9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Did you read it all? From your own link:

 

"Overall, fossil CO2 emissions are expected to rise by around 4.9% in 2021 with many countries/regions contributing to the recovery in emissions from 2020 lows. Global emissions will almost fully rebound, remaining only around 0.8% below 2019’s record levels, and putting the world on track to likely set a new record for fossil CO2 emissions in 2022."

 

From 2022, their prediction was correct:

Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds

And this chart shows why that whole argument of catastrophic CO2 emissions is as good as irrelevant for global warming.

53 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Meanwhile, a Category 4 hurricane is bearing down on Los Angeles.

Last one was in 1939. Over 80 years ago.

Just as significant are the wildfires in Canada. Perhaps the Siberian taiga is next.

 

3 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

And this chart shows why that whole argument of catastrophic CO2 emissions is as good as irrelevant for global warming.

From Gregory Writhtstone inconvinentfacts.xyz ???? Do share the web link and context text so I can fact check it.

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

And this chart shows why that whole argument of catastrophic CO2 emissions is as good as irrelevant for global warming.

I would be careful to believe in Scientists, they could happen to be wrong. Just saying

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

From Gregory Writhtstone inconvinentfacts.xyz ???? Do share the web link and context text so I can fact check it.

I copied it from the Happer-Lindzen report chapter #4 where they address athmospheric CO@ and its impact on global warming (pages 26-29)

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

29 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Did you read it all? From your own link:

 

"Overall, fossil CO2 emissions are expected to rise by around 4.9% in 2021 with many countries/regions contributing to the recovery in emissions from 2020 lows. Global emissions will almost fully rebound, remaining only around 0.8% below 2019’s record levels, and putting the world on track to likely set a new record for fossil CO2 emissions in 2022."

 

From 2022, their prediction was correct:

Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds

I read the entire article.  And in words and charts it states that CO2 levels have been pretty much flat:

The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

You do understand there are fluctuations from year to year?  The trend over the last decade, though, is as stated in the article.  I think you may be overly excited over a prediction actually coming true after so many major predictions never coming close to materialising?  A small victory for you?

An off topic post and reply contravening our Community Standards has been removed.    

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

I copied it from the Happer-Lindzen report chapter #4 where they address athmospheric CO@ and its impact on global warming (pages 26-29)

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

Richarad Lindzen, huh?

Gambling on Global Warming Goes Mainstream
News
By Ker Than published April 13, 2007

An MIT meteorologist said three years ago that he would bet money that global average temperatures would cool back down in 20 years. The quote triggered a flurry of Internet dialogues and prompted scientists to challenge each other to make bets on climate-change issues.

One scientist took the wagering meteorologist, Richard Lindzen, up on his bet, but the deal fell apart over a disagreement about odds.

https://www.livescience.com/1414-gambling-global-warming-mainstream.html

Here's another article that references Lindzer's offer. But I chose instead of quoting the section that refers to him,  to feature this bet. The 2 climate skeptics bet that a decrease in sunspots would also mean a decrease in average temperature. And the sunspots did decrease, In fact solar activity has been extremely low for the past several cycles. Just picking up lately. And climatologists had detected a weak correlation between sunspot activity and average global temperature. That is, until the level of greenhouse gases started to rise sharply. Then that signal was drowned. So despite the pronounced decrease in solar activity, global temperatures have continued to rise.

 

Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down

But Annan's search ended with Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, who are based at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk, Russia. They say that global surface air temperatures closely correlate with the size and number of sunspots. Sunspot levels follow regular patterns and the Sun is expected to be in a less active phase over the next few decades, leading Mashnich and Bashkirtsev to predict a drop in temperature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/436897a

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Richarad Lindzen, huh?

Gambling on Global Warming Goes Mainstream
News
By Ker Than published April 13, 2007

An MIT meteorologist said three years ago that he would bet money that global average temperatures would cool back down in 20 years. The quote triggered a flurry of Internet dialogues and prompted scientists to challenge each other to make bets on climate-change issues.

One scientist took the wagering meteorologist, Richard Lindzen, up on his bet, but the deal fell apart over a disagreement about odds.

https://www.livescience.com/1414-gambling-global-warming-mainstream.html

Here's another article that references Lindzer's offer. But I chose instead of quoting the section that refers to him,  to feature this bet. The 2 climate skeptics bet that a decrease in sunspots would also mean a decrease in average temperature. And the sunspots did decrease, In fact solar activity has been extremely low for the past several cycles. Just picking up lately. And climatologists had detected a weak correlation between sunspot activity and average global temperature. That is, until the level of greenhouse gases started to rise sharply. Then that signal was drowned. So despite the pronounced decrease in solar activity, global temperatures have continued to rise.

 

Climate sceptics place bets on world cooling down

But Annan's search ended with Mashnich and Bashkirtsev, who are based at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk, Russia. They say that global surface air temperatures closely correlate with the size and number of sunspots. Sunspot levels follow regular patterns and the Sun is expected to be in a less active phase over the next few decades, leading Mashnich and Bashkirtsev to predict a drop in temperature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/436897a

A 16 year old article that refers to Lindzen's views 3 years earlier. 

