% reductions in CO2 emissions and coming up with 13.64 ppm. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Mark17

How aggressive would CO2 reduction need to be then? If we agree a 25% reduction (3.41 Parts Per Million, using our new number) is a drop in the bucket, would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 50% (7 PPM?) Would that do it? Or would we need to reduce our CO2 emissions more than 50%? Seriously, and I'd LOVE to have you respond to this - what percentage of our CO2 emissions need to be reduced in order to solve this perceived problem?

The Paris Climate Agreement's goal was limit CO2 emissions so that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not cause a 2 degrees C temperature rise above the pre-industrial average temperature. The ultimate goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C. The plan was to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide by 20%. Yep, 20%. Each country was to come up with their own goals. The US pledged (and has since withdrawn) to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions to 17% of 2005 emission levels by 2020. We further pledged to reduce GHG emissions to 26-28% of 2005 emissions by 2025. From what I read, the pledges came up short and scientists thought the reduced CO2 emissions would result in a 2.5 or 2.7 C (I forget which) increase in the average world wide temperature.

And no, I don't agree with any of your math. Like the article you cite, you throw numbers around recklessly without regard to their units or to their relationship.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Ridiculous analogy. CO2 is not a poison; quite the opposite. It is an inert gas required for all life. We exhale it with every breath. All green vegetation requires it, and therefore, all life, right up the food chain.

No, it was in response to you saying "reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.” Tiny numbers do matter. And in regard to your love of CO2 and how good it is, you do realize that it can kill you, right? It might take a concentration of about 10%, but it can kill.

Originally Posted by Mark17

I am doing my best to use accurate information, math, and logical reasoning. As for the "science," I grew up at a time when scientists were warning about global cooling, so I know from experience they can be wrong. And the dozens, if not hundreds, of gloom and doom predictions that never came true reinforce this..

Go back and read an earlier post (I think around 49) where I address the highlighted myth.

Finally, some facts to chew on.

Consider the atmosphere like a bank. You put money in the bank, it will increase unless you take some out. We put CO2 in the atmosphere, it will increase unless some is taken out. And yes, some is taken out. It has been estimated that approximately 40% is taken up by plants, the oceans, etc. Therefore, of the estimated 36.1 GT emitted in 2017, 21.6 GT actually stayed in the atmosphere. It is still there today along with the 2018, 2019, 2016, 2015, etc emissions. Based on the weight of the atmosphere, 1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to about 7.8 GT of CO2. So, the CO2 concentration increased 2.7 ppm based on net 2017 emissions (21.6 GT/(7.8 GT/ 1 ppm)). This is a little higher than the average ppm increase over the last decade, 2.3 ppm per year. So we're not off by much. So consider an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of more than 2 ppm each and every year. Nothing to worry about?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

So consider an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of more than 2 ppm each and every year. Nothing to worry about?

Exactly. Nothing to worry about.

In Minnesota, the temperature often varies by 100 degrees over a 6 month period, from hitting sub-zero temps in January to topping 100 for a few days in July. During some days, the temperature can vary as much as 40 degrees, from night to day. And yet, a 1 or 2 degree change, spread over 100 years or longer, is going to cause extinctions and dramatically change the planet? Come on. If a frog can adapt to a 100 degree change in its environment over a 6 month period, one or two degrees spread over 100 years (and fifty or more generations of frogs) isn't going to affect them at all. That's just silly.

I'm sure the difference between the recent mini ice age and today was a bigger change, and life adapted. Furthermore, ice ages cause a lot more death and turmoil to life forms than warmth, generally.

[Corporal Lance Boil]

I have learned to blame everything on El Nino.

Cold winter...must be El Nino

Hot summer...El Nino

My drive-through order screwed up...El Nino

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I'm sure the [temperature] difference between the recent mini ice age and today was a bigger change, and life adapted. Furthermore, ice ages cause a lot more death and turmoil to life forms than warmth, generally.

And what makes you sure of this?

You sound like the great philosopher, Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?"

[irv]

Just how much money do you have invested in solar and wind companies, Mike?

Do you honestly believe, like the link you posted, what you are reading is factual and written by real scientists without an agenda?
Do you not even find it just a little bit suspect that the alarmist movement even tries to justify record cold weather as being part of global warming?

No offense, but you sound as brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional and crazy as Bill Nye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubpN72D6AI

[irv]

Video of Dr David Deming's statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by irv

Just how much money do you have invested in solar and wind companies, Mike?

None. All my money is tied up in global socialism.

Originally Posted by irv

Do you honestly believe, like the link you posted, what you are reading is factual and written by real scientists without an agenda?
Do you not even find it just a little bit suspect that the alarmist movement even tries to justify record cold weather as being part of global warming?

No offense, but you sound as brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional and crazy as Bill Nye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubpN72D6AI

So, presenting math and science to you to show that global warming is real means I'm a sheep who can't think for myself, I'm brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional, crazy. Scientists lie and have an agenda. But you, you know the "truth." By the proclamation of Irv, any scientist that doesn't believe in the "truth" of Irv isn't a real scientist but is a liar and is pushing a hidden agenda. So sayeth Irv! In order to not be brainwashed, delusional, crazy sheep, we must all blindly agree with the "truth" of Irv! So sayeth Irv!!

Baaaaa!!

[irv]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

None. All my money is tied up in global socialism.



So, presenting math and science to you to show that global warming is real means I'm a sheep who can't think for myself, I'm brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional, crazy. Scientists lie and have an agenda. But you, you know the "truth." By the proclamation of Irv, any scientist that doesn't believe in the "truth" of Irv isn't a real scientist but is a liar and is pushing a hidden agenda. So sayeth Irv! In order to not be brainwashed, delusional, crazy sheep, we must all blindly agree with the "truth" of Irv! So sayeth Irv!!

Baaaaa!!

Yes, especially when I asked you your own thoughts but instead of doing so, you provide me with a link to an alarmist website that has been proven over and over again to be nothing but a funded biased/fake climate news site. You would have been further ahead to post an article from the National Enquirer.

It's OK, Mike. You keep on believing one day some of the 41 predictions, (so far), that have never come true, will, and instead of using real empirical evidence, rely on the computer modelling instead like you and all the other alarmists like to do.

"The Science is settled" Just ask Obama, Al Gore, Bill Nye or David Suzuki. They know!!.............