Green new deal equals magical thinking

[wmw999 2,124]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Mine, or Marty's?

Well, yours is less common on US campuses. And among the undergrads, at least, it gives it some cool factor.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,402]

29 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That comment is ridiculous.

The dangers of smoking are well documented - they don't fluctuate. (But you know that)

Why should anyone take your alarmism seriously?  There's no proof!  The science isn't settled.  "Cigarette smoking" has never, ever been listed as a cause of death on a death certificate, so there's no factual evidence.  You're going to die anyway.  I know someone who smoked two packs a day and lived to be 100.  In fact, many of the same people who started the climate change denial movement were the same people who the tobacco companies paid to push uncertainty and doubt on the topic of the health effects of smoking.  Surely you are not saying they are wrong?

Quote

The climate change issue is a matter of perspective.  The climate is going to change. 

It is indeed; we are forcing it to do so.

Quote

What matters is what you are able to accept as acceptable climate change.

Yep.  And the decision we have to make is - is the cost of climate change (extinctions, flooding, loss of crops, refugees, abandonment of cities) worth it?  For a rich guy in Denver, it probably is.  For the millions living in Bangladesh near the water, it probably isn't.

[billvon 2,402]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

And it has been, in fits and starts, since the end of the last ice age.  If CO2 where driving the climate, we would not see global cooling in the last three years while CO2 levels continue to skyrocket.

 

Again, long term not short term.  Over the past 50 years, temperatures have skyrocketed while CO2 skyrocketed.

Quote

My point with the car race example was to illustrate that different vehicles have different strengths and weaknesses.  A Tesla model S would trounce my Honda just as Dodge Demon would best the Tesla in a 0-60 dash.  Add some curves and the Demon loses, add some distance and my lowly Accord pulls out in front.

Hmm.  Given that the reported 0-60 time of the Demon is 2.3 seconds and the P100D is 2.28 seconds - I don't know that that's really true.  I looked for a faster speed, and the only place I found it is a claim of a 2.1 second track run with all the seats except the driver's removed and 100 octane fuel - and with runout.

But in any case, the "strengths and weaknesses" thing is indeed why people buy cars.  And having the fastest car on the road (or if you like one in the top two) plus having seats and whatnot, plus having all the cargo space, plus the range, plus the silence and the autopilot and the top speed etc. is why people buy Teslas. 

That's the big change that Tesla made in the market.  Before Tesla, EV's were glorified golf carts. The Leaf and the i-MEV were better than a golf cart, but not better enough to change that preconception.   People didn't want them and the car companies made them only under protest, to meet quotas.  The Tesla Roadster, and later the Model S, changed all that.  And not just for consumers - for the auto industry as well.  GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz in 2009:  "All the geniuses here at General Motors kept saying lithium-ion technology is 10 years away, and Toyota agreed with us – and boom, along comes Tesla. So I said, 'How come some tiny little California startup, run by guys who know nothing about the car business, can do this, and we can't?' That was the crowbar that helped break up the log jam."

 

[brenthutch 384]

Hey that is how capitalism works.  Teslas are impressive.  My only beef is with the government subsidies and cram-downs.

55 minutes ago, billvon said:

Again, long term not short term.  Over the past 50 years, temperatures have skyrocketed while CO2 skyrocketed.

 

If you look at the LONGER term from 1945 to around 1975, temperatures DROPPED while CO2 climbed.  And as we all know, the warming influence of CO2 drops logarithmically thus it is very hard to reasonably attribute the observed late twentieth century warming to CO2, a fact that is being born out by recent observation.

[wolfriverjoe 1,345]

Well, sulphate aerosols & the method of taking the temps (US vs UK methods) account for the temp drop. 

 

And 'long term' is very subjective. 

Link to show that what I claim has data behind it:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

[brenthutch 384]

From the warmist site Climate Central, 

“The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.”

If CO2 were a significant driver of climate, seas would be a hundred feet higher and temperatures would be 11 degrees F warmer than they are today and we NEVER would have had an ice age with levels 8X what they are today.  Oh and BTW the planet survived.

Bill, my initial 0-60 times were based on the manufactures' claims.  After looking into it further the Tesla looks to have the edge (consistently)

Edited April 13, 2019 by brenthutch

[PhreeZone 15]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

My point with the car race example was to illustrate that different vehicles have different strengths and weaknesses.  A Tesla model S would trounce my Honda just as Dodge Demon would best the Tesla in a 0-60 dash.  Add some curves and the Demon loses, add some distance and my lowly Accord pulls out in front. 

