skierinvermont

The energy required to build a wind turbine is negligible compared to the energy it produces over its life. All you are doing is repeating right wing talking points which are unpersuasive and show your lack of critical thinking. I’m glad to hear you are equally concerned about domestic cats, house windows, and communication towers but in reality you should be 100 times more concerned since they kill hundreds of times more birds. I love birds and bird watching and I am not remotely concerned about wind turbines. screens cannot be put on all windows. Strobe lights on comm towers don’t solve anything unless you put lights on every inch of every pole, beam, and support wire, but if they did why couldn’t we also just put them on windmills lol. I guess strobe lights in your magical thinking world only can be placed on communication towers which are way taller and have invisible support wires and beams that migratory birds have no chance of seeing. You really are one of the biggest hypocrites I hvae ever encountered. BTW, you have the entire politics forum laughing at you now too for your blatant hypocrisy. The only solution is to knock down all the towers and paint windows black. The oil industry kills 500k to a 1 million birds in the U.S. each year in oil waste pits. It kills million more in spills for which they are no longer legally liable.

As I’ve explained, with citations, 5 times now, wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds. House windows, communication towers, and domestic cats kill hundreds of times more. Should we kill our cats, paint our windows black and tear dow communication towers?

Oh I completely misread your post, thanks!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html Interesting article on Chinese air pollution. The authors estimate that the improvements in air quality already achieved have increased life expectancies by 2.4 years nationally and 3.3 years in Beijing where average PM2.5 concentrations have fallen 35% according to data confirmed by foreign consulates. China's air pollution is still horrific, and their government is terrifyingly totalitarian, but this is at least one positive development. They also note the irony that communist China is adopting a market based solution to CO2 emissions (cap and trade), while 'capitalist' America has rarely used such market based solutions. Hopefully China will use a similar market based approach to other pollutants as well.

Don are you referring to their last 5 year plan or their 3 year pollution plan (https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/china-2020-air-pollution-action-plan-released/)?

Well most cars are made where they are sold. The best selling Camry is produced in the U.S. although some parts are imported. The car sells well internationally too so you are right we are linked to those markets. It sounds like the hybrid sells better internationally. So we could see more of that where one version is sold in the U.S. and another version internationally so they can keep their R&D costs down. Either way I see the U.S. market as big enough to support gas vehicles for a long time to come. The F-series trucks are heavily skewed towards U.S. sales already (80-90% I think), for example.

I think the u.s. market is probably big enough to offer a decent range of gas gars. The range of models might come down a bit and bump in price slightly. I think the main driver of evs in the u.s. will be consumers but it will only get us to 30% by 2040.

As will we unfortunately. It wouldn’t surprise me if China had cleaner air than the u.s. in 30 years. Their air is terrible but they are improving and take the issue seriously.

I haven't followed him in years, but what I used to read from him was unscientific unprofessional drivel. Has he really changed that much?

Contrary to empirical observation, theoretical physics, massive amounts of peer reviewed literature and in your fairly uneducated opinion. Sure.

So are you going to stop telling your lies about wind and solar or just ignore this blizzard? Again evidence you are not here in good faith to learn but just spout off your opinions and ignore fact based correction of your mistakes.

The differences in resolution are well appreciated in the literature. Your sarcasm again reveals a lack of humility. these are all issues that people much smarter and more experienced than you have discussed and debated at great length. The conclusions that the current warming is faster and warmer than previous warnings is well supported by the mathematical uncertainty calculations that relate the difference datasets of different resolution. It’s like you just discovered that thermometers and proxies have different resolution yesterday. Go read a book jeez. Again with the lack of humbleness and respect for those that have spent lifetimes on the data and math to draw these conclusions. You read a few internet blog posts and a couple peer reviewed abstracts and you think you are an expert.

Again. This is a lie. Solar generates 1 gigawatt per 2.8 acres. The us consumes 4.1 million gigawatts. 4.1*2.5*million = 10.25 million acres. The area of South Carolina is 20.5 million acres. You lied and said 4 times the state, when in reality it is half the state to go 100% solar. And this is the calculation to go 100% solar which nobody is suggesting. A reasonable plan would be to go 15% solar and 45% wind and 20% natural gas 10% hydro and nuclear. So you only need 1.5 million acres of solar. Half of this goes on roofs. Then you Only need less than 1 million acres of solar farms. The area of South Carolina is 20 times more. There are 100s of millions of acres of cattle ranches and monoculture agricultural full of pesticides that could be used to cite this 1 million acre solar farms. Did you just make up your "4X the state of SC" number? Because I can't find a single source to corroborate it. Every source I've looked at confirms my math above. If you made it up, shame on you. Otherwise please post a reference. Environmentalist don’t downplay bird deaths. They don’t have to. The numbers speak for themselves. Wind turbines kill 400k per year. While cats and house windows kill billions. What about this don’t you understand? Why are you hypocritically criticizing wind but not house windows, domestic cats and communication towers which kill 100 times more? Should we paint our windows black? Kill our cats? Knock down our communication towers? Where is your fake outrage on these pressing issues for birds? https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/lossetal2013windfacilities.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf

As I've explained 4 times now, the bird deaths from wind are negligible. House cats kill far more birds. House windows kill far more birds. Should we all kill our cats and paint our windows black? Wind is almost entirely done on already very disrupted habitats already primarily on monoculture pesticide herbicide corn and soybean farms. The amount of land solar would require to power the entire U.S. takes up is less than .1% of agricultural land in the U.S. Should we get rid of all the farms that are 1000X more expansive? Solar can also be done on roofs and deserts, unlike agricultural land. What is your problem? I have explained this 4 times now and you keep repeating the same brainwashed nonsense. Lies will never persuade anybody. You post these lies, I will correct them every single time, and you will lose credibility. And I will continue keeping track of how many times you repeat the same lie (4 for this particular lie). Either change your tune, or go post on some other forum where people are interested in your lies.

