Rep. Scott Perry (R-Penn.) flattens Biden climate envoy John Kerry at today’s House Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability hearing. You haven’t heard anyone confront Kerry or any other climate clown like Perry does, calling him a “grifter” and asking why he wants to spend $1.6 quadrillion on something that is not a problem.
For more information on emissions in context go to EverythingClimate.com
Addendum:
Let’s give a shout out to to Lord Monckton and ourselves for this gem appearing in the hearing.
Thank goodness there’s nothing else happening in the world re climate. We can concentrate solely on Rep Perry’s great wisdom.
Tru dat.
The climate is chaotic. No one has the foggiest idea what will happen beyond 2-3 days. That’s why medium range weather forecasting is so unrealiable.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms, it raises Tmin like a blanket slows cooling. SO2 is a gas that causes warming by its removal in the Clean Air Acts, causing less cloud and greater insolation which increases Tmax but you never see that acknowledged.
Clouds can’t be modelled, a slight increase in cloud reduces insolation dramatically. Warming increases cloud through greater evaporation.
The oceans can’t be modelled. The warm water currently in the Atlantic didn’t get there by warming in the Atlantic, it flowed their as a current from warmer regions. Another year it’ll be colder. It has a dramatic impact on European weather.
This is just basic undergrad applied maths/physics. There may be 97% of “scientists” saying we’re doomed but how many even really understand the basic Physics, Chemistry and Maths of Climate and chaos?.
.
And what sort of Scientist adjust historical temperature records to exagerate warming?
The data mannipulators should be described as dangerous, destructive, scoundrels.
It’s actually 97% of John Cook and Stephan Lewandowski.
D & Z then deliberately re-fabricated their result. (or was it the other way around.)
D & Z publicly set out to prove an Oreske’s suggestion in an opinion piece that most scientists believed in the Global Warming hypothesis.
They sent out 10,000 questionnaires to “geoscientists”, got back 3,000 replies and then weeded them down to less than 100, with the requirement that those selected have “Climate Scientist” as a title.
I see that my effort at reverse sarcasm didn’t register with 23 readers.
Fancy being down voted on a response to a TFN comment.
I may have to commit seppuku to rid my shame.
You should be proud!
Not if that requires me to participate in a colorful parade of some sort.
“You should be proud!”
And you should be embarrassed at your lack of basic awareness !
I should just like to take a moment to say I got it!
Me too!
When you respond with a straight comment, we have zero clue that you intend sarcasm.
Even your seppuku comment fails. “Seppuku” is ‘cutting the belly’, apparently you believe we will somehow assume otherwise because you are ashamed?
The downvote remains for you believing that ‘your’ sarcasm is obvious to everyone.
Who took the jam out if your doughnut, AtheoK?
😂😂😂
Well since you used “world” (as if there is a world climate) go argue your position with China, India, Africa and other nations enjoying economic prosperity for the first time and let us know how it goes for you.
They never do.
Better yet, go protest in Tiananmen Square. Be especially loud and forceful. I’m sure you’ll make a difference.
Think China set a new record high temperature in the last day or so. Radio silence at WUWT, the world’s most viewed site on climate.
So what? In January this year China set a new record low temperature – radio silence from you and your alarmist cronies. Now you want adulation just for saying it got warmer? You are flippin’ obsessed with warm temperatures, aren’t you – you need help, TFN.
But Richard, you’re forgetting that the record cold temperature was just weather, but the new high temperature is climate.
I’m just wondering why a climate site is ignoring all the current climate news. Aren’t you? If not, why not?
Come back in 30 years if you want climate news.
Surely 30 years is just oceanic oscillations – extended weather patterns? 150 years would be more like climate if the Modern Warming is not yet over (sure hope not).
Climate does not equate to temperature you ignoramus. I’m sure WUWT would look at weather phenomena as it always has done but this unhealthy obsession of yours with warm temperatures is ridiculous.
“all the current climate news”
Because most of that news is proven to be just HYPE and propaganda.
Sorry you are incapable..
….
of telling the difference between what is real and what isn’t..
It’s not climate news, IT’S WEATHER NEWS!
That someplace somewhere is setting a high or low temperaure record is not news. It happens every day, usually in hundreds of places every day.
The only thing newsworthy is how those who know nothing about science or statistics are trying to turn this meaningless fact into something they can use to promote their agenda.
What current climate news are you talking about? The weather hype on the news?
So are you going to give us the names of places that had a new high temperature? To be fair, you should also give us the names of the places that did not experience a new high temperature. To put things in perspective, don’t you see.
WUWT covers as much of this climate change alarmist weather hyperbole as possible. So much weather hype, and so little time.
The Climate Change Doomsday rhetoric is over the top, and completely divorced from reality.
There is no climate crisis according to the actual data.
Proof you don’t know the difference between climate and weather.
and I just came back to this post to see what your rational response was to Richard’s comment about China’s record COLD events were, TFN.
?
I’m just wondering why a climate site is ignoring all the current
climateweather news. Aren’t you? If not, why not?Yeah but that was Climate Change, this is Climate Armageddon. With heat firebombs, thuderdomes, heatwave slyvester, and a strong breeze calling Archimedes because we’re all screwed
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty!
Y A W N!!!!
Imagine that, a high temperature record. That’s just unprecedented. Bless your little heart.
And warm in New England. Wow, we’ve never seen that before.
It’s almost as if it were summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
Given that there are hundreds of thousands of temperature stations around the world.
Given that most of these are well less than 100 years old.
Nobody should be surprised that on any given day, there are thousands of stations setting all time highs. Just as on any given day there will be thousands setting all time lows.
(Of course there will be an excess of all time highs being set during the northern hemispherical summer, since there is more land and hence more recording stations in the northern hemisphere.)
Please show pictures of the weather station where this temperature was measured.. It is bound to be a highly compromised surface site !
Probably loads of jets landing around it.
More likely to be urban expansion.
Great to see you finally figuring out that surface sites are meaningless for comparison over time.
In other words, you have no idea about the quality of the station that you are citing.
You really should be ashamed of yourself.
I admit it, I rely on the scientists to sort that stuff out. Communists as they all are….
Certainly, you could NEVER rely on yourself for any rational thought process or grasp of reality.
Now, produce the site..
…. or don’t ! 😉
Here is a good example of a Chinese “weather” station.
LOL..!
The butt hurt is high with you TFN.
First you post something completely untrue as well as utterly meaningless, then you whine endlessly. You can’t even be bothered to actually quote anyone accurately.
You are the perfect example of a climate warrior, ignorant, arrogant and completely childish.