You must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to dig that up ????

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

I copied it from the Happer-Lindzen report chapter #4 where they address athmospheric CO@ and its impact on global warming (pages 26-29)

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf

Already debunked in my previous post:

 

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015 (The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry.[3]). William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition

 

You obviously don't look at who funds them

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

And this chart shows why that whole argument of catastrophic CO2 emissions is as good as irrelevant for global warming.

Wow! A graph from someone named Gregory Wrightstone. And we should take his word for this why?

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I read the entire article.  And in words and charts it states that CO2 levels have been pretty much flat:

The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

You do understand there are fluctuations from year to year?  The trend over the last decade, though, is as stated in the article.  I think you may be overly excited over a prediction actually coming true after so many major predictions never coming close to materialising?  A small victory for you?

You read it and missed out that its evidence was up till 2020. What you didn't highlight was the portion after that in which they said and I repeat:

 

"Overall, fossil CO2 emissions are expected to rise by around 4.9% in 2021 with many countries/regions contributing to the recovery in emissions from 2020 lows. Global emissions will almost fully rebound, remaining only around 0.8% below 2019’s record levels, and putting the world on track to likely set a new record for fossil CO2 emissions in 2022."

 

From 2022, their prediction was correct:

Global greenhouse gas emissions at all-time high, study finds

 

Yes I also understand trends, 10 years does not make a trend, this is a trend

 

 

https://sustainableshrewsbury.org/climate/

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Where's your evidence?  Al Gore claimed back on December 14, 2009, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark that scientist predicted a 75% chance that the north pole would be completely ice-free during some of the summer months by 2016.  That hasn't happened and it still hasn't happened.

The problem with climate change believers is none of their predictions come true.  And as to their efforts to connect a single hurricane or any other major weather event to climate change has never been done with absolute conclusive scientific evidence which every scientist would be able to agree with.

The point being that neither do you have any real evidence.  Keep in mind, interpretations of data is not real evidence, especially when it data that is not shared.

You know when someone cites Al Gore or, for that matter, Greta Thunberg, they are trying to deflect. As far as I know, neither Al Gore not Greta Thunberg are climatologists. So what do you think you're proving by quoting them?

And what is your definition of believers? Because if you mean climatologists, then their most important predictions have come true. Or do you dispute that?

As for your comment about evidence, the fact is, once again, that climatologists' predictions have come true. Global temperatures are rising at a far greater rate than has been established for thousands years. . The worlds glaciers on balance are losing vast quantities of water. The Arctic and the Antarctic temperatures are increasing faster than elsewhere. And the kick in the teeth is that while the troposphere is getting warmer, the stratosphere is getting colder. There's no need to explain to you what that means. Or is there?

 

40 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

A 16 year old article that refers to Lindzen's views 3 years earlier. 

You must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to dig that up ????

Richard Lindzen predicted that temperatures would fall. Not only didn't they fall but they rose sharply. Why is that scraping the bottom of the barrel? His theoretical framework failed big time.

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What science have you studied and practiced?

What are your degrees?

What have you published?

 

In other words, what are your scientific credentials that make your opinions any more credible than the rest of us?

 

I'm taking a break.  I'll be back in a few hours to see if you answer.

USAFA, after my TOA I attended USC-V. Continued in the government sector then private. That’s all you’re getting, unless you’re looking for a contractor which I doubt you have the capital to support a project. Though if you’re looking for an interesting read: Nature Journal, issue May 24 2001…if you’re able to decipher ????

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Wow! A graph from someone named Gregory Wrightstone. And we should take his word for this why?

Gregory Wrightstone also just happened to be a  policy advisor at the Heartland Institute and executive director of the Koch-funded CO2 Coalition.  He spent decades working for the natural gas industry and also director of geology at Texas Keystone, an oil and gas company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

 

A profile on the now-defunct Wrightstone Energy Consulting website describes him as an American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)-certified petroleum geologist who “has been deeply involved in the exploration and exploitation of unconventional Appalachian Basin reservoirs for 35 years.” 

 

https://www.desmog.com/gregory-wrightstone/

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Gregory Wrightstone also just happened to be a  policy advisor at the Heartland Institute and executive director of the Koch-funded CO2 Coalition.  He spent decades working for the natural gas industry and also director of geology at Texas Keystone, an oil and gas company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

 

A profile on the now-defunct Wrightstone Energy Consulting website describes him as an American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)-certified petroleum geologist who “has been deeply involved in the exploration and exploitation of unconventional Appalachian Basin reservoirs for 35 years.” 

 

https://www.desmog.com/gregory-wrightstone/

From what I can see of his record, it doesn't look like Gregory Whitestone has ever published any research.

On his website he notes that he is listed as an expert reviewer for AR6. That would be the IPCC's 6th report. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Here's what it takes to become an expert reviewer:

 

HOW DO EXPERTS BECOME REVIEWERS OF IPCC REPORTS?
Experts are invited to register for the review through the website of the IPCC Working Group or Task Force responsible for the report.