A Demon in race configuration with only one seat is technically slower 2.3 seconds vs a Model S with all 5 seats installed @ 2.28 seconds for the 0-60 speeds. Personally I'd rather not have to strip all the seats and put the thin racing fronts on the car to get those speeds and would rather just have a 5 seater that does those speeds on its own.

[brenthutch 384]

OTOH my V6, VTech, six speed Accord coupe would spank a Tesla on a road track.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/5207/this-video-reminds-us-that-the-tesla-model-s-is-an-awful-track-car

Edited April 13, 2019 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

 

It is indeed; we are forcing it to do so.

 

Are you implying that it wouldn't without humans being involved?

[billvon 2,402]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If you look at the LONGER term from 1945 to around 1975, temperatures DROPPED while CO2 climbed.  And as we all know, the warming influence of CO2 drops logarithmically thus it is very hard to reasonably attribute the observed late twentieth century warming to CO2, a fact that is being born out by recent observation.

No, again you are cherrypicking a short period of time in which the trend you want is highlighted.

Yes, the effect of CO2 drops logarithmically.  That's why we are seeing only a degree or so of warming instead of ten degrees as we increased CO2 concentrations by 50%.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that we seem to have no plans of stopping.  Even on a logarithmic curve, increases in concentrations result in increases in warming - and that warming is quite close to the predictions made by IPCC models.

[billvon 2,402]

8 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

 

Are you implying that it wouldn't without humans being involved?

Correct.  We would see temperatures similar to the 1850 average - if not slightly lower (since solar output is down slightly since the 1960's.)

[turtlespeed 212]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Correct.  We would see temperatures similar to the 1850 average - if not slightly lower (since solar output is down slightly since the 1960's.)

. . . and you wholeheartedly state that as fact.

How can you be certain that without humans on the planet another life form wouldn't have evolved - Maybe Cows are over populating the earth in the "No Humans Scenario"

 

Actually - it is rather quite possible that the nuclear testing that humans have done have helped the crust stabilize to a point where less volcanic activity was catalyzed, and now there is far Far FAR less CO2 as would have been naturally.

Those small shockwaves kept several super volcanoes from erupting.

Edited April 13, 2019 by turtlespeed

[billvon 2,402]

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

OTOH my V6, VTech, six speed Accord coupe would spank a Tesla on a road track.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/5207/this-video-reminds-us-that-the-tesla-model-s-is-an-awful-track-car

That was from 2016. Tesla came out with "track mode" in 2018; it improves front/rear torque distribution, manages torque to each wheel individually and increases battery cooling at high power outputs.  I have a feeling that, if run today, the "spanking" would turn into a "oh shit did I beat him or not?"

[brenthutch 384]

Wait, wait.  So the lack of global warming is due to reduced solar activity, but the presence of warming is because of CO2?  Have you ever considered that the sun MIGHT have something to do with the warming?

[billvon 2,402]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

. . . and you wholeheartedly state that as fact.

Yes; our best science points to that result.

Quote

How can you be certain that without humans on the planet another life form wouldn't have evolved - Maybe Cows are over populating the earth in the "No Humans Scenario"

Yes, Turtle, that's correct.  If intelligent cows evolved and built cow tractors that burned gasoline, and put a similar amount of CO2 in the air - then we'd see similar levels of warming. 

Sort of unlikely, though, don't you agree?

[billvon 2,402]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wait, wait.  So the lack of global warming is due to reduced solar activity, but the presence of warming is because of CO2?  

?? No.  Where did you get that?  The forcing from the reduced solar output is around -.1 watt/sq m.  That is small.  The forcing from the atmospheric changes is about 2 watts/ sq m.  That is large.  The large effect overpowers the small effect.

Quote

Have you ever considered that the sun MIGHT have something to do with the warming?

The sun is the source of almost all heat energy on Earth.  If its output was climbing significantly that would account for the warming.  Since it is declining, it does not.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Yes; our best science points to that result.

Yes, Turtle, that's correct.  If intelligent cows evolved and built cow tractors that burned gasoline, and put a similar amount of CO2 in the air - then we'd see similar levels of warming. 

Sort of unlikely, though, don't you agree?

 

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Yes; our best science points to that result.

 

And it HAS TO if they want the funding to continue.

1 minute ago, billvon said:

 

Yes, Turtle, that's correct.  If intelligent cows evolved and built cow tractors that burned gasoline, and put a similar amount of CO2 in the air - then we'd see similar levels of warming. 

