The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

They got caught 3 times manipulating temperature data.
Just because you pretend likeit didn't happen doesn't change anything.
You would think if the planet was warming as fast as they say it would they would all work together to ensure there was no manipulation or even a hint of manipulation anywhere, ever.
When scientists get caught manipulating their own data the whole thing gets thrown out and they start all over.

A lot of "Climate Babies" get thrown out with their bath waters that way.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

They got caught 3 times manipulating temperature data.
Just because you pretend likeit didn't happen doesn't change anything.
You would think if the planet was warming as fast as they say it would they would all work together to ensure there was no manipulation or even a hint of manipulation anywhere, ever.
When scientists get caught manipulating their own data the whole thing gets thrown out and they start all over.

They didn't change the data - they were accounting for known anomalies. They were making it MORE ACCURATE. And we know that they did it, so if they were doing something wrong, they didn't hide it.

You really are just regurgitating FUD.

And not even the oil companies are pretending that humans have not changed the climate - and they have know this since at least the 1970's.

So - why do you still believe the FUD?

[sendler]

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...w-15-oct-2018/
.
The Wall Street Journal responded with an Op-Ed accusing the UN of ignoring the reality of economics and asserting that no climatic conditions could be so bad that it would be worth spending some $50 trillion to mitigate. Rather than a crash program, the Journal recommends spending more on R&D so that new cheaper sources of energy could be developed. On Capitol Hill, a parade of GOP lawmakers dismissed the report’s policy recommendations as wildly impractical, using ridicule to do so. “They might as well be calling on me to sprout wings and fly to Canada for the summer,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), a climate change skeptic, said of the actions urged by the report. “It’s totally unrealistic,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. “They must have parachuted in from another planet.”

From the reactions to the report, it was evident that a critical mass realizing that climate change is a significant threat to human civilization has not yet formed. While the endless succession of drought, floods, and unprecedented storms continues, they are not yet deemed frequent or damaging enough to overcome the costs and dislocations that would be caused by a rapid shift away from the fossil fuels that supply some 85 percent of the world’s energy.

[oil pan 4]

The standard UN answer for everything is to give them billions of dollars and don't ask where it all goes. Pretty much give them unlimited money with absolutely no oversight.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

They didn't change the data - they were accounting for known anomalies. They were making it MORE ACCURATE. And we know that they did it, so if they were doing something wrong, they didn't hide it.

You really are just regurgitating FUD.

And not even the oil companies are pretending that humans have not changed the climate - and they have know this since at least the 1970's.

So - why do you still believe the FUD?

That's like 2 married people who aren't married to each other caught in bed naked together and saying "it's not what it looks like".
I'm sure it's not exactly what it looks like.
They were just doing it for the good of man kind.

[Xist]

Neil, how much fossil fuels did humans burn in 1850 compared to now? This says there were 1.2 billion people. So, 168 years ago 1.2 billion people started burning fossil fuels?

Originally Posted by Xist

I recently read about coal power plants being reconfigured to burn wood pellets, which sounds much better as bio mass. They talked about how great and wonderful it was, casually mentioned that it released more carbon dioxide, and immediately moved on.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post578893

The Chatham House report is the capstone to a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific analyses—including the UK government's own modeling—that show forest biomass is not carbon neutral. It underscores that in many cases forest biomass produces more emissions than fossil fuels and these emissions persist in the atmosphere for decades.

https://www.ecowatch.com/chatham-hou...288764699.html

... in most circumstances, comparing technologies of similar ages, the use of woody biomass for energy will release higher levels of emissions than coal and considerably higher levels than gas.

This says that coal has about the same energy content per pound as wood, but has half the volume. However that article describes how coal is more convenient in other ways.

Those sources say that coal is not any dirtier than wood, just more convenient, and that convenience is responsible for global warming?

[oil pan 4]

High grade coal is about 12,000 to 13,000 btu per pound and wood is closer to 10,000 btu per pound.



How much CO2 did people release in 1850?
I'm going to say not much.

[Xist]

With one-sixth the current population, with 0% as many cars, and 0% as much refrigeration?

Trying to settle how many greenhouse gases come from cars, I found these two charts:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fa...-gas-emissions

So, personal vehicles contribute 16.8% to the total.

[sendler]

So if we replace every single personal vehicle with an electric car (if that is even possible for 100 million cars and light trucks just for the USA) and substitute all of that energy to charge every single new electric car with only non-carbon electricity (if that is even possible) we will save 16% of carbon emissions.

[Xist]

Sounds expensive!

[oil pan 4]

By the chart I posted it looks like around 200 m metric tons at 1870. Or about 1/50, give or take a few screen pixles what we use today.

If Neil says the warming started in 1850 by now we should be Venus.

The world uses something like 155,000 Tera watt hours per year of energy. Any word on how that's going to be accomplished using current tech with out nuclear?

As of 2018 only 1.5 out of every 1,000 registered vehicles in the united states is all electric.
In 2015 less than 3% of new vehicle sales were full electric.