CO2

@weplaychess90 You are showing charts that you don't even understand. Your y axis merely shows difference from average - that could be either above or below average.

As far as the data - who knows what that is or how it was gathered or how accurate it might be?

Of course someone here is the ultimate trusted source of information. Lmao.

@ambrooks said in #36:
> Why would any rational person oppose solar, wind and nuclear? I am in favor of these sources being used in the free market - but NOT in favor of the government subsidizing these inefficient energy sources ( wind and solar - nuclear is totally efficient ).
>
> If you are a good engineer and can make them more efficient without picking my pocket to do so - I applaud you. Let the free market decide. Socialism sucks !

You seem to be under the strong assumption that humans in the free market are rational.

Spoiler: they're not.

@ambrooks
The Y axis, from Celsius? It shows an increase of about 0,9 Degrees, from 1970 to 2015, in all 3 institutions, NOAA, NASA, and Met. The Orange line, shows the temperature rise, according to NOAA
The Blue line, shows how NASA has measured the global temperature rise.
The Dark-Gray line, is from Met Office, United Kingdom. The light-gray is uncertainty, could be higher or could be lower, but always inside the Light-Gray. That's according to Met (UK).

So I think I've understood the graphics.

Here is another one:

It shows an increase of CO2 emission, in the same time that the temperature has globally risen.

@Cedur216 Spoiler - I took economics 101 in college, you? not so sure from reading your comment. In the aggregate, humans make rational decisions in the free market. Individual choices don't matter. That's why in capitalist countries, the prices of things make sense - but in communist countries they don't. Read Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations".

@weplaychess90 No you didn't understand your graphic, your last comment continues your misconception.

DIFFERENCE FROM AVERAGE. If an average male height were, say 6 feet - and the difference from average for a particular year was one inch - that doesn't say if it was one inch above or below average. Get it now?

They make rational decisions for THEMSELVES, for their greed, for their ego. Not for the whole species and not for future generations.

@ambrooks But it's 50 years straight of measures, by 3 different institutions...

@weplaychess90

"But it's 50 years straight of measures, by 3 different institutions..."

For a start, the data is unreliable. Secondly, we have no idea if fluctuations in CO2 level affect global climate in any significant way.

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (July 27, 2022) – A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.

heartland.org/opinion/media-advisory-96-of-us-climate-data-is-corrupted/

@ambrooks Do you agree that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, because of the emissions?

heartland.org/opinion/media-advisory-96-of-us-climate-data-is-corrupted/
This is heavy. But if NOAA's measurements are corrupted, why does NASA temperature measures are matching NOAA's? And why does Met, From United Kingdom, with temperature measurement placed in a total different location, is also matching NOAA's?

In the graph I've shown above, the temperature measurements coincide. So, all 3 institutions would have to be deliberately frauding the measurements, because even with a Heat Bias because of urbanization, the locations Met measurements are different than NOAA's, so the graphs would not coincide.

But I'll read it again!