I think you meant the climastrologers didn’t you Rusty?
I’ve been to Beijing in July and it is hot HOT. Do you suppose that one of the biggest and fastest-growing cities in the world might have a smidge of urban heat island effect?
It really is sad the way climate alarmists define “scientist” as anyone who agrees with them.
There are no climate scientists, there are a lot of people who are paid to promote the global warming myth.
Came across this doozy
“The reports reveal that the northern areas of China have experienced the most hot days which includes the capital Beijing. 10 days of temperatures above 35C was recorded in Beijing this year which is said to be the longest heatwave since 1961.”
Oh, so there was a long heat wave in 1961.. 😉
Not just was there a heat wave in 1961, it was longer than the current heat wave.
I’m willing to bet that the population of Beijing was only a tiny percentage of what it is today, back then.
On my first trip to China, air conditioning was a rare thing, it was summer and it was hot and humid.
“Oh, so there was a long heat wave in 1961.. “
Atmospheric CO2 measured at Mauna Lau was +/- 318 ppm in 1961.
Possibly CO2 does not have much to do with heatwaves?
Just saying
In a world where the temperature varies by more than 150 degrees every day of the year, new recorded highs or lows will be the standard, not the exception.
In areas such as the one you are referencing, at 500 feet below sea level, likely has 60 degree daily swings. Areas such as this should also be expected to have ongoing new highs and lows in the record history.
It’s a question of averaging, Don.
Then why didn’t you average it? Or is it just that you don’t know how?
“It’s a question of averaging”
Poor FN .. clueless as always.
You are too mathematically naive to have any clue how the surface data is fabricated.
Of course a single day high temperature reading is no or less meaningful than a single day cold record reading.
Beyond that only the statistically illiterate would claim that there is anything at all meaningful in a single day’s high temperature reading for a country. Especially one with as short and as questionable a climate record as China.
BTW, I love it when leftists get bent out of shape because nobody else cares about the things that matter to it.
So average all the daily temperatures… That’s what the scientists do. It’s not that hard a concept, for most.
They don’t average the daily temperatures. They find the mid-range value of the temperature. Since the daytime temps are primarily sinusoidal and the nighttime temps are exponential/polynomial decays, the mid-range temp is *NOT* an average temp in any way, shape, or form.
Poor FN…
…You have just proven that you have zero clue how the surface data is fabricated.
But we already knew that….
First off, you are the one who has been claiming that a single record high at a single sensor was meaningful. I don’t see you doing any averaging.
As to your belief that all one has to do is average, that just further demonstrates how incredibly ignorant you are about even the most basis of science.
First off, not all sensors are the same, how do you plan or “averaging” a sensor that records temperatures every hour with one that only records a single daily high and daily low?
Some areas of the planet are well covered with sensors, other areas have few sensors. Yet other areas have no sensors whatsoever. How do you plan on “averaging” those sensors together to create a meaningful result?
There are other issues such as changing equipment, and missing data.
How do you plan on dealing with those kinds of issues.
All you have to do is think for a minute, and you would realize how incredibly stupid you make yourself sound. But therein lies the problem, you never do stop to think, you just echo what you heard in class, engaging brain simply isn’t necessary.
That is not what real “scientists do”.
Nobel Laureate for work on photons at quantum levels is a real scientist.
You’re alleged scientists? Here is what their faux accomplishments actually are:
Depending on the measurement uncertainty of that station how sure are we that there was actually a record set? When was the last time it was calibrated?
I didn’t want to confuse poor TFN by dumping too much reality on him at one time.
Since, NOAA assumes the factory calibrated their equipment, probably never.
Hubbard and Lin found in 2002 that microclimate plays a HUGE part in temperature measurement station calibration. Winter/summer in most of the world sees a big change in microclimate thus in the station calibration. Yet NASA/NOAA/NWS and the CAGW cult all assume the station is calibrated perfectly ALL THE TIME. They assume measurement uncertainty is effectively zero since they never, ever, give an uncertainty interval for their measurments!
Record cold 2022/23
Record-breaking cold hits half of the US | Popular Science (popsci.com)
Coldest start to winter in decades for eastern Australia with power grid under strain | Australia news | The Guardian
China: Northern city of Mohe reports coldest temperature – BBC News
continued
Record-setting cold snap hits Europe, France – The Washington Post
South Pole Hits Record Cold November Temperatures – The Daily Sceptic
An Awful Chilly Global Warming in the Southern Hemisphere – ClimateRealism
continued
Record-breaking cold in Brazil threatens homeless, crops (phys.org)
Record cold night gives fruit and wine growers no respite | Reuters
U.S. Breaks Hundreds Of Low Temperature Records, Snow Benchmarks Also Toppled; Central Europe Logs Lowest November Temps In Decades; Snow Warnings Issued In Sweden; + Cold India – Electroverse
I could continue further, but most people will get the picture…
Bravo! Andy!
Try looking at a weather map sometime fool.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1SyPnuaAAAZAUB?format=png&name=medium
How about refuting Perry with data, not opinion?
Like temperature data? You’ll only say it’s made up.
Thing is, we now know the CA data was made up.
You really don’t pay any attention to anything do you.
Too busy with your chicken-little routine !
See?
Assuming bad motives on the part of your opponents is so much easier than actually defending your claims, isn’t it.
“See?”
Again, no counter to the facts.
Why is that, FN ??
If it’s from the UK Met Office, it very likely is
OK, if you consider that data rebuttal to be “made up”, walk us deniers through the actuality of Kerry’s “98% of scientists” comment – tell us all EXACTLY the amount, rounding up numbers as you choose, NUMERICALLY those “98% of scientists” represents. And when you have done that, if you are truthful and don’t try and dodge that, apply that reasoning to the rest of your zealotry; let us all know how you get on.
Temperature data shows no warming since the 2015/16 El Nino
Shows no warming from 2001 to 2015
Shows basically no warming from 1980 -1997.
Is that the temperature data you mean?
Or do you mean the manically adjusted urban heat and aircraft based, unfit for purpose, surface fabrications ?
Endless pauses
The Little Ice Age ended around 1850, thankfully.
Whatever caused the world to warm out of the Little Ice Age stopped in 1950 and CO2 took over.
How do we know this.
Why the models have proven it.
At least that’s what the alarmists want us to believe.
Virtually everything is cherry picked or corrupted to support their fear narrative.
1940 to 1980 …..avg. temp went down and CO2 went up 15%. Why? Every year there is a record temp(s) hot or cold set somewhere….so what? Earth’s record hot temp was set over a century ago and the cold record is only decades old.
