The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Define, "used to be".

The sources I'm finding say the Arctic has warmed 3.6° F over the past 50 years. Is the other 36.4 degrees considered from the coldest period of the ice age?

It's hyperbole that gives deniers ammunition against a threat which may have credibility.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but they aren't entitled to their own facts.

I GOOGLED your question,and the first reference was from The Atlantic,from February 27,2018,which reported that parts of the Arctic were 50-F warmer than normal.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

I've heard a number of climate change alarmists make exactly that claim, or that it has an 'insignificant' impact on our climate.

Someone in this thread even I believe said the sun has less than 5% impact on our climate.

The idea is nonsense on its face, as virtually 100% of the energy driving our climate is solar in origin, the little bit of heat coming from the Earth's core is quite minimal compared to that, else Mars would be a green paradise just as Earth is.

The variability of solar irradiance has very little to do with climate change.Solar-forcing,as a function of the Earth's orbital perturbations 'IS' responsible for glaciations.So,solar effects are not inconsequential,but there is a specific hierarchy with respect to climate change,and irradiance is not one of them.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

The same people who are saying this stuff though are the ones who predicted a new ice age by the 90's, no more ozone by the 2000's, no ice caps by 2013, etc, etc.

Big name climate change alarmists flip flop on their story more than a fish thrown on the dock.

*First of all,it is because the fossil-fuel industry never proved the efficacy of their products,before they ever went on sale,that today's scientists are trying to put the pieces together in the climate puzzle.
*If you'll actually read the literature from the period,you will see why the scientists would say exactly what they said about 'global cooling',and why they'd be perfectly justified for saying it.(again,the fossil-fuel industry never spent a penny on research to determine whether their products were safe to sell).
*If Shelley and Molina hadn't stepped up to the plate,and taken on DuPont,over their Chloroflourocarbons, and depletion of the ozone layer, you might be dead already from squamous cell carcinoma,or blind flow UV-induced cataracts.
*Energy efficiency standards, and the move away from coal has helped forestall the loss of the Arctic,Greenland,and Antarctica,but they're on there way out anyway,just not as fast as without the interventions already taken.
*My advice would be to skip all the second and third parties, ignoring anyone who isn't an actual scientist involved in the research.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I GOOGLED your question,and the first reference was from The Atlantic,from February 27,2018,which reported that parts of the Arctic were 50-F warmer than normal.

Google results aren't consistent for people, as they apply an algorithm for each individual.

My search terms were "how much has the Arctic warmed". My first result was:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-...te_change.html

I don't see any reference to 50 F warmer, so you'd have to provide that evidence to convince me it exists, and then I'd need to review it to see if it appears credible.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Scientists do nothing but guess; in fact that's what probability is. It's a best guess based on incomplete data and an incomplete understanding of that data.

It's the best we can manage given our infinitely limited understanding, though.

I fell compelled to comment on your comment.
Had you ever actually read an original scientific research paper, it would likely be impossible for you to make a blanket statement such as you have,painting the entire scientific community with such a broad brush, implying that, with zero investment on their part,they just sit around and pull numbers out of their backside.
Earth is an open system,and by definition,impossible to know completely.This fact is not lost on either the scientists,nor the modelers.
Science is about mathematics.They do their research,collect their data,and try to do the best they can with it,since free-market capitalists never did it,going ahead and putting addictive drugs on the market without first doing top-level clinical trials,to prove safety first,well on their way now to making the entire planet a Superfund site.
Since you abhor formal education,and fail to demonstrate any command of real climate science,or interest in actually investigating the bona fides,you're hardly in a position to know anything about what scientists know,and how scientists may actually have a very good command of knowledge about climate issues.
It would be a mistake to project your infinitely limited understanding into the debate, as if it reflected the knowledge on the part of the scientific community.You're way out of your depth.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You're confusing "guess" with "arbitrary selection". A guess relies on the best model of understanding a person has, regardless of how well that model is constructed. Arbitrary selection is to choose something based on no criteria.

To that end, science is fallible, as there is no certainty. There are simply better and worse guesses.

Meteorology is a field of science, yet their predictions (guesses) are based on their best attempt at understanding the variables given the data available. The fact that there will always be room to improve upon those predictions suggests an infinite amount of data and understanding exists.

A formal process for guessing isn't necessarily more accurate than an informal method of guessing, but the advantage is that it's largely reproducible.

How about,you present the science that the fossil-fuel industry came up with in,say,1880,which proved that with the use of their products,there would be no impact to the planet.They're the 'experts' in their industry.They should know 'everything' about their product.Yes? Just like Radium watch dials.Heroin.Opium.Coca leaf.Thalidomide.Asbestos.Cigarettes.CFCs.Carbon tetrachloride,Red Dye#2,Agent Orange,Oxycontin?

[redpoint5]

No group is my God, and my reasoning is that the individuals comprising the group are fallible and made of the same limited stuff I am.

Nowhere did I say that scientists pull numbers out of their rear; that's a mischaracterization of me.

What did I say; that scientists are guessing, which absolutely undeniably is the case. That's exactly what probability is; a method of guessing based on available data and understanding of how it's related.

The most basic statement, such as things exist, is a guess, as there is no way to prove that. Therefore, every conclusion drawn is based on unprovable and untestable givens. Absolutely everything is a guess.

I don't have much to say about addictive substances since I don't know what you're referring to. I'll say that science has nothing directly to do with morality. I'll also say that evil wasn't invented by capitalism; it's intrinsic to the human condition. It's a system of organizing labor that is subject to abuse, just like any system.

[sendler]

1 billion light vehicle cars and trucks on the road in the world right now. Do we really think it is feasible to have 1 billion electric cars and trucks with 60 kWh batteries or larger? 60 TWh of batteries on the road? So even if we achieve the 1 TWh/ year world battery production by 2028 that is forecast at 4 times the current capacity, It would take another 60 years to make this many batteries just for light vehicles. And the current CCS and Tesla charging standards do not even allow for vehicle to grid two way supply.
.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...ies-are-secure
.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Google results aren't consistent for people, as they apply an algorithm for each individual.

My search terms were "how much has the Arctic warmed". My first result was:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-...te_change.html

I don't see any reference to 50 F warmer, so you'd have to provide that evidence to convince me it exists, and then I'd need to review it to see if it appears credible.

I returned to the article,they had a link,I clicked on it,it took me to NOAA.It was their researchers,in the field,who did the empirical measurements reported.
Perhaps NOAA is a reputable source for data.I believe they have data archives available at the click of a mouse.

[redpoint5]

All vehicles don't need to be replaced, and not all vehicles need a 60 kWh battery, and it doesn't have to happen in 9 years.

My assumption is that when a significant portion of vehicles sold are electric (50%?), V2G strategies will be developed, first at local utilities, and then later standardized federally. 25 years?