skierinvermont

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Because the peer review process is corrupted. Scientists rely on the government for funding. If there are no serious problems, there is no funding. So climate scientists have to have a problem to get funding. The problem has to be more and more significant to keep getting funding. Since the climate is changing slowly and most Americans don't notice much change, they are trying to prove that weather events are now supercharged by CO2 and the media catches on and calls it a climate crisis and so on. Politicians now are worried and bingo more funding. 
Plus the folks that have all the power are of course biased to where the money is and referee the peer review process and won't let skeptical viewpoints publish. We saw that in the climategate emails and it continues more than a decade later. Follow the money, influence and power. Peer review doesn't mean much anymore. I have seen terrible papers get through when I was a reviewer. It depends on what the problem is. If it fits an agenda it gets published easier. This is just the truth and it unfortunately occurs outside climate science too. With blogs and open internet, peer review isn't what is was 20 years ago.

 

lol those evil scientists are at it again!

Papers that present evidence for lower climate sensitivity or lesser impacts are published all the time.

27 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Sorry I don't agree. How can something else kick off a global warming event during the last glacial maximum, CO2 remains constant or even falls as it lags this initial forcing and then all of the sudden after several hundred years it becomes a positive feedback? That makes no sense. Obviously it is not the control knob of the climate if it doesn't kick off climate change. How can CO2 be still falling and global warming occurring and vice versa? Then after a lag it all of the sudden becomes a feedback?  If that is the case, it is only a feedback to the warming we see today. Warmer oceans outgas CO2 and humans add some too. There is some effect from increasing CO2 but whatever kicked off the warming from the Little Ice Age to present is the dominant forcing. Since CO2 increases have a logarithmic effect radiatively CO2 should have more influence during ice ages and less so now as CO2 has rise to above 400 ppm. There is less warming for each additional ppm of CO2. So even if there is unnatural rises in CO2, the effects are diminishing on the climate system. All told 3.7 w/m2 of extra forcing for doubled CO2 vs OLR of 239 w/m2 is 1-2%. That is very little. There is SOME effect but it is not driving the climate.  Climate models are flawed and do not account for natural processes well. They also assume the climate was in stasis in 1850 which it wasn't since we were warming out of the LIA. So climate models don't prove anything.   

Nobody ever said CO2 was the only factor. The interglacial warming was kicked off by earth's orbital changes. The warming took thousands of years because the orbital changes also took thousands of years. Throughout the whole process CO2 is acting as a positive feedback and making it warmer than it would be. It's entirely possible the earth could have cooled for a hundred years here or there while CO2 rose because orbital changes or some other factor caused cooling. I'm not sure that ice core data has that kind of resolution however, and you've presented no such evidence. The graphs I've seen have CO2 and temperature correlated very closely. If you presented documented evidence of CO2 rising significantly while temperature dropped significantly (and by significantly I mean more than other 3rd factors could possibly account for), that would indeed interesting. But you've presented no such evidence.

The evidence is to the contrary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

Climate models do not assume the climate was in stasis in 1850. This is false - and likely a lie unless you have any evidence to back it up. Making false claims without evidence is dishonest.

3.7W/m2 is not 'very little' forcing. The earth's surface would have to warm 1.2C in order to emit that extra radiation to space. This is without the tremendous evidence of positive feedbacks that would lead to more forcing beyond the 3.7W/m2.

The logarithmic nature of CO2 forcing is well understood. During the interglacials it would rise from 190 to 270. Today we are past 400. 

Show me what is inconsistent with CO2 acting as a positive feedback in this graph. Keep in mind the precision of the measurements may be +/-5 or 10% (would have to check the paper to confirm). Blue is temp yellow is CO2. I would say this graph is entirely consistent with the theory that CO2 acts as a positive feedback during the interglacials. It doesn't prove it. But it is consistent.

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

If that's true then a reasonable assumption would be that ENSO may have offered a temporary counterbalance to atmospheric warming.  The question then becomes if artificial sources were taken out of the equation, how much would the earth have cooled in that period?

The paper referenced finds an effect size of ~.09C per unit of MEI (multivariate enso index). I'd ballpark the line of best fit for the MEI from 1997-2009 as decreasing 1 unit. So a cooling of .09C.

