Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

What EV mandate is hurting you?

What "cheat" are you referencing?

 

While a pickup is a light motor vehicle, it isn't a car.

 

Nice try.

 

I'm uninterested is special pleading or excuses.

 

Of course they do. And the other 4 large pickups follow the F150. Been that way for several years.

Courtesy of CAFE regulations that seem to have done the opposite of what was intended in 1975.

 

Jolly good.
Thanks for sharing that.

 

Great!

I think we'll have to wait and see what ev light duty pickups will come.

Shell is closing 1,000 gas stations to turn them into EV charging sites!

I think this is in Europe and/or Australia.

But, it's good to see oil companies joining rather than fighting.

 

Wow! 1000 EV charging sites! Maybe in Europe! Maybe in Australia!

You'll have to excuse me if I remain underwhelmed.

 

Actual data and research results seem not to suit you.

 

The skeptics win again. The alarmists' apology is overdue.
Uncertainty In Natural Forcing From Wildfire, Dust Aerosols 2 Times Larger Than Total CO2 Forcing
By Kenneth Richard on 22. March 2024

The radiative effect of natural wildfire aerosol forcing alone can be said to fully cancel out the total accumulated forcing from 170 years of CO2 increases in the current climate.
It has been estimated that the total change in climate forcing (radiation imbalance) from the 1750 to present CO2 concentration increase has been 1.82 W/m².



Image Source: Feldman et al., 2015
New research suggests today’s climate models omit an “important perturbation to Earth’s energy balance” because they fail to include the natural climate forcing potential from aerosols produced by wildfires and dust loading.

Climate models expressly assume this non-volcanic natural aerosol forcing is not present, or 0.0 W/m², even though it has been estimated that aerosol forcing from wildfire emissions alone – which were much higher during the preindustrial period before declining to today’s levels – deliver a “radiative effect in the current climate of -2 W/m².” Therefore, this natural climate forcing effect can be said to, by itself, fully cancel the surface forcing from the post-industrial CO2 increases.

Furthermore, the estimated 4 W/m² uncertainty in preindustrial-to-present (1850-) aerosol climate forcing from natural wildfire emissions and dust is also over two times larger than 270 years of CO2 concentration increases (1.82 W/m² since 1750). This effectively means that anthropogenic CO2 forcing is too uncertain to clearly separate from natural aerosol forcing.



Image Source: Mahowald et al., 2024
Below are key quotes from this research paper.

1) Regarding the natural aerosol forcing uncertainty missing in the models…

“The uncertainty in aerosol emissions that are usually considered natural, such as from dust storms or wildfires, is likely larger and contributes to larger uncertainties in aerosol radiative forcing.”

“There are no estimates of radiative forcing for important aerosols such as wildfire and dust aerosols in most paleoclimate time periods.”

“…dust deposition records [are] not captured in climate models. These models therefore also predict a dust-climate feedback that is indistinguishable from zero. As such, not explicitly accounting for dust changes as a radiative forcing has the net effect of omitting this potentially important perturbation to Earth’s energy balance.”

“…here we are assuming, without prior information, that the radiative forcing of any paleo-time period relative to the preindustrial is around 0.0 W/m².”

“…we do not know the emissions [from wildfires or dust] well, nor the impact of those emissions on climate. We can envision these uncertainties as mostly unknown.”

2) Regarding the larger radiative forcing impact and uncertainty values of natural aerosols than CO2 forcing…

“In addition, wildfires and open fires represent some of the most important aerosols for direct and aerosol-cloud radiative effects, with a total radiative effect in the current climate of -2 W/m².”

“The total unconstrained uncertainty due to aerosol changes [since 1850] could be estimated as being 4 W/m².”

“…dust [radiative forcing] was likely 2-4 times higher in the Last Glacial Maximum [~25,000 to 17,000 years ago] than it is today.”

“From the limited literature we crudely estimate a paleoclimate aerosol uncertainty for the Last Glacial Maximum relative to preindustrial [1850] of 4.8 W/m².”

“Paleoclimate data from charcoal records suggest a maximum in open fires in the 1850s and a decrease since then. Satellite data show a global decrease in burned area over the last decades…”

“…the 1970s is a time period of Sahel drought, and dust radiative forcing between the 1960s and 1980s changed by perhaps -0.57 ±0.46 W/m².”

 

I was just lying in the bath musing. I do like bath and a glass of Bourbon.
Anyway back on topic.
For those of you you think China is playing you for suckers trying to crash your economy by going along with the climate change madness while doing nothing?
Here's a different conspiracy theory.
China knows climate change is very real, but they are trying to destroy your economy. They pretend to want to stop global warming while building dozens of Coal power stations. WHY?
Because they know climate change will do far more harm to your economy with the majority of your population living in cities on the coast of your huge island than it ever will to their country with 3/4 of its borders land locked.
Sure Americans are being suckered, but its not the believers who are being suckered its you deniers.

 

And 1000 less gas stations!

 

Wow. Even less whelmed if that's indeed a real word.