Oh dear, Nick now using faked surface data from Berkeley
Disingenuous as always.!
You poor clown.., you do know that junk doesn’t remotely resemble anything REAL, don’t you !
So where did you get “real” surface data? Or did you just make it up?
“Or did you just make it up?”
Nope, I’ll leave to the likes of Berkeley, GISS etc
The trend in UAH matches the trend in the only pristine surface data, also matches balloon data.
I suggest we stick to using that for time-based comparisons.
OK, Monckton’s new pause, which he won’t be able to hold for more than a month or two more, is 0.2C higher then his old pause, which ended about 9 years ago. 0.2C/decade is about the predicted level of warming at the surface.
WOW !!
0.2ºC.. Let us all PANIC like headless chicken-littles !
Glad you now realise there has been two pauses (three actually)
In fact, nearly all the UAH record has been “zero trend”
“which he won’t be able to hold for more than a month or two more,”
Are you saying there is an El Nino coming, that will provide a warming spike or step. (like the previous 2 major El Ninos)
Maybe you are finally seeing the reality of the situation. !
You do realise that you are basically admitting that you KNOW it is nothing to do with enhanced atmospheric CO2 !
There isn’t any real surface data, it’s mostly made up.
”There isn’t any real surface data, it’s mostly made up.”
For real temps use UAH and verify it with radiosonde I posted above. Surface ”temperatures” are for the entertainment of alarmists only.
In my defense, UAH isn’t a surface record.
How about NOAA STAR that now matches UAH.
Look at that, a whole degree in 50 years! Wow, time to panic! and ,btw, what caused it? Oh, it must be CO2! What else could it possibly be? John Kerry, I voted for you once. I now have to ask myself, why did I vote for such a jerk?
You voted for Lurch? Sorry, you’re disqualified.
The Theory is that Man’s CO2 causes temperatures to rise.
Man’s CO2 has risen at a steady rate.
If the Theory is correct, there shouldn’t be any such long “pauses”.
Why all the pauses?
CO2 back radiation takes numerous vacations. The only time it is working hard is after El Nino’s. The data shows it prevents El Nino spiked temperatures from returning to the previous values. It is odd physics, but it is what it is.
“Endless pauses”
Yes Nick.. apart from the two major El Ninos
An endless pause since 1980
39 years of pause out of 45 years.
”Endless pauses” =
Endless bullshit. 1970 was not half a degree cooler than 2000
TFN the congressman had a bar graph made from a government agency and it showed no change over some time. What data are you talking about?
You have no idea what I or anyone else will say.
If you present verifiable temperature data that is not cherry-picked to suit your agenda, I’m sure people here will evaluate the data in good faith
Go ahead TFN, let’s see what you’ve got
Thank you for admitting you have no counterpoint.
Carry on……
You can’t even be bothered to tell us what city this alleged high temperature record was made in, so that nobody else can check up on it.
Regardless of whether it was made up or not, you have been schooled as to why it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. Not that you will take the lesson to heart.
“The remote Sanbao Township in Turpan depression, a deep mountain basin in Xinjiang.” Chances are that TFN hasn’t a clue where it was recorded or what the specific climate conditions of the township were when the temperatures were recorded. And no, TFN, when I say ‘climate’ I do not mean ‘temperature’.
You respond like a child. A not very bright one at that.
They can’t, it’s impossible, like the Penrose Triangle
Perry has the data, all right, but he is hopelessly clumsy about using it to make his point. Kerry could be knocked down on all his airy claims, old chestnuts about 97% of “scientists” etc. Opportunity missed, again!
There’s on;y so much you can do given limited time to make your point
Not so much Perry’s wisdom but Kerry’s ignorance. Actually, both. If Kerry can’t respond intelligently and he’s “the man” regarding this issue- no wonder the “alarmists” don’t have a case.
It’s not clear if Kerry understands that carbon dioxide is the basic building block of all life. He says some things indicating that he doesn’t understand this.
all I know about him is that he pays $700 for haircuts- I can’t respect a guy who is that concerned about his looks even if he says smart things
I remember stories about Sam Walton and his driving himself around town in a 30 year old pick up truck.
“concerned about his looks even if he says smart things”
looks = lurch-like with a total lack of basic intelligence.
… and has probably never said a smart thing in his life !
Ask Kerry what he is personally doing to reduce CO2 since he claims life on earth is hanging by a thread? He is creating more CO2 than thousands of average citizens.
Didn’t he also, at one time, try to explain that there was a thin band of CO2 up there (like a shell) …?
I can’t find this now. It would be good to quote him in one of these hearings and ask him if he is, now, just as sure of his ‘facts’ as he was back then.
(Same for Suzuki and the ‘carbon in the car glass is why your car gets so hot’).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/17/john-kerry-devastated-at-house-hearing-on-climate-by-scott-perry/#comment-3750712
Thx … everyone should watch Kerry:
‘Even little kids can understand this … a CO2 blanket a 1/2 inch thick … way up at the top of the atmosphere … warms us like a greenhouse’
This was only 9 years ago. Kerry is deluded; and a compartment moron.
Perhaps Kerry is an extraterrestrial and not a carbon-based lifeform.
So that’s true enough. They have no case. No case at all.
And…
THEY ARE WINNING!
“BIGLY”
Why? Because we’re not participating in a science exam. The alarmists are using science-free emotional appeals.
Meanwhile we’re busy squabbling among ourselves over scientific details that no normal human being cares about.
“The alarmists are using science-free emotional appeals.”
And the gullible and chronically anti-educated, like FN, fall for it every time.
There is nothing else happening as to climate. Far as I can tell the climate is normal. Pretty well the same as it was in 1970 when I started watching.
Instead of John Kerry’s great wisdom? Or Joe Biden’s great wisdom?
What should Rep. Perry do when speaking with the appointed “Climate Czar”, whose climate footprint in the last two years dwarfs my lifetime’s? I learned a science fact that carbon is a basic building block of life on earth. If anyone is concerned so much about carbon dioxide, then please stop exhaling.
Well, TFN, what’s else is “happening in the world re climate” other than the totally unscientific claim that mankind’s emissions of CO2 is currently the predominant driver of “climate change”?
This was the key point that Rep. Scott Perry hammered John Kerry about, but Lurch played deaf and dumb in responding to the facts Perry presented.
But you are certainly correct in your statement, that in comparison to Biden “climate envoy” Kerry, Rep. Perry displays great wisdom.
Kerry and Biden, dumb and dumber pride.