The effect size for TSI is ~.1C per W/m2 (measured with the sun directly overhead). Given TSI decreased maybe .3W/m2 line of best fit, that's a cooling effect of .03C.

Sum it up and the earth would have cooled .12C based on ENSO and solar alone from 1997-2009. Aerosols could have added a little more cooling. This cooling was primarily negated by GHGs (primarily CO2) providing a roughly equal warming effect. This warming effect of .12C or perhaps a bit more is similar to the 40 year background warming rate, confirming the background warming rate has stayed roughly constant. Just another way of saying what the graph I posted above shows.

16 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Aerosol loading probably explains part of the warming hiatus. One thing that puzzles me is that oceanic heat content kept marching upward. It makes me wonder if the typical transfer of heat into the atmosphere waned during the period only to be taken up by the cryosphere. The post 1998 El Nino period was about the time where cryosphere declines became most acute.

Oh true, I think I remember reading aerosols rose more or declined less during that period than others because of China. 
 

Ohc may have continued to rise at a high rate despite the aerosols partially because of the tendency towards La Niña during that period. Otherwise we might have seen a little slowdown in ohc.

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

We've generally come to the conclusion that the CO2 output went into the oceans first which may partially explain what you pointed out about the lack of warming during the first decade of the millennium (and has resulted in coral bleaching.)  

 

 

Sorry if it wasn't clear from my post. The lack of warming from 1997-2009 was primarily due to a decline in ENSO during the period and a decline in solar output. Plus possibly some other unexplained natural variability. CO2 in the atmosphere was rising rapidly before, during, and after that period.

You can see in the graph in the paper Don posted a last week that once the effect of ENSO and solar are removed, the 1997-2009 period continued to warm. Although if you look carefully the warming from 1997-2009 was a little slower than before or after even after removing ENSO and solar, especially on UAH and RSS. So there is still a little unexplained natural variability and/or measurement error. But ENSO and solar collectively explain 80-90% of the short term variance (eyeballing - the actual figure is probably in the paper itself).

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

They confusingly offset the data in the graph below, so ignore the y axis. The point of the graph below is that all 5 of them show a lot more big ups and downs.

Put another way, climate science is pretty conclusive in the big picture, but the science behind it is pretty extensive and can be complex at times. If you trust the field, then the big picture hasn’t changed much since the 90s. But if you want to understand it yourself it’s quite complex, there are some remaining uncertainties, and it’s easy to misunderstand or partially understand. What I don’t understand at this point, I tend to defer to the experts more than I used to because in all of the cases I have looked at in depth, the peer reviewed consensus has been right.

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

You used to be a climate change skeptic and had a radio show?  I didn't know either of that.   I thought climate change had been settled going way back to the 80s.   The science is not that difficult (for those of us who love science) and your use of analogies is a handy method for showing people how it works without having to delve into mathematics, charts, etc.   We already knew it was happening back then and it turns out that the fossil fuel cartel knew about it even before that.  It's just much more obvious now then it was back then.  Obviously the cartel had been doing  a great job covering their tracks, and now that they can no longer do that (well to most of us anyway) they espouse failed strategies like removing carbon from the atmosphere and "clean coal".

There are lots of aspects of the science which get pretty complicated when you dig deeper. When I first started digging around 2007-2009 there were a lot of things that on the surface seemed like biases or errors of climate science. A few of them are actual errors/biases, but most of the time there are good reasons when you read the technical papers on the subject.

A few examples of things that seemed like errors/biases but weren't when I dug more:

1. Global temperature didn't rise from 1997-2009. This fell at the very low end of what climate models predicted was possible. It was basically a 2 SD event and fell right at the 95% confidence interval for climate models. In retrospect, a number of factors had aligned to prevent warming for that 12 year period and the factors were more temporary than I understood (ENSO, solar).

2. Climate science seemed to rely more heavily on warmer temperature sources such as Hadley and GISS (surface based) and RSS (satellite based) than UAH (satellite based). If you read the technical papers on the subject there are good reasons to believe the surface datasets are superior to the satellites, and RSS is likely superior to UAH although both have significant uncertainties.

3. There had been a lot of EL Ninos in the 80s and 90s and this could have somehow caused a lot of the warming (it only caused a little of it).

4. The sun was very strong in the 70s-90s and there were theories that the cosmic rays could cause cloud cover changes that amplify warming. When you read the technical papers on the subject, these theories contain errors and aren't properly peer-reviewed although they are published. Recent low solar activity is yet another proof of their error.

