Ve'hoe

and they are wrong,,,,Volcanic output is measurable,,, how do they measure each humans output??

Answer the question I put to you......

Ve'hoe

Some people,,,,, say you are intelligent,,, I say no,,,,, you cannot seem to answer any questions,,,, that shows you aren't very smart...

That's why you come here, for conservatives to answer the issues which mystify the ignorant and uniformed liberal.........

bggamers Loc: georgia

Here is a good place to start Expert Voices Long invisible research shows volcanic co2 levels are staggering by Robin Wylie at university college london oct 15 2013 or go to livescience also good info this is a small take from Wylis reseach. Quit Monsters--- The exhalation of our planet can be spectacularly obvious. The fireworks though are only part of the picture. We now know that co2 released during volcanoe eruptions is insignificant compared with what happens after the camera crews get bored. The emissions that really matter are concealed. The silent silvery plumes which are winding their way skyward above the 150 or so active volcanoes on our planet also carry with them the bulk of its carbon dioxide.Their coughing fits might catch the eye but in between tantrums the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly shed upwards of quarter of a billion tons of co2 every year.--- this is just part of his paper and at this point they had only studied 30 volcanoes of the 150 so that number would go up-- hope you enjoy the reading

Randy131 Loc: Florida

If it's such a "proven science", why do they have to lie to prove it?


"Global Warming Science – They Lied… AGAIN!"

The Common Constitutionalist - July 11, 2017

How many times would you put up with being cheated on in a relationship? How many times would you tolerate being lied to? Is it one and done? Or maybe 2 – 3 – a half a dozen?

Obviously, this is a loaded question. It would depend on a number of factors.

Independence vs. interdependence – or maybe just how forgiving a person is. Maybe it’s a relationship of convenience – like the Clintons – more a business partnership than a personal, loving relationship.

But what if the relationship were between you and cause? A cause you felt so strongly for, people considered you “wedded” to it. A cause like…oh…I don’t know…Global Warming.

What if you were all-in on man caused global warming because, as experts have oft-repeated, the science of global warming is settled? But then you found out that the cause you’ve been wedded to is almost entirely a lie? What would you do? You just may have to reevaluate your loyalty.

Last week the Daily Caller posted an article calling into question, “Nearly All Of The Warming In Climate Data.” The article centers on a recent “peer reviewed” study by two climate scientists and a “veteran statistician.” The study was reviewed and validated by seven respected Ph.Ds from the fields of meteorology, climatology, data analysis and atmospheric science. The scientists were attempting to validate the warming represented by “global average surface temperature (GAST)” data sets managed by “NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office.” What they discovered was just the opposite.

Now we skeptics, or dare I say deniers, have always contended that relying on surface temperature readings, rather than more accurate and widely available satellite data, would invariably lead to incorrect conclusions – either mistakenly or worse – purposely. In other words – garbage in – garbage out.

Fear not. The “experts” that manage these surface temperature data sets are not concerned. Being that they are “experts,” they are skilled at making adjustments to the raw data, “to account for biases in the data.”

However, the study shows that the data set managers at NASA, NOAA and the Met Office, have been doing much more than just tweaking the data. Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author has proven that, “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing is in the adjustments.”

The study further reveals that these highly respected and infallible governmental scientists, of which we are not allowed to ever question, have “adjusted” the raw data to “cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend.”

And, as it turns out, these departments haven’t been just “adjusting data. They’ve been able to show steeper warming trends as of late. We’ve all seen and heard the dire warnings, that this year is the hottest, which eclipses last year which was the hottest, etc.

These “experts” have duped the public and governments alike by “systematically removing previously existing cyclical temperature patterns.” In other words – they’ve literally scrubbed previous historical warming periods.

The study’s authors have gone a step further. Not only have they exposed data manipulation by the pro-warming nuts dressed up as government experts, but they now claim that, “the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases ‘is invalidated.’” So much so, that the EPA’s evidence for controlling greenhouse gases, “simply does not exist in the real world.”

We deniers have insisted for years that man-caused warming is a scam and have trotted out reams of proof of cheating, lying and manipulation.

With the inclusion of this latest study, perhaps it’s time Trump started handing out pink slips at NASA and NOAA, like he has at the V.A. Better yet – prosecute these “experts” for fraud.

Gatsby

Some people say that chocolate milk comes from brown cows too;

that is hardly an arguement.

Alicia Loc: NYC

******************************
Just in case you haven't kept up with the news, there are more job openings in the sustainable fields than there are in the fossil fuel industries. Do some research.

What aught to be done is to re-train those in fossil fuels industry. Then we will have both, energy and clean air.

Sassy Lass

You are so correct; however, the useful idiots like Chocura 750 will never get it. They are automatons who never will have an idea or thought that is their own. They don't know how to think.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Supply proof. Much of the job reduction in the fossil fuel industry is due to innovation. I wonder how many jobs the sustainable (joke) energy industry would have if this industry wasn't heavily subsidized? You do some research instead of constantly parroting left wing talking points. Damn you people are indoctrinated.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Yes, we got scammed by the Chinese and Solaria...