When they were VP and Secretary of State, I labeled them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb. It is just unbelievable to me that they continue to have support of the Democrats but I guess I am just too old and sensible.
Understandable.
Sadly, it is still an insult to the original Tweedles’ Dee and Dum.
Dunno, maybe high temperature records falling like bowling pins, heatwaves, record flooding and record low Antarctic sea ice…?
The low Antarctic sea ice is now recovering rapidly from the WEATHER event earlier in the winter.
There is absolutely nothing untoward , that isn’t part of NORMAL VARIABILITY, happening anywhere.
Extreme weather events are DECLINING globally
Weather and Climate Disasters Are Declining Globally (reason.com)
Models wrong again: Looks like Climate Change is making rainfall *less* intense globally « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)
You are responding exactly as the MSM wants to respond to their hype and carrying on.
Time to switch your feeble mind out of panic mode
Learn to tell the difference between propaganda hype, and actual facts.
Speaking of actual facts, with my feeble mind, isn’t it odd that WUWT is ignoring so many current climate stories? No mention of the warmest June on record globally; no mention of the lowest Antarctic sea ice extent record (this site used to love Antarctic sea ice extent); no mention of the US and European heat waves; no mention of record high temperatures in China.
Is this a climate site, really?
So much ignorance, so little self awareness. TFN is it even possible for you to feel embarrasment?
It was only a few days ago when there was an article here on WUWT that completely shredded the nonsensical claim of the warmest June on record.
As to your whines about Antarctic ice, I’ve refuted that at least three times in the last couple of days and don’t feel like going through it again for someone who has no attention of paying any attention to any factoid that doesn’t fit into what he wants to believe.
Wrong It was NOT the warmest June globally.
Not even in the short 45 years of UAH data.
Most of the last 10,000 years have been far warmer.
Heat waves happen in summer in the NH.. its called “summer” for a reason.
Now where was that site showing where the urban temperature in a secluded heat trap valley was recorded.. Still waiting
Did you know that globally, extreme weather events are DECLINING ?
You keep taking about weather and calling it “climate”. WUWT doesn’t usually carry weather reports. Why does that seem to surprise you?
Whether it’s “weather” or “climate” depends only on whether it supports the climate alarmist agenda.
You need to understand that TFN doesn’t ‘do’ weather and, to him, climate = temperature. It’s delusional, rather pathetic, but very true – notice that he brings every conversation on weather, climate, politics or science right back to his obsession with temperatures.
Again with the Antarctic sea ice? For the THIRD TIME in less than two weeks, a reminder for your less-than-goldfish attention span:
Extinct volcanoes.
But if volcanoes are causing melting this year, what were they doing last year?
Oh dear, Nick really is grasping at straws now.
Mt Erubus is not inactive, and many of the other volcanoes aren’t either..
New Study: Maps Of Ice Mass Loss Show Geothermal Heat Flow Explains 2003-2019 Antarctic Ice Melt (notrickszone.com)
Does Nick-picker really think active volcanoes are constant. !
WOW !
Ignorant as well as disingenuous.
Ooop’s you beat me to it good post!
Asking why extinct volcanoes are causing sea ice reductions this year and not last year is ‘clutching at straws’?
Somebody’s clutching at straws, lol!
Why do you try so hard to show your lazy stupidity in public even when a published paper is posted in front of YOU showing ACTIVE volcanoes are causing the melting.
You need to differentiate between *inactive* volcanoes and extinct volcanoes. Besides, extinct volcanoes sometimes *do* become active once again. One more thing the climate modelers can’t model correctly – continental drift, tectonic plate movement, and magma flow. All of which has an impact on climate.
“Does Nick-picker really think active volcanoes are constant. !”
There is no reason to believe their activity (if any) has all tuned together to create melting now, when not before. Erebus has its usual ice cap.
The GHFs listed are much as in the rest of the world, and no reason to believe they have increased.
Did you know that ocean seismic activity is a FAR better correlation with atmospheric temperatures than CO2?
Did you know that water heats easily from below, but is almost impossible to heat from above. !
Or are you just displaying your agenda-drive ignorance and deceit, yet again?
“Did you know that ocean seismic activity is a FAR better correlation”
Looks like a scientific source? But in fact it comes from PSI (Principia), a bunch of cranks too much even for WUWT.
So, no scientific counter, hey Nick-pick,
And no, the final graph may come from the scientists at PSI,
but the data is real..
.. it is just that you don’t like what it shows.
Disingenuous anti-science Nick.. as always.
Here is a more up to date graph, showing the 2015/16 El Nino.
Just ignore real data that you don’t like, Nick
Stick to your urban, aircraft surface mal-adjusted fabrication.
There’s a good little climate shill !.
Source?
Argue the data.. if you can, AGW cultist.
The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming: 2016 Update (omicsonline.org)
Geology is not one of your pretend areas of expertise, is it !
Yet you couldn’t come up with a counterpoint thus you posted nothing of scientific value.
Oceans can be warmed from above, you just have to wait for the over turning to move the heat from the top to the bottom.
As to linking earth quakes and ocean heating, you are aware that correlation does not prove causation.
Even if the heat output of undersea volcanoes was to triple, it still wouldn’t be a measurable amount.
But it *could* have local effects like melting ice at the surface over the heat output.
Now you are lying since as there have been a number of published papers in the last 15 years showing ACTIVE Volcanoes under the two main melting areas here is the latest one you didn’t read:
New Study: Maps Of Ice Mass Loss Show Geothermal Heat Flow Explains 2003-2019 Antarctic Ice Melt
LINK
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/14/scientists-discover-91-volcanoes-below-antarctic-ice-sheet/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/14/evidence-of-recent-volcanic-eruptions-under-the-western-antarctic-ice-sheet/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/15/new-map-of-antarctic-geothermal-heat-suggests-steig-mann-2009-werent-measuring-global-warming/
Just 3 links of several.
Don’t you know that it can only be considered data, when it supports the climate alarmist agenda.
Everything else is just unsupported opinion.
“Just 3 links of several.”
A common WUWT pattern. None of the links actually say anything relevant, but there are so many of them.
Th first is a paper by scientists who imaged the landscape under the ice. They found 91 hills of volcanic shape. We would have more than that in Victoria. No evidence of activity.
The second does have evidence of “recent” activity. 22K and 44K years ago. Victoria can do better than that.
The third just shows geothermal heat variation. Well, it is stronger in some places than others, as usual. But it is nowhere stronger than you’d find in many other places in the world. And, of course, no evidence of a recent increase. Geothermal heat flux usually doesn’t change quickly.