5. Overall I generally acknowledged that doubling CO2 caused 1.2C of warming, but questioned whether feedbacks would really amplify this to 3C. This was based on a belief that historical warming was less than climate scientists said it was, and the possibility of alternative amplifications of the warming such as ENSO/PDO/Solar/Clouds. 

6. There's some dataset floating out there (I forget the name) that shows cloud cover changes that would have caused warming. The dataset is likely flawed.

A few examples of things I still believe are errors or biases of a few individuals in the field:

1. James Hansen made a number of extreme predictions about sea level rise in the early 2000s about seal level in 2020 or 2030. They were very wrong.

2. Michael Mann's hockey stick is somewhat deceptive. It should have more clearly shown that he was combining low resolution data (tree ring data from 1000-1900 AD) with very high resolution data (1900-present). There are better presentations of this graph out here than Michael Mann's original.

3. Al Gore's movie presented ice core data and made it sound like CO2 caused temperature changes in the past. In reality, it was one of several positive feedbacks.

4. There are some papers out there that tend to rely on the most extreme outcomes.

5. GISS extrapolates very rapid warming in coastal Siberia over much of the Arctic Ocean where in reality it has likely not warmed as quickly due to the moderating effect of water. This leads to a very slight warming bias during periods of rapid arctic warming.

15 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I dont believe either of them is lying.  Even though I strenuously disagree with "Blizzard" if you psychoanalyze his posts, you can see that he believes what he is posting.  His anger seems to be legit.  We all have our own biases and it takes a lot to bring down that wall.  It's best to keep personal attacks to a minimum, because that only causes more stubbornness and then both sides dig in, regardless of the available evidence.  Attack bad ideas, not the people who espouse them.

 

I think he believes much of what he is saying but there are clear instances of him stating things he knows to be false. For example, claiming to have read a particular paper I mentioned when he doesn't know which paper. Or repeating points that were clearly proven false and deliberately ignoring those replies so as to continue repeating the same falsehoods. It would be different if he actually responded to the points directed at him. But by willfully ignoring the responses I believe it is intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. Ignoring evidence contrary to out beliefs is common human behavior. But it is certainly not admirable and is one of the uglier sides of the human psyche. It is pervasive in the AGW denier community.

Most people don't have the time, energy, intellect, background knowledge, or discipline to understand the science. Which is one reason these debates are so often fruitless with one side consistently ignoring the evidence presented.

On 9/13/2020 at 1:46 PM, Heat_Is_On said:

Well I think Blizzard is done here. I had popcorn and was enjoying the back and forth especially between him/her and skierinvermont. Will one or both of these users be banned? should they? or is this discourse allowed. It was entertaining....  anyway. 

Is this stuff quoted true? First is CO2 really a weak greenhouse gas? Isn't it the dominate GHG? Also being from a physics background, does CO2 really lag T in ice cores. I find it hard to believe that such data up to 400 thousand years ago could be resolved to such a degree. If CO2 rises and falls lag temperature changes, a layperson in climate science like myself could be confused and think it is not important. Also if CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas again one can see why there is confusion with people. Also was there a little ice age and medieval warm period? I always thought there was and if so, one can see that natural effects can be also at work. Again this can confuse a non climate scientist.  

So is this blizzard just outright lying?  please advise. I really though they figured all this stuff out and we are warming tremendously. I have heard that even our day to day weather especially storms are supercharged by CO2. Of course I take what the media says with a grain of salt since they often overdo stuff. thanks all. 

I believe he is correct that CO2 lags T in ice core data for the recent ice ages. Even if I am remembering that wrong and the resolution isn't there to prove it, it's very likely that CO2 did in fact lag T over the ice ages. Previous warming periods weren't initiated by CO2 and CO2 acted as a positive feedback. When the earth warmed 1C, CO2 would be released from the oceans because warmer water holds CO2 less readily. The increased CO2 and water vapor would cause more warming (less than 1C or the warming would be 'runaway' - people often confuse positive feedbacks with runaway positive feedbacks).  It's not possible to explain the ice ages without the existence of positive feedbacks (CO2 and water vapor) but they weren't the initial cause.