 

Occam's razor. Seems much more plausible that China's enjoying selling us the guns we're using to shoot ourselves in the head.

They'll eventually be able to take us over without firing a shot.

 

Fearmongering...I'm not a fan of Communism, but my observations of late are that they are moving forward at a much faster pace than the US. Our Political System has been near broken since the emergence of FOX News in the '90s. They've created a horrendous partisan divide in this country. Once they started with 100% partisan news, CNN, who used to be a we-are-first-on-the-scene news channel, shifted to the left and reported less news and became almost exclusively politics. The US has become divided, with little getting done. Trump couldn't even get an infrastructure bill passed. Biden did get one done, but it was mostly focused on the repair of crumbling structures.

Meanwhile China has been rebuilding their cities and their country with incredible fast and reliable high speed rail and local transit. Their cities are beautiful and state-of-the-art, with very little crime. They are becoming a major player in every economic arena and industry.

It's easy to talk about freedom in the US versus China, but if that freedom continues to be extremely partisan, the US will continue to lag.

 

Wow, did you see that post sail way over your head?

 

Another alarmist talking point is nullified by the data.
History of weather extremes reveals little has changed, new report shows
Friday 22nd March 2024
Ralph Alexander: Weather extremes in historical context (pdf)

 

This Ralph Alexander. Can I assume his work is not peer reviewed.

“Global warming may be real, but there’s hardly a shred of good scientific evidence that it has very much to do with the amount of CO2 we’re producing, or even that temperatures have risen as much as warmists say.”7

Key Quotes
“The link between extreme weather and global warming has as much scientific basis as the pagan rite of human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.”

“Climate-change skeptics might be regarded as modern-day witches because they think that global warming comes from natural forces. However, it’s superstitious alarmists, who believe that extreme weather originates in our CO2 emissions and who have a dread of impending disaster, who are really the witches.”

 

Having recently posted in this thread peer-reviewed research that falsifies the CO2 greenhouse gas-climate hypothesis, and having noted your failure to discuss that research, I conclude that your interest in peer review is more rhetorical than real. As for Dr. Alexander:

Retired physicist Dr. Ralph B. Alexander is the author of Global Warming False Alarm and Science Under Attack: The Age of Unreason. With a PhD in physics from the University of Oxford, he is also the author of numerous scientific papers and reports on complex technical issues. His thesis research in the interdisciplinary area of ion-solid interactions reflected his interest in a wide range of scientific topics. Dr Alexander has been a researcher at major laboratories in Europe and Australia, a professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, the co-founder of an entrepreneurial materials company, and a market analyst in environmentally friendly materials for a small consulting firm.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the many (open) reviewers who made constructive comments and useful suggestions that have helped improve this report, especially in the section titled ‘Further back in time.

As for peer review:

. . . . Our flagship long-form GWPF Reports are all reviewed by our Academic Advisory Council, and are also made available for pre-publication open peer review. We will publish any substantive comments alongside the main paper, provided we are satisfied they will enhance the educational experience of the reader. In this way, we hope to encourage open and active debate on the important areas in which we work.

GWPF Briefings and Notes are shorter documents and are reviewed internally and/or externally as required. The enhanced review process for GWPF papers is intended to take the content and analysis beyond a typical review for an academic journal:

• More potential reviewers can be involved
• The number of substantive comments will typically exceeds journal peer review, and
• The identity of the author is known to the potential reviewers.

As an organisation whose publications are sometimes the subject of assertive or careless criticism, this review process is intended to enhance the educational experience for all readers, allowing points to be made and considered in context and observing the standards required for an informed and informative debate. We therefore expect all parties involved to treat the reviews with the utmost seriousness. . . .

 

Have you. Not to my knowledge.
You posted a link to an article discussing decreased reflection of solar radiation, but failed to give any conclusions on its cause or its effect.

As usual with climate deniers you just left the inference hanging.

 

Please see my #335, #233 and (especially) #235. The last was a specific response regarding cause and effect.

 

It didn't. China knows "climate change" is a fraud. But as long as folks like you promote it and the West continues to buy it, they'll sell us things like cheap EVs until our entire industrial infrastructure collapses from the idiocy.

Your first mistake was assuming the Chinese are fools.

 

This, yes I read it.

• From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (fossil fuel) CO2 emissions can be discerned;

Conclusion? It doesn't exist? That the increased Co2 we can easily measure comes from somewhere else?
As I say no real explanation.

 

From #235, as indicated:

• As a result of the recent warming, and as explained in [5], the biosphere has expanded and become more productive, leading to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth [17,18,19,32];
• As a result of the increased CO2 concentration, the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere has decreased;
• The greenhouse effect on the Earth remained stable in the last century, as it is dominated by the water vapour in the atmosphere [31];
• Human CO2 emissions have played a minor role in the recent climatic evolution, which is hardly discernible in observational data and unnecessary to invoke in modelling the observed behaviours, including the change in the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere.

 

So where is all the human produced Co2?
Oh, and we know what caused the warming after the little ice age and its not happening now.