“Geothermal heat flux usually doesn’t change quickly.”
So you are admitting it does change.
Volcanoes don’t erupt quickly either.. is that what you are saying ?
Your comment is trite, irrational nonsense, yet again.
Do you at least understand the basic physics of water being heated from below, by several hundred degree thermal vents and fluxes etc, and not from above by near-or-below-freezing atmospheric temperatures?
Have fun boiling your kettle for a cup of tea !! 😉
How delusional you are.
Wrong, and delusional, a common occurrence amongst the climate shills.
I know that basic science is really, really, really hard for you..
But try to read and at least partially understand the data in this link
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/hottest-days-manipulation/#comment-3750737
And don’t ignore all the cold records from last northern winter, that were shown to you only a couple of days ago..
Your ignorance and your gullibility are feeding each other.
*not a thing
*not a new thing
*not a thing
*not a thing
Are they?
In 2007 I got a list of the record highs and lows for my little spot on the Globe.
Most of the record highs were before 1950.
Most of the record lows were after 1950.
There’s more truth in that statement than you realize.
Until you can provide or reference solid scientific evidence that human emissions of CO2 are a significant, let alone predominant, cause of ANY of the things that you mentioned, you positively “dunno”.
No such evidence currently exists.
And you obviously need to be reminded that correlation does not equal causation.
Temperature records are not falling any faster than they did this past winter.
There is no record flooding, unless like most climate alarmists you believe history began 20 years ago.
Antarctic ice going down while Arctic ice going up. A few years ago, the opposite was occurring and the same self righteous know nothings were spending all their time concentrating on the Arctic while ignoring the Antarctic.
You wouldn’t know record flooding if it bit you on the behind. Neither do the climate scientists. Ask those living along the Mississippi back in 2014.
Different parts of the country flood at different times. That has nothing to do with “record” flooding increasing. In 2014 it had to do with very heavy rains in Minnesota and Wisconsin. This year it has rained heavily elsewhere but not in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
There is no climate emergency TFN, only hubris filled greed fuelling a deceit, in the false prophet cause of finding a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist
Certainly there is no evidence of an increase in extreme events.
Evidence is that they are DECREASING.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your child-like gullibility. !
Actually, that’s the first unequivocally correct thing you have said so I will give you an upvote.
Apparently Mr TFN can only handle one thing at a time, and assumes that everyone else suffers from the same defect.
TFN is quite happy spending $1000,000,000,000,000 doing nothing.
The biggest climate change that has happened, which, correct me if I am wrong, has occurred to the data itself before you were old enough to know much about CAGW! When the super el Niño of 1998 happened, there was a lot of hope by proponents that it would set a new world record T°. Nope! The late ’30s early 40s was the 20th Century temperature high-stand still held by a good margin. It wasn’t until “The Father of Anthropo Global Warming”, on the eve of his retirement in 2007 from GISS, fiddled the record in a big way.
He pushed the the high-stand down about a degree. This did two things that were a niggling pain to the consensus establishment (sceptics had hammered on these inconvenient facts). It erased the high-stand and at the same time removed the 40 year deep slide in temperatures from the mid ’40s to 1979 known by scientists and the press a “The Ice Age Cometh” period. Before the fiddle, it could clearly be seen that the warming of the ’80s and ’90s was simply a recovery from the deep cooling.
There was still hope that a new high was in the offing, but by 2007 we were 9 years into “The Dreaded Pause and something needed to be done! In addition to massive cooking of the T° data, they moved the datum from which to measure human effect warming from 1950, back to 1850, and more recently, there is talk about 1750!!
Epic body slam! Nicely done, Congressman Perry! More, please.
Keep asking the screaming climate goats the fundamental questions. What is the ideal CO2 level? What is the ideal global average temperature? How much does CO2 raise global temperature? How much has global temperature increased in the last 150 years? Why is that bad instead of good? Why is simply adapting to temperature changes with simple solutions not as good as their proposals? Keep it simple and don’t let them baffle the public with sciencey-sounding BS. Make them squirm and explain why we need their ridiculous, massively expensive schemes to “solve” a non-problem.
Probably something like it was in 1975 when it was much cooler and cyclone Tracy wiped Darwin Australia off the map.
Perry would have done better if he had focused on how little Kerry actually knows about the climate.
For example,
Currently, what is the rate of temperature increase in globally and in the Continental US?
Currently, what is the rate of sea level increase globally and around CONUS?
how about those Congress persons (on the alarmists side) recently at some hearing who had not the slightest idea of the current level of CO2
Yes, point out Kerry’s ignorance. Don’t name call, that’s what the media will home in on.
Point out that the 98% is meaningless because most reasonable people agree with the Doran & Zimmerman survey questions But, D & Z never asked all those scientist if they agreed that the warming constituted an existential catastrophe of our times. One has to wonder who the 2% were who didn’t agree?
Pointing out the astronomical cost for fixing a non problem must be hammered home constantly.
The oft-quoted claim that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made” (the actual claim was that “man had caused at least half of the 0.7 deg-C of global warming since 1950”) was soundly, scathingly and scientifically shown to be wrong back in 2013 (see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ ).
The actual percentage of scientists that then held that position, based on proper analysis of published works cited by the author (Cook) to support his 97% claim, was approximately 0.3%.
What an embarrassment!
And its not surprising to see the “data manipulation” of climate alarmists that have since “warmed” the value from its original (false) 97% to the now-claimed (still false) 98%.
HADCRUT graphed out shows an 1878 spike in temperature, a decline by 1912, an increase by ~1946 decline by ~1976 and some recent warming. In all of that, what was caused by anthropogenic CO2 what by other causes?
That’s never addressed by the climate mob.
The 97% has already been debunked many times – it was nearer 2% of IPCC sympathisers with zero climate related topic experience – I put my faith in the nearly 40,000 Clintel WCD & Oregon Petition signatories, people who actually know the topic
Lets see how “TFN” wriggles on that hook as well as the fact that human extinction along with plant life is nearer with CO2 at ~440ppm ( I understand that the tipping point is ~180ppm ) than the 2000ppm level with which Sen.Perry slaughtered SoS Kerry’s unsupportable and delusional diatribe against one of the organic givers of life – how far has he fallen since addressing the congressional committee on the Vietnam war, and making a case that was wholly supportable?
“The actual percentage of scientists that then held that position, based on proper analysis of published works cited by the author (Cook) to support his 97% claim, was approximately 0.3%.”
That’s right. Not 97 percent, but 0.3 percent.