Sort of unlikely, though, don't you agree?

Who can say?

First of all, it is a leap to assume I was referring to intelligent life - I was simply talking about numbers vs land area.

 

[billvon 2,402]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

And it HAS TO if they want the funding to continue.

If someone could conclusively prove that the Earth is not warming due to anthropogenic effects, they would certainly win a Nobel and have as much funding as they wanted for the rest of their lives, courtesy of oil and coal companies everywhere.  That's a very powerful incentive for a good scientist to disprove AGW.  

No one has even come close.

Quote

First of all, it is a leap to assume I was referring to intelligent life

If you weren't referring to intelligent life then you have a lot less to worry about.  Without the intelligence to pump oil and mine coal at the rates we've been doing it, change in CO2 concentrations (and the climate change that is associated with that) happens a LOT slower - over tens of thousands of years instead of over tens of years.

[turtlespeed 212]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

If someone could conclusively prove that the Earth is not warming due to anthropogenic effects, they would certainly win a Nobel and have as much funding as they wanted for the rest of their lives, courtesy of oil and coal companies everywhere.  That's a very powerful incentive for a good scientist to disprove AGW.  

No one has even come close.

If you weren't referring to intelligent life then you have a lot less to worry about.  Without the intelligence to pump oil and mine coal at the rates we've been doing it, change in CO2 concentrations (and the climate change that is associated with that) happens a LOT slower - over tens of thousands of years instead of over tens of years.

Since we are in fantasy land . . . This was an edit from before - you might have missed it.

Actually - it is rather quite possible that the nuclear testing that humans have done have helped the crust stabilize to a point where less volcanic activity was catalyzed, and now there is far Far FAR less CO2 as would have been naturally.

Those small shockwaves kept several super volcanoes from erupting.

 

And I stand by my statement that the best science points to what will keep the funding coming in to perpetuate the science.

Edited April 13, 2019 by turtlespeed
Added content and removed the redundant "the".

[brenthutch 384]

My 2013 Accord is worth around $10K (it cost me <35K new), a 2014 Tesla model S is worth around $40K. (>$129K new) I can sustain a governed speed of 135 indefinitely.  After the Tesla is forced into low power mode, I have better acceleration, better handling, better breaks and a higher top speed, I have duel climate control, heated power leather seat, backup camera, lane departure warning, blind spot camera, proximity warning, premium stereo, Bluetooth, GPS multi-screen infotainment center, yada yada yada...Who got the better deal?

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

My 2013 Accord is worth around $10K (it cost me <35K new), a 2014 Tesla model S is worth around $40K. (>$129K new) I can sustain a governed speed of 135 indefinitely.  After the Tesla is forced into low power mode, I have better acceleration, better handling, better breaks and a higher top speed, I have duel climate control, heated power leather seat, backup camera, lane departure warning, blind spot camera, proximity warning, premium stereo, Bluetooth, GPS multi-screen infotainment center, yada yada yada...Who got the better deal?

DUH . . . Obviously AOC!!!

[lippy 773]

45 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Since we are in fantasy land . . . This was an edit from before - you might have missed it.

Actually - it is rather quite possible that the nuclear testing that humans have done have helped the crust stabilize to a point where less volcanic activity was catalyzed, and now there is far Far FAR less CO2 as would have been naturally.

Those small shockwaves kept several super volcanoes from erupting.

 

And I stand by my statement that the best science points to what will keep the funding coming in to perpetuate the science.

Dude....you're disputing proven science that has been developed over several decades with an (I assume pulled out of your ass) argument that 'maybe we've significantly hardened the earth's crust and so there are fewer volcanoes, thereby reducing CO2 emissions'????  Come on man.  I assume that your theory beats the hypothesis of the scientific community because nobody paid you to come up with it???

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

Not exactly.  But mine is based in reality just as much as the hypothesis that we would have weather like the 1850's.

[gowlerk 1,915]

On 4/12/2019 at 8:00 PM, brenthutch said:

Wait, wait.  So the lack of global warming is due to reduced solar activity, but the presence of warming is because of CO2?  Have you ever considered that the sun MIGHT have something to do with the warming?

Ugh....yes, of course. The Sun has everything to do with it. That is how a greenhouse works, 100% solar. That is why they call it "the greenhouse effect". Sometimes deniers get so silly.....

[brenthutch 384]

Ask anyone in the Chicago area how their global warming is coming along. 

ROTFLMAO!