On that point, blizzard is technically correct. What he doesn't understand is that this has been a well understood and researched aspect of the science for decades. I will say, Al Gore presented it somewhat deceptively in 'An Inconvenient Truth' which provided me with endless fodder on my radio show during my climate change skepticism days (until I actually learned and understood the science).

Our current warming is unique in that huge quantities of CO2 have been artificially released into the atmosphere in a very short period.

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I have and don't agree with the methods. Others feel the same way. But of course they don't agree with the consensus so they are shunned. This is not science. This is shutting down the scientific process. people like you and others do this. Many of us folks who believe there is moderate warming not catastrophic warming are getting lumped in with the Alex Jones types, Trumpers etc.  That is so wrong. 

 

 

Even Judith Curry understands the time of observation bias in the U.S. temperature record.

It's not that there were no high/lows before 1920 (I have no idea where you got this idea from). It's that over time stations have switched from recording the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours at 5pm to 7am. If you have a thermometer that records the highest temperature of the previous 24 hours, and you reset it at 5pm on a hot day on April 24th you will double count the hot day. You'll get a 95F reading for April 24th, and a 93F reading from 5:01pm that will show up as the hottest temperature of April 25th (recorded at 5pm for the previous 24 hours), even though the hottest it got on April 25th was 80F. By recording at 7am, hot days are no longer double counted. You'd get just one reading of 95F for April 24th (recorded at 7am on April 25th) and one reading of 80F (recorded at 7am on April 26th). 

As Curry's blog points out, you don't have to do adjustments at all. Whenever a station makes a change in recording time, you treat it as an entirely new station completely independent of the old station. IEM doesn't do either form of correction, and instead treats stations which used to record highs at 5pm (and double count high temperatures from hot days) as the same station even when they change their measurement to record at 7am and no longer double count high temperatures.

What exactly about this process do you disagree with? You dare to cross the mighty JUDITH CURRY? (not authored by her but clearly endorsed by her as a guest post on her blog). And you don't have any evidence or specific critiques of TOBs adjustments other than name-calling it ("VOODOO statistics") and that you don't trust scientists.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/#:~:text=Between 1960 and today%2C the,and maximum temperatures via USHCN.

The number of little children running around with their pants off screaming about temperature adjustments who don't understand why they are made is absurd. At least Curry gets it. Even if you make ZERO TOBs adjustments and just treat stations that change their observation time as two separate stations, the result is exactly the same.

For example say Omaha recorded at 5pm from 1895-1960 and then at 7am from 1960-present. You would treat these two as completely separate stations.  It's the same thing as making a temperature record when not all the stations start in the same year (some start in 1870 and some as late as 1920). As long as anomalies are used, stations dropping in and/or out of the data set don't matter.

This is the method Berkeley used. They made no time of observation adjustment, but get the exact same result as NOAA, which makes a .2C TOBs adjustment based on statistical analysis of hot-day double counting.

2 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

If the warming were merely artifacts of statistical manipulation, one would not be witnessing a lengthening of growing seasons, increased frequency of early- and late-season blooms, earlier nesting of numerous species of birds, the losses in mass from Greenland and Antarctica, the declining Arctic sea ice (summer minimum and annual average). In the big picture, even if one didn’t rely on the vast body of research showing the ongoing warming, there would be indications of big change from those other examples.

There's an answer for everything Don. The glaciers in Glacier National Park are probably disappearing from being walked on too much. IEM probably shows Montana hasn't warmed at all and unadjusted (uncorrected) temperatures are BEST!

4 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is my last post. You guys win. It is like talking to a brick wall. Skier you should be removed from this forum. period. The mods have done nothing and that is shameful. Keep living in your fantasy world.  I know you think I live in one, but NO.... it is you guys. Mother Earth is just fine and modest warming will be beneficial. To think otherwise is just plain HYPE.  

Classic. A decent human being would have some shame and admit when they lied.

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I have and don't agree with the methods. Others feel the same way. But of course they don't agree with the consensus so they are shunned. This is not science. This is shutting down the scientific process. people like you and others do this. Many of us folks who believe there is moderate warming not catastrophic warming are getting lumped in with the Alex Jones types, Trumpers etc.  That is so wrong. 

 

 

You don't even know which paper I'm talking about. Next time you lie, at least make it less obvious.

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Its the highs and lows that matter. how can you stitch data together if they didn't do highs and lows before 1920?  come on. that is vodoo statistics. 