Cook was just distorting reality the way all the other climate change alarmists do. The truth is not in these people. They have a dishonest climate change agenda and cannot tell the truth without blowing up their agenda.
That’s the key Steve – to lambast these doom peddlers with facts, data and science – in public – it is the way
Yes, Doran and Zimmerman essentially asked if the Earth had warmed, and if humans had contributed to that.
The later Cook et al paper (basically the Skeptical Science core contributors) was a cursory, idiosyncratic literature review exercise.
No worry there . . . Kerry did fine revealing that fact—as he has done continually since being
appointedanointed as “climate czar”— all by himself.Check out minute 8:30 in this video for an astounding display of ignorance…
https://youtu.be/P-yDzHApXiw
Strange . . . my impression was the “astounding display of ignorance” occurred for 45m17s of the 45m21s long video clip, IOW the entire time Kerry was speaking.
It always comes down to the same thing: when leftists feel cornered and run out of arguments —which, of course, they never have— they resort to their 98% “consensus” wild card. Good for Congressman Mr. Perry!
I wish we could ban the term “consensus” yes, a whole bunch of people are on my side. Oh and incidentally, we’re also paying them to be on my side. I liked his statement at the end when he called him a grifter. That’s all these people are. Yes, it’s a bunch of us politically minded thinking the same way grifters who are trying to dominate the world economy and get everybody to do what we want them to do, so we can keep flying about the world in our planes and enjoy our lavish lifestyles while we impoverish the rest of humanity.
The sad thing is that not long ago I was talking to a guy who insisted that science only advanced by ‘consensus’ and could not see how that would mean no advancement at all.
Guess he never heard of Galileo or Columbus.
The D&Z survey asked if you agreed that human activity was a cause of some of the increase in CO2 and some warming? You have to wonder who the 2% were who didn’t agree!
The alarmists always quote a 97% consensus – this has been debunked many times, it’s nearer 2% of IPCC rear guards and the climate related competence in that 2% was less than 50%
Also remember, consensus is not proven fact, it’s opinion
Kerrys’ appeal to authority and misunderstanding of the 98% (crept up 1%) reveals just how little he knows about science and climate science in particular.
“…reveals just how little he knows.” The rest of the sentence wasn’t really needed.
Indeed – The fabricated “consensus” number was always 97% – but look! in 2023 it’s set a new record up 1 percentage point to an unprecedented 98%! Just like global temperatures, its going up!! – Yippee!
It’s man-made CO2 wot dunnit
Well done Scott Perry!
Yes, indeed. Keep up the great work, Congressman Perry.
I’m embarrassed to say he was my Senator here in Woke-achusetts!
Yes, you should be and the same goes for Who-Could-Have-Known Ed Markey.
Why would anyone take a buffoon like Kerry seriously?
I particularly liked when Perry called Kerry a “Climate Grifter”. The look on Kerry’s face was priceless. 😲🤣🤣
Truer words have never been spoken.
Scott Perry will no doubt be investigated by the FBI for revealing US State Secrets.
“for revealing US State Secrets.”
A secret that everyone in the USA already knows ?
LOL! – Immediately after Perry called Kerry a grifter, the CIA was dispatched to Perry’s home with a search warrant, to find “evidence” to remove said senator from government.
Someday, Kerry’s face will fall off, or at least lower.
Lovee, did you HEAR what that PEASANT just said to me?
Perry schooled Kerry on the facts and did an excellent job of reminding him about his wishy washy stance on CC through the years. The whole “the difference is that humans are causing it now” doesn’t address the reality that humans/life thrive on CO2.
Quoting NOAA should be “Game Set and Match” – but Kerry no longer does ” listening” or any other activity built on reasoning; his equivalent in the UK, where I am, is the Cult (sic) Lord Deben for whom a leading role part in the re-make of The Wicker Man is tailor made.
It is always good to see We the People’s House call government grifters to account.
The senator was far too polite calling Kerry a ‘grifter’.
Describing him as an ignorant grifter would have been more accurate. Maybe Kerry actually thinks CO2 that has been put into the atmosphere over the industrial era. is still all up there? Maybe he is genuinely unaware of the CO2 sequestering processes? Maybe he is also unaware of the consumption of CO2 into plant growth?
He did well, far better than the typical Congress critter. However…
1) Definition of grifter: “a person who engages in petty or small-scale swindling”. Claiming a conspiracy theory is just what they wanted to hear to dismiss him as a kook.
2) What % of the voters can relate to “1.6 quadrillion dollars”? He should have said something like: “More than the output of the US economy for 60 years. More than the entire world’s economic output for 16 years. 200 thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child on earth. FIFTY times the national debt— 1.6 QUADRILLION dollars! And for what?”
Wow! Kerry just got “Swift Boated” again! That was incredible by Perry.
I saw an interview recently by John Kennedy senator from La interviewing an EPA functionary. Kennedy asked… if we spend 1 trillion dollars how much would it lower the world temperature…the functionary couldn’t/wouldn’t answer the question. Kennedy is of course a sceptic.
I am not a scientist, but I would nonetheless be very interested in Climate Czar Kerry’s response to these issues which were not addressed in the video:
1) Urban Heat Island effect on the surface temperature record
2) Ice core proxy studies showing that CO2 changes trailed temperature change in prehistoric times.
3) Saturation effect of GHG’s as their levels rise in the atmosphere
4) No evidence of a rise in frequency or intensity of wildfires and extreme meteorological events
5) Climate models running too hot
Etc. etc…..
When you want to believe, you selectively leave out that which does not conform with the faith.
Unfortunate that Perry was only give less than 10 minutes.
What would he have done if he had 30 minutes?
Kerry would have been reduced to a quivering bowl of Ketchup!
Superb, Scott Perry is a hero, a true guardian of our democracy, a shining beacon in very dark times – he should run for POTUS
TBF, it would not be difficult to bamboozle Kerry – he’s selling a nightmare he doesn’t understand, except it keeps bringing the money in – I would pay too dollar to watch Kerry in a face off with Judith Curry or someone of similar academic ilk
Kerry appearing uninformed is not surprising. ‘Climate science is settled’ so facts no longer matter to him. IPCC says so. Proving yet again that warmunism is a religion. And that Kerry is NOT very bright.
Kerry – “the difference is that humans are causing it now””
So what happened to those “natural” phenomena that were the cause thousands of years ago? Kerry should be asked if he agrees they occurred naturally THEN, how can he prove , other than from speculation, that the cause(s) today are not also naturally induced and if not. in what proportion ?
Past causes were cyclic, including orbital changes. They didn’t go anywhere.