It's pure coincidence. The data is flawed. It wasn't intended for measuring long-term changes in cloud fraction. The authors themselves stated this. What do you not understand about this? I could take some measurements out my window for a few years and be like clouds are increasing on hot days! And then someone said 'that data's not accurate you were just looking out your window you idiot' I'd be like 'you're just saying that because it disagrees with AGW!!!!' No. measuring clouds by looking out your window is not accurate. Neither is that dataset you are referring to. The authors themselves stated that.. I think before it even got involved in the AGW debate.

Wind is the way to go as I've explained several times now. It is substantially cheaper than coal or nuclear, and much safer and better for human and environmental health. Solar is also similar in price to coal and nuclear, but more expensive than wind and should be used to complement wind energy for when the wind isn't blowing. Together they can easy comprise 70% of energy production.

The cloud fraction data was never intended as a long-term consistent measure of cloud cover. Yet again you are using data against the express intention of the authors that created the data!

I think we would have hit 90 some other days as well if it weren't for the smoke. It was clearly holding temps down the last few days but most of the smoke cleared out today so we hit 90.

All of what Don said plus because the air is dry I think it heats up faster during they day. We have pretty cool nights but it warms up quickly when the sun is out (which is almost every day in summer). The diurnal temperature range is a lot more than it is in NYC. Don't quote me on this but it makes sense.

It’s science. They look at everything for the sake of science. It’s not a radiative forcing paper. It’s a paper about pwv. It’s new because they are attempting to measure it as accurately as possible. Your “not much new” comment is so dismissive of the research and importance of papers like this.

The paper makes no claims about radiative transfer from water vapor. The paper is solely about PWV and Clausius-Clapeyron. It's not about radiative transfer or even AGW. They make no such claims. You're assuming you are smarter than the authors for absolutely no reason other than inferring things that they didn't write, which is classic behavior from the denier crowd. You start off with the very bold statement 'Here is the fundamental problem with their results. They are using PWV.' The result of their paper IS pwv. That's it. That's the whole point. There is no other result or conclusion that is 'a problem' because they used PWV. The whole point of the paper was to measure PWV and that's it. Your overly bold and critical statement stems from a failure to read. When I read you make such bold and incorrect claims all I can do is roll my eyes because it's just basic lack of reading. Yes they mention that water vapor in the air is generally related to radiative transfer and global warming. But they make no claims about what the actual effect is exactly. There are plenty of other papers about the vertical and spatial distribution of water vapor increases and the exact radiative effects which would take you know calculus and mathematical models and stuff which weren't remotely in the scope of this paper. The first step to learning is being humble.

1. Giss is not an outlier or biased high. If I recall Hadley shows a hair more warming in the long run. They essentially agree and I have reviewed and even used to believe all of the skeptic claims of flaws in these sources. Once I learned more I understood that these sources are accurate within their published uncertainty estimates. This is a huge claim and requires major evidence of which you’ve provided none. 2. Long term ohc data is not that unreliable because we have sea level rise to corroborate it. Sea level rise is primarily due to ohc increase so it simply becomes a math equation using the expansion property of water. You’ve provided no evidence to make this tremendous claim. 3. The last paper included natural forcings I believe so your assertion that it assumes all warming since the 70s is man made is false. 4. others already covered the nhc 5. There had been a measured increase in droughts and heatwaves globally over the long term, so the California is wildfires are partially attributed to agw. Even curry says this although she used the word fractionally. Again you have provided no evidence that the global increase is attributable to something else. 6. The only part of what you said with which I agree is that the media is a hype machine. The fires and hurricanes are not 100% agw. Especially not the hurricanes. 7. The whole point of my post wasn’t to get into it on your unproven anti-science claims. The point was that contrarian views are frequently published and cited in the field when there is actual evidence and sound reasoning.

Well the anti-science people will tell you all about how hot the medieval warm period was and how the current temperature record is being fudged to show more warming. So yeah you've presented a very simple very solid argument, but it still rests on a couple of points that some people manage to dispute

tip of iceberg.. all published in major journals and cited by IPCC.. there is no widespread effort to suppress contrarian views or views that play down the effect of climate change. These papers are taken seriously in the field. Internet drivel is not. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series https://zenodo.org/record/918270#.X2Kx42hKhPY https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ClDy...45.1009L/abstract - published by Judith Curry and widely cited by climate science - good example of how using actual evidence and logic gets you published and respected http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76064/7/ngeo1836(1)_with_coversheet.pdf https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/esd-11-737-2020.pdf - demonstrates that models with high estimates of climate sensitivity are likely wrong

So all humans are biased (I agree) but only climate science is basically completely wrong in your opinion. lol. As I said before, and to which you did not respond, there are lots of papers and evidence published that suggest lower climate sensitivity or lower impacts from warming The peer-review process is the best process science has to make sure mistakes aren't being made. Pointing out mistakes of your peers is also an easy way to fame and success in science. The oil industry has also been funding anti-climate change science for decades, but most of the papers published don't stand up to the test of time.