I guess the Paris climate accord is b.s. I knew China was bad but 23 of the worst 25 cities. That's even hard to believe.

Link

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sc...reenhouse-gases.html


So...the evil United States doesn't even make the list?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Link

One would think a long-term member would know better?

Anyway, here's one: Climate change: Just 25 mega-cities emit 52 per cent of the world's urban greenhouse gases

Published Jul 12, 2021

I believe I read China is also far-and-away the biggest contributor to plastic waste pollution in the world's oceans, too.

All of man's greenhouse gases still amounts to only 4 percent. The other 96 percent is produced in nature.

I find it interesting that the US is so damn worried about OUR emissions when there isn't a single city in the top 25 that isn't in China, Russia, or Japan. NYC checks in at #26 with 25% as much CO2 as Handan, China, and half as much as Moscow...

^^^^^ "The US" isn't that worried about it--anyone with a brain knows that the issue is way overblown. It's the EnviroNAZIs and Leftists who are pushing the envelope.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
^^^^^ "The US" isn't that worried about it--anyone with a brain knows that the issue is way overblown. It's the EnviroNAZIs and Leftists who are pushing the envelope.

flashguy

But of course, I was referring to the "the US" as .gov, as in the freaking deep state and left...

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
I find it interesting that the US is so damn worried about OUR emissions when there isn't a single city in the top 25 that isn't in China, Russia, or Japan. NYC checks in at #26 with 25% as much CO2 as Handan, China, and half as much as Moscow...

Because you can't tax China Russia or Japan....

I wonder if that little Greta-twat will sail her little boat to China and give them her "mean" face...
One can only hope.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
I wonder if that little Greta-twat will sail her little boat to China and give them her "mean" face...
One can only hope.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
I wonder if that little Greta-twat will sail her little boat to China and give them her "mean" face...
One can only hope.

She won't because she's a bully. Bullies only persecute the weak and unwilling to fight. China would grind her up and spit her out. Russia would make her disappear. This is why these warts come here to scold us.

I just saw a gag inducing climate change "public service message" (commercial) from.... Amazon.

The link should always be provided by the OP. If other members step in and provide the link (which I would have no trouble finding on my own) this defeats my purpose in asking the original poster to provide a link.

When I first saw that list, I thought it was just an expression of population size. New York, at 8.2 million, isn't on the list. So I figured all of those cities would be more populous.

I was wrong. Working up from the bottom of the list, a few of them have smaller populations than NYC, some substantially (less than 3 million total.)

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The link should always be provided by the OP. If other members step in and provide the link (which I would have no trouble finding on my own) this defeats my purpose in asking the original poster to provide a link.

My apologies, para. I will refrain from doing it again.

Thanks for trying to help.

I pasted in the conclusion of a very good paper below - it definitively explains why no climate model is reliable…. So why do the CO2 emissions matter?

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections

Front. Earth Sci., 06 September 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00223

Patrick Frank*
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA, United States


Conclusion

This analysis has shown that the air temperature projections of advanced climate models are just linear extrapolations of fractional GHG forcing. Linear propagation of model error follows directly from GCM linear extrapolation of forcing. The ±4 Wm–2 year–1 annual average LWCF thermal flux error means that the physical theory within climate models incorrectly partitions energy among the internal sub-states of the terrestrial climate. Specifically, GCMs do not capture the physical behavior of terrestrial clouds or, more widely, of the hydrological cycle (Stevens and Bony, 2013). As noted above, a GCM simulation can be in perfect external energy balance at the TOA while still expressing an incorrect internal climate energy-state.

The further meaning of uncertainty in projected air temperature is extensively discussed in Section 10.1 of the Supporting Information, “Why confidence intervals do not imply model oscillation.” Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of the Supporting Information provide an extended discussion of the meaning of confidence intervals, uncertainty, and propagated error.

Although other approaches to uncertainty in projections and simulations of climate futures have been carried out, most notably perhaps using Bayesian statistics (Tebaldi et al., 2005; Buser et al., 2009; Urban and Keller, 2010; Zanchettin et al., 2017), none of them propagate calibration error through model simulation steps into the projected future climate-state. In these studies, the impact of the continued evolution of simulation error on the uncertainty within the final projected climate state remains unevaluated.

It is now appropriate to return to Smith’s standard description of physical meaning, which is that, “even in high school physics, we learn that an answer without “error bars” is no answer at all” (Smith, 2002). LWCF calibration error is ±114 × larger than the annual average increase in GHG forcing. This fact alone makes any possible global effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions invisible to present climate models.

At the current level of theory an AGW signal, if any, will never emerge from climate noise no matter how long the observational record because the uncertainty width will necessarily increase much faster than any projected trend in air temperature. Any impact from GHGs will always be lost within the uncertainty interval. Even advanced climate models exhibit poor energy resolution and very large projection uncertainties.

The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

https://www.frontiersin.org/ar...eart.2019.00223/full

Oil and Gas refinery heavy Houston makes the list but we are behind NYC and San Diego at least.

We are also 669 square miles of city add in real heat and humidity and only the occasional breeze.

HK Ag

This can't be right since we've been told it's evil farm tractors and cow farts from beef production that are destroying the world.