But as Arrhenius showed 127 years ago, adding CO2 to the air causes warming. No-one has dug up and burned carbon before. It is a one way process. We’re doing it, and the warming is happening.
Doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would in theory cause +1C of warming but there is no way of establishing what part of the current temperature trend is CO2 induced or what part is natural.
Whatever, there is no reason to assume the effect of any human-caused warming is necessarily bad or that anything can or ought be done about it.
There is nothing unusual about about the climate warming up or cooling down.
Thankfully, we are here today because it warmed up from a glacial period. And incidentally, it’s cooler now than it had been for most of the past 10,000 years.
With regard to Arrhenius, he determined the average global temperature to be about 15C, a little warmer than today also.
Arrhennius showed no such thing !
It was purely a conjecture from finding out that CO2 was a radiatively active gas.
And it was incorrect.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
That an effect is too small to measure using current technology is not evidence that the effect doesn’t exist. Such logic is as unscientific as any of the nonsense the climate alarmists publish.
Adding CO2 to a bell jar is quite a bit different than claiming Man’s CO2 in the real world is any different than Nature’s CO2.
(And a “bell jar” doesn’t account for Nature’s plants feeding off CO2 no matter it’s source.)
Who added CO2 to a bell jar?
Arrhenius just calculated the effect of blocking outward IR.
Eunice Newton Foote added CO2 to bell jars, among other gases, establishing some experimental properties of CO2 under ideal laboratory conditions but utterly failed to make the case that the earth’s atmosphere resembles a bell jar in any way. She should be remembered as a brilliant pioneering research scientist but not a field scientist by any means.
And did a really bad job of it…
And yes, he used data from bell jars, which even you must know do not resemble the atmosphere is any way shape or form.
You are being deceitful and dishonest, as always.
Again, the link is to an unspecified crackpot site, which doesn’t even say anything about bell jars.
You obviously haven’t read up on anything from Arrhenius.
Displaying your ignorance, as always.
“the link is to an unspecified crackpot site”
Yet you keep linking to MoWho !
which is to link to an unspecified crackpot site.. So funny !
Arrhennius did, on the other hand understand that warmth and CO2 were totally necessary for food production…. too many “mays” to be actual science, though
darn… forgot image
And once again Nick demonstrates that either he knows nothing about science and logic, or he’s hoping that you don’t.
Yes Arrhenius showed that CO2 can impede CO2. On the other hand he never claimed that this impact would warm the earth by 4 or 5 degrees. It took a computer to create that lie.
First off, the claim that nobody has ever dug up and burned carbon before is another one of your lies. People have been digging up and burning carbon for hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years. The only difference is in the amount.
Secondly, so freaking what. You seem to feel that the fact that we are now burning more fossil fuels than in the past proves that CO2 is the cause of the current warming.
The very ability of old mate Nicholas to sit in a warm home, with all its contents and conveniences and discuss on the interweb, humans burning “evil” fossil fuels is due to the fact that humans burn fossil fuels.
Nick, will you never learn to acknowledge science, in particular the science of paleoclimatology???
The best paleoclimatology records show that in the past, long before humans emitted CO2 from their activities on Earth, there were greatly varying periods of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and greatly varying levels of “global temperatures”. Most significantly, the proxy-based records for these two parameters exhibit more evidence of anti-correlation than they do correlation.
IOW, there is no scientifically-established cause-effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global lower-troposphere (let alone ocean) temperatures.
See attached graph.
“See attached graph.”
One of these graphs that bounces around the blogosphere without anyone really knowing where it came from. The attribution is to a web page maintained by a geologist, Scotese. But if you go to the cited source, that graph is nowhere to be found.
So again, Nick is totally unable to counter with any actual science
Here’s a similar graph, with reference.
Temp-CO2-Cambrian-to-present-1280×710.png (1280×710) (cs21c.com)
You have failed yet again, Nick-pick.
Well, again it is just a blog page, referencing Nahle, who is a complete crank.
You reference MoWho… now there is a gormless crank!
Have you heard of GeoCarb before ??
Or is geology one of your many areas of ignorance. !
You know that Nick would never risk looking for something he didn’t want to find.
Beyond that, as every good alarmist knows, if it’s not on a government approved web site, it’s by definition, trash.
Poor Nick-pick.
Can’t argue the data, so tries to slime, and fails as usual !
Crank: Anyone who doesn’t accept that all real scientists believe CO2 controls the climate.
Are you also ignorant of Geocarb data ??
You seem to be quite unaware of science a know-it-all AGW zealot should be aware of.
Is your apparent ignorance real…. or pretend ?
Yet another untruth, at best half-truth, issued by Nick Stokes.
As anyone can plainly see, at the bottom left of the image I provided there is the following notation specifying the two sources of the the graphed data:
“Temperature after Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)”
And Nick appears to be incompetent in using a Web search engine to locate widely available data (hint for you, Nick: the Web never forgets!), having just childishly given up upon discovering that Scotese has obviously revamped his website so that the graphic I provided is no longer posted there.
But let me lead Nick by the hand:
1) do a Web search on the title of the graph “Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time” restricting the search results to Images
2) such search yields the same image, or a very slight modification of same, at the following links:
—
— https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/im-ready-to-go-to-mars-but-theres-something-weve-forgotten/
— at least sixteen other separate web sites resulting from the search engine I used (sorry, Nick, I can’t list them all due to WUWT limitations on the number of links allowed in a given comment posting).
The subject image has such credibility that many other scientists and authors have referenced it in their own works.
As further clarification for Nick’s benefit, it appears that one of the earliest appearances of the graph “Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time”, which I posted above, was at the website https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html , apparently put up by Monte Hieb in 2009, but still accessible today and still showing the same graph.
I do not not know if Hieb actually created the graph (and some of its subsequent minor modifications), or the artwork was created by someone else, but this is noise-level compared to the key messages that plotting the Scotese and Berner data sets on the same graph convey.
Also, Stokes is wrong: the footnote he refers to for geologist Scotese is NOT an attribution for the source of the graph, but rather is just acknowledgment of where the temperature data plotted on the graph originated, with a similar footnote acknowledgment immediately underneath that one for Berner as the source of the plotted CO2 data.
I think Nick-pick has been watching Biden too much…
… and decide dementia is the way to go.
and maybe John Kerry, and decided blatant lies is a good thing to mix with the dementia.
”But as Arrhenius showed 127 years ago, adding CO2 to the air causes warming.”
No one has ever ”shown” that.