Maybe actually read the paper. They explain all of this in extreme detail. I look forward to your equally detailed critique.

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The IEM data source has unadjusted measured data which is the best. It should no warming AT ALL in my climate division. NONE. BUT NCEI reports 3F warming since 1893. It is MADE UP. It is NOT measured. How can you trust this MADE UP DATA. This is beyond silliness and common sense.  

Yeah temperature measurements taken at 2pm in 1920 are the BEST for comparing to temperature measurements taken at 6pm today!!! Are you trying to be a joke?

9 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You fail to see what is really going on. Not much. Some mild warming. You rely on peer reviewed adjusted upward, retain warm biased data.  Warm the present, cool the past! These folks are exaggerating the data. You know it too. 

I think it is important that temperature measurements over time be taken at the same time of day for consistency's sake. Apparently you'd rather compare temperatures taken at 2pm in 1920 to temperatures taken at 6pm today. In the U.S. this results in an upward adjustment. Adjustments in the rest of the world are actually negative.

This is at least the 2nd time Blizzard has used data sources where the actual authors of the data say the data is unverified, inaccurate, and/or unsuitable for climate studies.

Given the pattern I have to assume that this is intentional rather than accidental.

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

From the IEM site:

While we use care to provide accurate weather/climatic information, errors may occur because of equipment or other failure. We therefore provide this information without any warranty of accuracy. Users of this weather/climate data do so at their own risk, and are advised to use independent judgement as to whether to verify the data presented.

The IEM is a volunteer effort and receives no funds for facilities or staff from Iowa State University or the State of Iowa. Users of the IEM must therefore recognize that the IEM may be discontinued at any time with little or no notice.

Errors exist. For example, during Phoenix's recent September heat, I looked up Phoenix's highest hourly readings for September. Several hours listed 117 degrees on September 1, 1950. In fact, the high temperature that day was the September record figure of 116. The August record is 117.

I have no idea what IEM is, and as you state they explicitly warn that the data is of unknown accuracy. 

I don't know if anybody else noticed but the NOAA graph bluewave posted shows 2X more warming in NJ than the IEM graph does. I suspect the results would be similar for other states as well. If you look closely, IEM warms from 71.5 to 73, while NOAA warms from 70 to 73.

This is typical dishonest behavior from the anti-science side. They pick whatever sources makes their point without any regard for its accuracy. Even when the source they are citing explicitely states there is no warranty of accuracy and to use at your own risk! 

EDIT: it looks like blizzard already noticed this but predictably sided with the graph that says data may be inaccurate and use at your own risk! I suspect he chose the IEM graph knowing full well that the data was unverified and uncorrected for things such as change in instrumentation and time of observation. It's like saying it was hotter in 1940 at 2pm than in 1980 at 6pm!

As Karl et al. 1986 epxlained, climate stations in the U.S. have changed their time of observations many times over the years. Back in 1986 adjusting temperatures to reflect a consistent time of observation was just good science. It wasn't until the mid-2000s when the wave of right wing denier websites suddenly discovered (or pretended to discover) what everybody else knew all along that this became controversial.

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

Per the paper below there is a slight reduction in OHC during El Nino due to heat loss from ocean to atmosphere.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331751587_Evolution_of_Ocean_Heat_Content_Related_to_ENSO

Yeah he actually briefly acknowledged this point a page or two back. I thought he might actually be in for an objective discussion at that point. But then he continued on insisting that the very slight positive trend in ENSO from 1970-present has somehow increased OHC, despite the fact that over periods with very negative ENSO trends (2003-2013 for example, there are others) OHC just goes up without the slightest slowdown.

Then he brought up the possibility of some sort of lag. So I pointed out that no matter what lag you pick, there is never a decrease in OHC over an extended period when ENSO goes down. There's just no noticeable long-term effect at all between ENSO and OHC. The only thing there is as I pointed out before and like you are also point out, is a brief reduction in OHC as the ocean radiates heat to the atmosphere during +ENSO (which is actually the opposite of the effect he's hypothesizing, and also much more short-lived). It's pretty clear he's just trolling at this point.

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

 

 

 

Really interesting to see that show up right over the corn belt. Even if it's not 100% due to agriculture changes, still really interesting to see that cool spot right over them with warmth all around.

