The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

You're so confrontational. I was offering a reductio ad absurdum to further your point.

Your welcome.

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Then what is global warming? If it's not polar bears dieing and ice caps melring what it?

The ice caps are not the globe. But the melting of the landlocked ice sheets won't be good for those of us who live in low-lying areas.

Again, what you *perceive* as being said by certain people and what is actually being said by the science are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If rapid change is the worry then volcanos should be the main worry. Anything that could be misconstrued as man driven climate change gets blown away by vulcanism.

The amount of vulcanism does seem to increase slightly due to the minimum, but the amount of cooling related to the solar minimum, based on historical and prehistoric data, as discussed maybe a million pages back, is not enough to counter the current rise in temperature.

Originally Posted by All Darc

In other words, a bad culture can screw up as deep as the own society genes. When a society really evolves, I think it's fair to consider that the genes incidence can evolve too.
The quetion is : Do we really evolve in the last 45 years ?

The problem with the start of your question is: How do you define race? There are many different ethnic groups within each general, nebulous 'race', and even genetic physical factors vary wildly within each.

When you factor everything in, the difference in intelligence quotients between countries with similar ethnic make-up can vary wildly due to socioeconomic factors, and the spread in IQ *within* each ethnic group is very, very wide.

While there is some genetic predisposition towards intelligence and behavior, society plays a big role in how a person turns out. Numerous studies on the "IQ gap" between blacks and whites in America have shown that it's environmental factors rather than genetic factors that dominate that discussion (numerous studies have documented that black children adopted by white parents perform in the same range as the adoptive parents... not the biological ones... one particular study, which I can't find at the moment... showed that adopted black male children performed very well until their teenage years, when negative societal expectations started to affect their academic achievement).

If you are pointing out that stupid people are surviving more now... well... stupid people have ALWAYS survived. It doesn't take much intelligence to plant a turnip patch and eat out of the dirt. The only difference nowadays is that you actually get to hear these people talk or see them act due to social media.

In reality, intelligence has been rising across the board, thanks to modern education, medicine and nutrition, for the past hundred odd years.

And violence has been dropping, as well. While crimes will always increase along with the population, the incidence rate as a percentage of that global population is dropping.

However, the perception of crime is that it is always rising. Whether or not it actually is. The dangers of a well-connected world, a 24-hour news cycle, and a populace that not only no longer reads past the first paragraph of a news story... they don't even get past the title.

This is not to say that the intelligence of news consumers is dropping. It's that there's such a surfeit of information out there, most people can no longer process it properly. Hence, the world seems dumber, more chaotic, and more violent... even if the chances of any one of us dying in a violent crime or war are less now than they've been in the past.

[oil pan 4]

The ipcc said they had been over estimating the effect that CO2 had in the climate by double what it actually is.
Is the ipcc not at least backed up by a bunch of scientists?

People have been saying man made global warming is settled science for years now. But then the ipcc says virtually everyone has been wrong all along about the effects CO2 has.
How is it settled science if stuff keeps changing and only a small part has measurable values assigned?
I'm assuming some where some one has assigned measurable numbers to at least some things. But no one can seem to find them. So when I say "some", it's the benefit of the doubt.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Riddle me this. Why do people obsess over a less than 5% variation on a 40 year sample size on a system that is at least a few millions years old?

If we watched it for 200 years we may find that 15% ice coverage change is perfectly normal.

5% ? Where is that coming from? The average Arctic minimum ice COVERAGE was 6.341 million square kilometers, and the 2012 minimum was 3.397. That is about 46.5% lower.

The VOLUME of Arctic ice is down over 80%.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The ipcc said they had been over estimating the effect that CO2 had in the climate by double what it actually is.
Is the ipcc not at least backed up by a bunch of scientists?

People have been saying man made global warming is settled science for years now. But then the ipcc says virtually everyone has been wrong all along about the effects CO2 has.
How is it settled science if stuff keeps changing and only a small part has measurable values assigned?
I'm assuming some where some one has assigned measurable numbers to at least some things. But no one can seem to find them. So when I say "some", it's the benefit of the doubt.

Where / when did the IPCC say they were off by 2X?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

5% ? Where is that coming from? The average Arctic minimum ice COVERAGE was 6.341 million square kilometers, and the 2012 minimum was 3.397. That is about 46.5% lower.

The VOLUME of Arctic ice is down over 80%.



Where / when did the IPCC say they were off by 2X?

I wasn't talking about artic ice. I was specifically talking about ant-artic ice.

We have told you multiple times the ipcc announcement about overestimating the effects of CO2 is easy to search for on bing.
I have linked it multiple times but you chose to ignore it.
So just continue to pretend like it never happened.

If the artic ice volume is down 80% then why is my old house at Langley (in Virginia) not under water?
I like how all this ice melts and there is almost no measurable change in sea level.
I thought the big worry was the ice was going to melt and displace something like 70% of the entire world's population?
And that's not going to happen now so what's the panic?
Another question, if the earth is warming so much why is it only effecting one side of the planet?

What if this is what the artic has always done?

[sendler]

Arctic ice is floating. There is no level change when floating ice melts.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

the ipcc announcement about overestimating the effects of CO2

I put this into the search box and got



Of course, that is powered by Google, not the MySpace of search engines. Mr. freebeard doesn't use Google or Bing. Have you actually quoted it directly, linked it, or told us to find it?

I put "Oil Pan Bing" in the search box and received five results in other threads.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

What if this is what the artic has always done?