And ten years later, he acknowledged that he had over-estimated and published a retraction. And twenty years after that, Sir George Clark Simpson said that Arrhenius had focussed so hard on radiative transfer that he had forgotten all about convection.
There is change in convection until after the radiative transfer has already taken place.
“And ten years later, he acknowledged that he had over-estimated and published a retraction.”
He did not.
“””””Thus Arrhenius had acknowledged that he had overestimated the impact of a doubling of CO2 by about two hundred and fifty to three hundred percent.”””””
From:
https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/doublingCO2.htm
Nick,
There are two questions you need to answer before pontificating.
1) What process(es) caused the concentration CO2 to reach into the thousands of ppm in the past?
2) What process(es) caused the concentration CO2 to fall to near extinction level of life ppm in the past?
As to “question 1”, CO2 is not a natural occuring element. If it was, it would be in the periodic table. Other evidence is that a block of carbon doesn’t sublimate away in the presence of oxygen at normal temps and concentration levels. Consequently it must be manufactured. Where does it originate?
The cause and effects of naturally occuring events must be addressed before attributing anything. I believe it has been shown that temperature increases prior to CO2 increasing.
If you can’t answer these questions with scientifically proven causes, then you and others are jumping ahead and stating conclusions that have no basis.
With all due respect, Jim, methinks you should revisit that statement . . . considering the known differences between chemical elements (tabulated in the Periodic Table) and chemical compounds, that is.
The periodic table does contain ELEMENTS. Elements are designated by the number of protons in a natural occuring atomic nucleus. Those elements can be combined in various chemical reactions to create chemical compounds. CO2 is a compound that exists as a gas at normal atmospherical pressure and temperature. As I said, it is NOT a element.
https://www.nist.gov/pml/periodic-table-elements
“””””The periodic table contains NIST’s latest critically evaluated data for atomic properties of the elements.”””””
Why don’t you answer the questions I asked rather than try to criticize something you know nothing about.
CO2 is a product of a number of chemical reactions. Plant and animal respiration PRODUCE CO2. Oxidation (burning) can produce CO and CO2.
Seem’s like you’ve overreacted, but here goes:
1) You made specific the specific statement that “CO2 is not a naturally occuring (sic) element”. CO2 is not an element at all.
2) CO2, as a compound, does occur naturally. For example, beyond Earth, Venus and Mars have naturally occurring CO2-rich atmospheres (i.e., they don’t the result of humans burning fossil fuels or carbon in an oxygen-abundant atmosphere).
3) In context, you state “. . . CO2 is not a natural occuring element. If it was, it would be in the periodic table. Other evidence is that a block of carbon doesn’t sublimate away in the presence of oxygen at normal temps and concentration levels. Consequently it must be manufactured.“
(my bold emphasis added). Well, what you state is far from the preponderance of scientific evidence, which clearly and overwhelming shows that CO2 is created naturally, by reactions that take place outside of biological entities (bacteria, plants, animals) and without need of human technology . . . thus, without in any sense being “manufactured”. Major sources of “non-manufactured” CO2 on Earth are primordial CO2 captured deep within Earth during its formation, and as currently being outgassed via volcanoes, and naturally-occurring wildfires where burning carbon-rich biomass with atmospheric oxygen produces CO2 gas.
Finally, I’ll leave you with this:
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is found everywhere in the Universe. It has been determined the second or third most abundant condensable molecule after water (H2O) and carbon monoxide (CO) (Hama and Watanabe, 2013). It has been identified in dense clouds, young stellar objects (Ehrenfreund and Charnley, 2000), comet Hale-Bopp (Irvine et al., 2000), and its abundance has even been measured in situ on the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (Goesmann et al., 2015) . . . It is generally understood that CO2 forms by oxidation of CO in the ice mantles surrounding interstellar dust grains. This is in agreement with the very low observed gas phase abundances of CO2 (about a factor of 100 less than in condensed phase) (Boonman et al., 2003) . . .”
— https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2020.00033/full#
P.S. The answers to your questions are easily found on the Web . . . I’m surprised you need to ask them.
“””””1) You made specific the specific statement that “CO2 is not a naturally occuring (sic) element”. CO2 is not an element at all.
No s**t. How is what you said any different than what I said?
“””””CO2, as a compound, does occur naturally.”””””
Really? So I can put a lump of carbon in an airtight container, insert some O2, and end up with a container of CO2.
You make an assertion without proof.
“””””(i.e., they don’t the result of humans burning fossil fuels or carbon in an oxygen-abundant atmosphere).”””””
For some reason I don’t see this mentioned in my post!
“””””Major sources of “non-manufactured” CO2 on Earth are primordial CO2 captured deep within Earth during its formation, and as currently being outgassed via volcanoes,”””””
From: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001260100185
“Growing evidence suggests that most CO2 is contributed to arc magmas via recycling of subducted oceanic crust and its overlying sediment blanket. ”
Notice the word “sediment”. Wonder what makes up sediment?
Look, the whole point here is that the creation of CO2 requires the addition of heat, pressure, or a biological process. Carbon and O2 do not attract each other and presto chango form CO2.
From Wikipedia:
“””””All carbon allotropes are solids under normal conditions, with graphite being the most thermodynamically stable form at standard temperature and pressure. They are chemically resistant and require high temperature to react even with oxygen.”””””
“””””P.S. The answers to your questions are easily found on the Web . . . I’m surprised you need to ask them.””””
I have no questions about this. You have failed to show how anything I have said is incorrect. Perhaps you need to study some chemistry and physics, I have 8 hours of engineering inorganic chemistry and 5 hours of organic chemistry and 15 hours of physics. None of that includes the laboratory hours. I am not uneducated. Let’s hear what you have studied.
Thank you. That is all that I needed to know.
End of discussion.
You are welcome. I see you did not respond with your education background. That is very telling
“It is a one way process.”
ABSOLUTELY Wrong. The fact that John Kerry is able to make his contribution (jets, yachts, homes, hot air, vacations and extensive travel) to the atmospheric CO2 disappear, completely, through the purchase of credits (and his altruistic, well meaning talents), shows that it is not a one-way process.
Either that, or Kerry (and others) are indeed grifters.
Which is it?
“ It is a one way process”
NO it is not.
Basically all that carbon used to be in the atmosphere.
Are you so ignorant that you didn’t know that ?
I am beginning to think you really ARE that ignorant.
I worked with then Senator Kerry back in the 80’s. He was definitely one bulb short. In fact I worked with most of the Senators at the time and there were some really smart ones, average ones and not so smart ones. And believe it or not a few of them were miles apart in their politics but were really good friends away from the cameras. I think that era has long gone.