But in the next few years, the Govt. program turned a profit...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

J,

do you believe that spokesman for Peabody coal rather the hundreds of reports by others? The Iran agreement is working.. Trump extended it a few days ago..

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

It's working for Iran and if Trump doesn't sanction them with tough sanctions and or back out of this agreement I will vote for anyone who primaries him.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

As usual, I can not get graphs and maps to copy.. sorry about that..

2. Wind & Solar Are Actually Even Much Cheaper Than Dirty Energy (More So Than Lazard Shows)

The estimates above are supposedly “unsubsidized,” but if you include social externalities as societal subsidies (I do), the estimated costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are hugely subsidized in those charts.

A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9¢/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27¢/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.

The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart.

On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included. Once that is a significant issue (at which point solar and wind will be even cheaper), low-cost demand response solutions, greater grid integration, and storage will be key solutions to integrating these lower-cost renewable sources to a high degree.

Back to Lazard’s assumptions, note that the IGCC and coal cost estimates do not include the costs of transportation and storage.

Given these assumptions unrealistically favoring fossil fuels and nuclear energy, including subsidies for solar and wind is actually an even better way to look at costs of these electricity options. However, if you included historical subsidies as well — coal, natural gas, and nuclear have received a ton (well, many, many tons of subsidies) — dirty energy options would again look worse. In any case, here’s Lazard’s cost comparisons with current subsidies:


The low costs of solar power and wind power crush coal power, crush nuclear power, and beat natural gas by a sizable margin. Click to embiggen.
Now, looking at these comparisons, one might wonder how any dirty energy power plants get built today. I would say it comes down to the lack of logical behavior and foresight in the market, but that’s a topic for another day.

On a smaller level, though, as Nexus Media pointed out, part of it comes down to lack of grid integration across the United States and varying cost factors in different jurisdictions. More specifically, “a tool from the Energy Institute of the University of Texas shows the cheapest kind of new power plant by county, accounting for land available to deploy a particular technology.” Here’s the result without any extra social or environmental costs added in:


The scale is hard to read, but that light green is wind power, the purple heavily shown in the Southwest is utility-scale solar, the grey and purple speckled around the Southeast is utility-scale and residential solar, the light blue is nuclear, and the abundant red/orange is natural gas.
And here’s the result with modest environmental costs added in:


The scale is hard to read, but that light green is wind power, the purple heavily shown in the Southwest is utility-scale solar, the grey and purple speckled around the Southeast is utility-scale and residential solar, the light blue is nuclear, and the abundant red/orange is natural gas.

5. People Can Get Lower Prices But More Jobs With Solar & Wind

Whether American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, or [fill in the blank], solar and wind power don’t just mean lower prices — they also typically mean more jobs. Much of the price of dirty energy power plants is in the fossil fuel — the physical resource. When we buy that fuel, much of the money goes to the billionaires and multimillionaires who “own” the fuel — the coal mines and the natural gas wells.

Sunshine and wind, of course, are free, but distributed solar and wind power plants have to get built and installed — those are things humans do. When we pay for solar and wind power plants, we pay for human labor, and often help create or support local jobs.

We don’t actually have to choose between low prices or jobs or protecting our air, water, and climate — we get all of those things with renewable energy options like solar and wind energy.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Solar Energy Myths & Facts
MYTH #1: Solar panels require more energy to manufacture than they produce in their lifetime.

FACT: A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conclusively demonstrates that the manufacturing energy cost versus the energy production payback for solar modules is generally less than 4 years.

cumulative net clean energy payoff chartA study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conclusively demonstrates that energy payback for photovoltaics (PV) is generally less than 4 years. You may download a free copy of the study here. It states:

“Reaping the environmental benefits of solar energy requires spending energy to make the PV system. But as this graphic shows, the investment is small. Assuming 30-year system life, PV-systems will provide a net gain of 26 to 29 years of pollution-free and greenhouse-gas-free electrical generation … So, for an investment of from 1 to 4 years worth of their energy output, PV systems can provide as much as 30 years or more of clean energy.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

This has been covered time and again..

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes—one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Every year around this time, there’s a flurry of activity in the world’s major meteorological agencies as they prepare to release official global temperature figures for the previous year.

This year, there’s particular interest as it looks likely 2014 will be the hottest year on record.

First out the blocks with the official data was the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). Earlier this month, it confirmed 2014 had taken the top spot with global temperatures 0.27 degrees Celsius above the long-term average. Today, it’s the turn of NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the UK Met Office following suit next week.

Why so many records? While global temperature is a simple enough idea, measuring it is harder than you might think. We take a look at how scientists measure global temperature.

The basics
To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.

The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.

A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.

Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.

Four major datasets
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset.

Here’s how global temperatures in the four datasets compare over the past 130 years. You can see they all show a warming trend, but there are some year-to-year differences too.

Global average temperature anomaly
Global average temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2012, compared to the 1951-1980 long term average. Source: NASA Earth Observatory.
Of the four datasets, GISTEMP (red line) shows the fastest warming. JMA tends to track slightly lower than the others (purple). So why do we see differences between the datasets?

The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task.

Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia.