brenthutch

Under President Trump, our CO2 emissions are down to what they were back in 1993. If we keep fracking and replacing coal fired power plants with natural gas that trend will continue. All the government needs to do is nothing.

Yep pickup trucks and SUVs are only for the upper middle class, you hardly see any in rural PA.

2020 Tesla model 3 worldwide sales 163,500 (that is almost 3000 more than 2019) 2020 Ford F series 787,422 (just the US) At least for the foreseeable future Tesla will remain a toy of the upper middle class.

Americans aren’t buying cars, they are buying SUVs and big pickup trucks. That is why Tesla didn’t show up on the list of the top 25 selling VEHICLES. As far as market cap goes, Tesla stock is much more popular than their cars.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/227644/instead-of-vs-in-stead-of

Meanwhile in the US. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g32006077/best-selling-cars-2020/ Not a single EV, not even Tesla in the top 25. In fact, only two cars in the top ten. The rest? Gas guzzling SUVs and full sized pickup trucks. Norway? Raotflmao

You make a very good point. Just as simple economics drove the switch from whale oil to kerosene, the same thing will happen to fossil fuels We only have about a century’s worth of economically recoverable oil (with current technology). As it begins to deplete, prices will rise and we will slowly transition to other forms of energy. We just have to be smart enough to let it happen.

Obviously your critics did not

You make a good point, but that undermines the argument that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. If CFCs were responsible for much of the warming, we have already solved climate change by eliminating/reducing CFCs. But that seems unlikely since CFCs are responsible for just over 10%. (Still invalidating his projections) BTW the Montreal Protocol limiting CFCs was agreed to the year before, if he was a competent scientist he would have taken that into consideration

Not trolling, I can’t understand why you can’t wrap your brain around the fact that CO2 levels exceeded Hansen’s worst case scenario and temperatures went up by only a fraction of what he predicted.

Exactly, “climate change threatens everything from skiing to French fries”. The skiing one is already debunked and if Macdonalds still have French fries in a couple years that will be debunked as well.

“Hansen et al 1988, retrospective Reviewing the predictions of a seminal climate modeling paper, thirty years later March 7, 2018 (latest substantial revision December 9, 2019)” You obviously having reading comprehension difficulties.... perhaps your brain is frozen from all of that global warming up north.

“Un­der their “scen­ario A,” emis­sions would have increased by 1.5% per year, total­ing 47% in 26 years. In fact, CO2 emis­sions increased even faster than that. CO2 emis­sions increased by an aver­age of 1.97% per year, total­ing 66% in 26 years. Yet tem­per­at­ures increased only about one-third to one-fourth as much as their “scen­ario A” pre­dic­tion.” You must not understand that those policies did nothing to bring the rate of growth in CO2 emissions below predicted levels.

https://www.sealevel.info/hansen1988_retrospective.html In 1988 NASA's James Hansen and seven co-au­thors wrote a highly influ­en­tial, ground­break­ing cli­mate mod­el­ing paper entitled, Global Cli­mate Changes as Fore­cast by God­dard Insti­tute for Space Stud­ies Three-Di­men­sional Model (pdf). They used NASA GISS's GCM Model II (a pre­de­cessor of the cur­rent Model E2) to pre­dict future cli­mate change, under sev­eral scen­arios. They con­sidered the com­bined effects of five green­house gases: CO2, CFC11, CFC12, N2O, and CH4. They pre­dicted a “warm­ing of 0.5°C per dec­ade” if emis­sions growth was not curbed (though their graph showed only about 0.37°C per dec­ade). That was their “scen­ario A,” (“bus­i­ness as usual” [tran­scripts]) which they described as fol­lows: “Scen­ario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emis­sions typ­ical of the 1970s and 1980s will con­tinue indef­in­itely; the assumed annual growth aver­ages about 1.5% of cur­rent emis­sions, so the net green­house for­cing increases expo­nen­tially.” Un­der their “scen­ario A,” emis­sions would have increased by 1.5% per year, total­ing 47% in 26 years. In fact, CO2 emis­sions increased even faster than that. CO2 emis­sions increased by an aver­age of 1.97% per year, total­ing 66% in 26 years. Yet tem­per­at­ures increased only about one-third to one-fourth as much as their “scen­ario A” pre­dic­tion.↑

It is a fact that those articles appeared in those publications, those publications, shape public opinion (worked on many in this forum) and public opinion drives policy. It is the policy aspect of the discussion that gets my attention. If it were just an esoteric debate between a few scientists I wouldn’t care.

Let’s try to take a different approach. Why don’t you give me an example of a climate change prediction of disaster that actually happened, (and HARKing is not allowed.)

The video was on a subsequent post, view my OP

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link · By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south. · Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colderand drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia. Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope. · Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia. · Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk. By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

You missed the point I was making. I believe mister wood was making the case that these predictions failed because our behavior changed. I pointed out that the change in our behavior was to increase our (the world’s not just the US) CO2 output by 16 billion tons per year, and things should actually be worse than predicted. While temperatures have risen, slightly, the predictions of disaster have failed to follow suit. Check out the NOAA website and you will see that nothing (floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires etc) falls outside of historical, natural variability.

Read the link on my original post

Yes, like INCREASING our output of CO2 by sixteen BILLION + tons per year. Given that behavioral change one would expect things to be much worse than predicted.

Who doesn’t acknowledge climate change? Ice ages, Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm Period, Midieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and the modest warming we are currently experiencing? All examples of climate change. I question the apocalyptic predictions that have repeatedly failed to materialize and the notion that we can control bad weather if we just pay a carbon tax, build some windmills and put up some solar panels. https://www.perspectaweather.com/blog/a-look-back-at-global-tropical-activity-and-us-tornadoes-in-2020global-tropical-activity-below-normalus-tornado-activity-below-normal-and-no-reported-ef-5s

The quasi-science is debunked in the video. For example, “In 1986, scientists at the EPA predicted Florida would see two feet of sea level rise by 2020”. Actual rise....three inches, and much of that is from subsidence. If you still can’t muster the courage..... https://junkscience.com/ may be more you speed.