What if it isn't?

We have quoted scientists that say that Gore exaggerates the facts, but there is still a problem. You keep saying "I for one welcome our new fiery overlords."

I keep responding that Arizona does not need any additional heat!

Anyway, as I mentioned there is a bill to mandate more renewable energy. I had not realized that it would be a constitutional amendment, which means that if it did not work it would require another constitutional amendment to fix. Proponents keep saying that it will reduce electrical rates "And that is why [a major power company] opposes it."

Wait, they want Arizonans to pay more?

I keep saying that if Armored Personnel Carrier (maybe I have that acronym wrong) is required to install more solar they will make sure that they make a profit off of it.

Well, I finally read how much we are supposed to save--$4 a month between 2030 and 2050: https://www.dcourier.com/news/2018/s...companies-can/

The first time that I tried to read that article it complained that I was using an ad blocker. I deleted those elements and was able to read the article, but not scroll, so I copied and pasted into Word and fixed the formatting because that was important.

Now when I try to read it I hit a paywall, but when I put that quote into Google it showed that article.

Proposition 127 also talks about how bad the air quality is in Arizona.

We have five coal power plants: Cochise, Joseph City, Saint John's, Page, and Springerville. If you are not from Arizona you may not have heard of any of those. You may not have heard of those towns if you live in Arizona. When I looked up Springerville I saw that the power station was fifteen miles from the town of perhaps two thousand people, which is 177 miles from Flagstaff, the thirteenth-largest city in Arizona, with 66,000 people in 2010.

Google says that is 150 miles in a straight line. Even if the wind blew directly from Springerville to Flagstaff, how much would dissipate over 150 miles?

How much do coal power plants contribute to metropolitan air quality?

A majority (64.3 percent) of the carbon monoxide in the Valley’s air comes from cars and trucks.
About a third (32.9 percent) of the particulate matter in the air comes from automobiles.
Most particulates (43 percent) come from construction-related activity, while 22.6 percent comes from agriculture and vacant lots.
A small portion (1.5 percent) comes from point sources like power plants.

https://www.glendaleaz.com/environme...ionsources.cfm

Let's say that 50% of people could live with an electric car as their next vehicle without excessive inconvenience. You have 50% less vehicular pollution (depending on which ones are replaced and where they go), but then power plants pollute more?



Hovering over the graph, it says:
All Electric: 4,190 pounds of CO2 equivalent.
Plug-in Hybrid: 5,942 pounds of CO2 equivalent.
Hybrid: 6,258 pounds of CO2 equivalent.
Gasoline: 11,435 pounds of CO2 equivalent.

Wait. What is the average fuel economy of each of those categories? Gasoline includes my 44 MPG HX with low compression, Suburbans, and everything in between. I tried to look up "average fuel economy of non-hybrid cars" and did not receive any valid responses.

U.S. vehicle fuel economy rises to record 24.7 mpg: EPA

I wanted numbers for all hybrids sold in 2017, but only got December. These are the numbers for the top 97.78% of hybrids sold that month. The remaining twelve sold less than 1% each:



I estimated that the hybrids averaged 42.7 MPG. I know that fuel economy and emissions are not 100% directly related, but I cannot do any of this exactly. Hybrids bring up the average fuel economy, but only accounted for 2% of US auto sales in 2016.

On average hybrids get 72.8% better fuel economy and the average gas vehicle emits 52% more than hybrids. However, what kind of comparison is this? The 2018 Highlander hybrid weighs around 4,630 pounds, depending on the configuration. The Prius c weighs 2,530 pounds. I do not know how to find out how much of each vehicle was sold in 2017, but the ten most popular vehicles were:


https://www.businessinsider.com/best...us-2017-2018-1

I am not sure that the Highlander is the heaviest hybrid, but the average weight of the twenty most popular vehicles in 2017 was 4,710 pounds, so while hybrid vehicles are more efficient than comparable gas-powered ones, they are also generally smaller.

What is the ROI of a hybrid for the average consumer again?

Did Honda kill the Civic Hybrid?

Convincing people to choose a hybrid for their next car would drastically reduce pollution, but so would convincing them to choose the vehicle that fits their needs most of the time.

Energy.gov says that electric cars contribute 33% less to emissions. Sure, it would be better for the health of millions of people to separate them from their emissions, but I am not sure that is the answer.

If you can charge at work you could charge your car with solar, but if you work during the day and charge at night, how would they power it? Have the power company invest in batteries so their batteries could charge yours?

[oil pan 4]

Right now there doesn't appear to be a way to build enough batteries to replace even 5% of the cars on the road with electric.
As of 2017 about 0.15% are purely electric.

The second result that came up took less than 5 seconds.
This talks about the ipcc shift saying they were overestimating the effects of CO2 by double.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/24/s...n-a-free-fall/
I post it again and the alarmists believers will ignore it again.
The believersare just but hurt that the denyers have been saying all along that believes have been far overestimating the effects of CO2.
If I was a hard core blind faith beliver I would pretend like it didn't happen too.

[sendler]

It has been surprising to me how minimal the solar pv uptake is in Arizona. Since it has large areas of world class sun. And immense daytime cooling electrical peaks. The same as California which gets up to 40% of it's summer daytime peak electricity from solar on a good day. Which is the best use of solar pv.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page...ntryCode=US-CA
.

[oil pan 4]

The problem with AZ is it gets so hot the panel voltage drops off during the highest producing part of the day.