The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Well if the warming started about 1850 it wasn't man's fault.
We made some where around less than 1% of the CO2 we do today.
If the warming started because of man in 1850 and the tiny amount of CO2 released we should have all been dead some time between world war 2 and 20 year ago.
I never thought of it like that, good point.

The output of the sun only changes by 1% if you only look at it from the ground.

The facts have been manipulated by the global warming believer institutions so it's difficult to know what's true any more.
They have only been caught 3 times doing this. Basic criminology tells us if they got caught 3 times it has been on going and gotten away with at the very least dozens of times.
It's like if you have 3 speeding tickets, that is not the only 3 times you ever exceeded the speed limit, unless you are the unluckiest person in human history.

*in 1850 carbon dioxide was 280ppmv
*today it's 407 ppmv.
*All carbon dioxide has an radioisotopic signature which is easily decoded,and can tell if it came from gasoline,diesel,natural gas,or coal.
*From the proxy sources we know that the accumulation of carbon dioxide is man made and lay outside natural variability.
*If we continue we'll be heading towards a Venusian climate.(844-degree F,day and night)
*If you have some specific evidence of data manipulation,we could investigate that.
*The Sun has never varied 1%.1/10th of a percent is typical.

[aerohead]

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.

If you have this data,please present it.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

every attempt to ease the suffering of the poor turned out to be.
These 'poor laws' only created more poor people.
.

So what do we do? Just let 1% of the world continue to harvest 80% of the new wealth year after year? Automation will continue to make this worse as the labor surplus increases.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

So what do we do? Just let 1% of the world continue to harvest 80% of the new wealth year after year? Automation will continue to make this worse as the labor surplus increases.

First we need to establish that is bad. Is it? Why? It seems to fit with the Pareto distribution found in almost any system.

The better question is how do we care for those people at the bottom who don't have the skill and temperament to produce things of value in an increasingly complex world? That proportion of people is likely to rise as automation increases.

JBP often mentions that the military will reject about 10% of a population, meaning that 1 out of 10 people don't have physical and mental ability to be a net asset to the war machine.

In my view, if 10% of people don't have what is necessary to contribute to and be rewarded by the market, we should provide some minimum level of support while challenging people to contribute what they can. People who are healthy enough can help maintain parks, for example, or pick up trash. "...ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

When I was in prison, everyone worked (it's Oregon law that inmates work a minimum 40hr week). Prisoners represent the bottom of the barrel, as statistically they are lower IQ, poorer health, and have more mental issues. The old guys swept the stairs and kept countertops clean. Some guys worked at a pallet factory. I worked on a landscaping crew and cleaned up a ballpark. Some picked up trash along highways.

About the worst way to "help" a person is give them money without giving them responsibility or purpose.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

First we need to establish that is bad. Is it? Why? It seems to fit with the Pareto distribution found in almost any system.

It's bad in a couple ways that come to mind right off the bat. We are all stuck here together on one planet and uneducated and poor women have more children. And there are way too many people here already.
.
And
.
The poor people will eventually just start walking with pointy sticks to take from the rich what they need to survive. No one will stand by and starve while the rich eat cake. Walled cities of privilege will eventually fall to the siege from outside.
.
Just a couple. Right off the bat.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

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


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?

Not to butt in,but in England,where the Industrial Revolution began,they had cut down most of their forest already.Much of it to make glass for the nouveau riche manor homes.
You can't build houses and canals and other things out of coal,but you can burn coal,and you can burn it to make bricks,which you can build houses out of.
Wood use current photosynthesis and coal uses paleophotosynthetic carbon,which was otherwise locked up in the coal.
The carbon from combustion of coal is part of the atmospheric carbon load.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

economists are not scientists.what would they know?
Congressmen are just there to protect the lobby which funds their election campaign,re-election campaign.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

If we had mass-produced EVs as we have ICE vehicles,and if we held things at 2009 numbers,adding 9,000,000 Ev's a year,it would take until 2043 to replace all light vehicles in the US,and in the meantime,we'd add an additional 32.4-trillion pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.If we pursued additional renewable to charge the EVs all that time.
This would eliminate the carbon from light vehicles.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If you have this data,please present it.

I have, multiple times.
You and Neil ignore it every time.
Go back 20 to 150 pages on this post to find it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by 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.

Today,fossil fuel combustion is equivalent to a forest fire the size of the entire surface of Earth,including the oceans,burned 1.6-times each year.
If the Earth was 12-inches in diameter (a standard globe),the atmosphere would be represented by a sphere of 2.25-inch diameter.It's very small in comparison.We just can't see the combustion gases from this global forest fire.