Because the aim of the expert review is to get the widest possible participation and broadest possible expertise, those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/

 

Given that he has an M.S. in geology, I guess that qualifies him to be called on expert reviewer. I doubt the IPCC drafted him.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

From what I can see of his record, it doesn't look like Gregory Whitestone has ever published any research.

On his website he notes that he is listed as an expert reviewer for AR6. That would be the IPCC's 6th report. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Here's what it takes to become an expert reviewer:

 

HOW DO EXPERTS BECOME REVIEWERS OF IPCC REPORTS?
Experts are invited to register for the review through the website of the IPCC Working Group or Task Force responsible for the report.

Because the aim of the expert review is to get the widest possible participation and broadest possible expertise, those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/

 

Given that he has an M.S. in geology, I guess that qualifies him to be called on expert reviewer. I doubt the IPCC drafted him.

Sure and as my previous link indicated, he's been financed in his entire career by the fossil fuel industry and dark money. Yet we have members here that post his reports as credible. 

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Sure and as my previous link indicated, he's been financed in his entire career by the fossil fuel industry and dark money. Yet we have members here that post his reports as credible. 

And the thing is, by listing himself as an expert reviewer, people are naturally misled about his actual qualifications. That's the kind of thing a con artist would do.

55 minutes ago, novacova said:

USAFA, after my TOA I attended USC-V. Continued in the government sector then private. That’s all you’re getting, unless you’re looking for a contractor which I doubt you have the capital to support a project. Though if you’re looking for an interesting read: Nature Journal, issue May 24 2001…if you’re able to decipher ????

I was in email correspondence with the DDA. I sent her an email and at the bottom wrote SWGTMTFTS.

 

I was half expecting a promotion, and be made CEO. But no! Instead she made me DFO of the RITB research project.

 

Not the happiest time in my life.

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

And this chart shows why that whole argument of catastrophic CO2 emissions is as good as irrelevant for global warming.

I have to be honest, I don't understand this chart.

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

I would be careful to believe in Scientists, they could happen to be wrong. Just saying

Scientists can be wrong?

 

So you rely on witches or Ouiji boards?

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I read the entire article.  And in words and charts it states that CO2 levels have been pretty much flat:

The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

You do understand there are fluctuations from year to year?  The trend over the last decade, though, is as stated in the article.  I think you may be overly excited over a prediction actually coming true after so many major predictions never coming close to materialising?  A small victory for you?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL

 

It seems that your internet frirnds have lied to you. 

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

I would be careful to believe in Scientists, they could happen to be wrong. Just saying

So, you listen to witches or random people on the street?

 

What is wrong with you?

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I read the entire article.  And in words and charts it states that CO2 levels have been pretty much flat:

The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

You do understand there are fluctuations from year to year?  The trend over the last decade, though, is as stated in the article.  I think you may be overly excited over a prediction actually coming true after so many major predictions never coming close to materialising?  A small victory for you?

please show a link demonstrating flat CO2 levels.

 

 

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I Know.  It's hard not to laugh.  I read in some archived stone tablet that the month of July in BC 109,456 was much hotter by a significant degree (pun intended).  It really starts to get ludicrous.

In other words, because you don't know how temperatures in the past were determined and you haven't bothered to check, that means they can't be trusted.

 

Is that your point?

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

No, climate science is not a religion. 

 

Climate hysteria is a religion. 

Right, it's like hysteria about nuclear war.  Scientist say it would be bad, but they can't prove it.

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I read the entire article.  And in words and charts it states that CO2 levels have been pretty much flat:

The new data shows that global CO2 emissions have been flat – if not slightly declining – over the past 10 years. 

You do understand there are fluctuations from year to year?  The trend over the last decade, though, is as stated in the article.  I think you may be overly excited over a prediction actually coming true after so many major predictions never coming close to materialising?  A small victory for you?

Yes, CO2 fluctuates year to year.  That's why long-term trends are important.  CO2 levels have increased 50% since the start of the industrial revolution?  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

6 hours ago, novacova said:

USAFA, after my TOA I attended USC-V. Continued in the government sector then private. That’s all you’re getting, unless you’re looking for a contractor which I doubt you have the capital to support a project. Though if you’re looking for an interesting read: Nature Journal, issue May 24 2001…if you’re able to decipher ????

Seriously?  That's it?  No degrees, no publications? 

 

I'm USAF, retired.   BA Mathematics, BS Aeronautical Engineering, MS Astronautical Engineering.  Most of my work was in aerospace system test, plus five years at a lab doing stuff (not climate related) I won't discuss here.  Co-author on a few publication, nothing recent and nothing science related.

 

I don't consider myself a scientist or present myself as one.  However I do have a reasonable grasp of numbers, graphs, statistics (including the concept of outliers) and I respect the opinions of those who get their work published in respected peer-reviewed journals.  That's what the climate scientists who maintain global warming is real and being driven in part by greenhouse gases generated by modern society have been doing.

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Scientists can be wrong?

 

So you rely on witches or Ouiji boards?

It was Ironic,