21 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

I am going to get you removed from this forum. You are a bully and are offending me. I never call you names. You basically assume I have half a brain? That is an insult and has no place on a forum like this. You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. Please think about this before you are removed. You do have good points. You just don't tolerate others who see things differently. And then you insult them. 

I didn't say you have half a brain. Read it again. What I said was you need to stop posting lies and actually respond to the corrections people have made to your posts. I don't know how to say this any nicer. This is a forum for science and facts, not politics and lies from disinformation blogs.

12 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You are the one that is way out of line and should be removed from this forum IMO. You can't have a rational conversation with someone who doesn't see it your way. Its your way or the highway. No place for a science forum. 

I responded to your points. You do not respond and repeat lies. That's called trolling. Anybody with half a brain can see you can't have a discussion on the merits so you just repeat more lies. Either respond to the points or stop posting. Nobody wants or needs more of your lies ripped from disinformation blogs. If we wanted those sorts of lies we know where to find them. If you have actual peer-reviewed science to share, please do so.

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used makes it worse, that's a major reason why there is a diabetes pandemic going on in minority communities.  More limbs have been lost to diabetes in the past 20 years than to being in the military.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad

Read up.

By the way artificial sweeteners have their own issues.  Diet soda consumption isn't a good idea either, it affects the gut biome negatively.

You might also be interested in this

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/books/salt-sugar-fat-by-michael-moss.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/23well.html

 

Shows why obesity and diabetes type 2 have risen so quickly in the past 20 years.  And a concurrent rise in insulin prices.....

 

 

I'm just saying if you got rid of corn syrup, they'd just go back to using sugar which would be just as bad. So I don't really see corn syrup as the problem. It's a whole society problem. The regulations on food labeling and advertising could be stronger. Public education could be improved so people understand exercise, diet, and food labeling. Economic disparities that lead to dysfunctional families and upbringings for children are also to blame.

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

No life expectancy is cruelly short in the 3rd world where they don't have access to cheap energy. They use charcoal to heat and cook and die of emphysema and other lung illnesses in their 40s.  Plus, they destroy their local environments by cutting down all the trees. Have you seen Haiti? The environmental degradation is awful and it's because the people are so poor and do not have access to cheap affordable energy.  If we go to renewables when it is NOT cost effective, it will force much of the western world into a 3rd world hell. We then will destroy our planet. People desperate for survival will have to resort to wood burning and hunting native animals and birds for food again. Heck in Venezuela that is what is happening.  I would rather walk my dog, not eat him. 

100s of thousands of people in U.S. die from air pollution from cars and coal power every year. Many millions other suffer from asthma and cardiovascular problems which are inflamed during periods of stagnant poor air quality.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013004548

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(16)30023-8/fulltext

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107002849

https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/health-effects-of-outdoor-air-pollution?source=post_page---------------------------

In China and India where the air is much worse, the death tolls are much higher. I have family in China and when the air is bad even young health people get headaches and cold symptoms and have to wear a mask. The elderly just have to stay inside with air purifiers. Which is why these countries are at least trying to clean up and are heavily adopting renewables and closing down dirty energy sources. And guess what? Their economies are stronger than ever and no doomsday widespread dog eating scenario. What nonsense right wing scare tactics.

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I never said I was against renewables. When it is cost effective and if it doesn't harm the environment I am in. Eventually it is the way to go. Maybe by 2030? That would be awesome.  I would love to have an electric car. I would love to have solar panels and generate my own power. It would be cheaper. But it is too expensive right now. Look I do agree than CO2 increases does elevate global temperatures but not the doomsday scenarios that are parroted on this forum. But I think people also have forgotten that there is natural variability at play too. In the end I actually agree with all of you on renewable energy when it is cost effective. I happen to think it will take several decades but I am not an expert in this area and I do hope you are correct that it is cost effective quicker.  have a good day.  

This is a right-wing political lie.

Wind is cheaper than coal which is why the free market has adopted it so readily the last 10 years. It is the primary source of new power in the United States over the last decade (roughly tied with natural gas).

Electric cars and hybrids are cheaper than gas cars for consumers who drive more than 10,000-15,000 miles per year.

Emissions control devices on gas vehicles are dirt cheap.

I've already pointed this out. And yet you repeat the same lie. You are a troll and should have your posting limited. This is a forum for science and facts not politics and lies.