Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

With regard to temperature, the conditions are record setting. I think we now see that when it's 115 in Sacramento at the start of fire season, it's hot enough to dry out all the trees.

Extreme events are predicted, and that's what we're witnessing.

Just a little visual side note. This is the start of the Creek Fire.



The plume from this fire eventually reached 200 miles to the north. The satellite image of the plume looks like it comes from a volcano. I'm one of those who are 200 miles away. We've seen plenty of fires. Every year. I've never seen anything like this.

 

That's not how "the logic" goes.

Energy use isn't just tied to some jobs and some money. It's tied to all jobs and all money. Human progress depends entirely on our use of energy. You want to lift poor people out of poverty? You need to use energy. You want to heal sick people? You need to use energy. You want to feed hungry people, clean their water, and build them shelter? You need to use lots of energy.

Energy stored in a Kg of Gasoline? 46.4 Megajoules.
Energy stored in a Kg of Li-Ion battery? 0.875 Megajoules.

You want to replace gasoline with batteries? You need to manufacture millions of Kgs of batteries. It would take 500 years to produce enough batteries to supply the power used in one day in America. Where would the materials to produce the batteries come from? Out of the environment, using energy, much more energy than it takes to extract Gasoline from the environment. Where does the waste go once the batteries are used up? Back into the environment.

 

What do you not get about oil being non-renewable? Since energy density of oil is so high, it is even more imperative that we put the development of alternatives into overdrive.

 

Your logic isn't logical, it feels simplistic. I don't think it's just about 'batteries', the big push would be into renewables. So, I don't see your 'logic'.

And, about your sig, Milton Friedman was the master of presenting strawman arguments eloquently which were simplistic. For example


"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” - Milton Friedman

The problem with that argument is no democrat I know is against the free market, but there are places where regulation is absolutely necessary, and that understanding does not equal 'being against freedom'.

 

As best they can measure the sea level might be rising many millimeters a year. Sea level measurements have only been halfway accurate since about 2000. How can one accurately measure sea levels within millimeters when the average wave height is about a foot.

There is considerable scientific evidence that the CO2 effect on global warming is approaching its saturation, and any further increase will have no effect on temperature. This was described in IPCC - III but subtly buried.

 

You've asked a question with an assumed premise. In fact, it's a false premise.

Next question.

 

There is considerable scientific evidence that CO2 induced global warming is closely approaching saturation.

 

Amazing what can learn with Google.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/

 

You really should provide citations, because it's quite possible you are misinterpreting data, and the citation will give us the opportunity to verify your premise, or establish wether or not you are getting the data wrong, but just to blurt stuff out without backing it up, anyone can do that.

 

Please provide the evidence

 

What about Denver? They had a record temperature drop from 90 on one day to the 30s with snow the following day. Are they having a global cooling at the same time California is having global warming?

 

The underlying issue involved with manmade climate change is pollution. We all know pollution is bad. We all know it destroys the environment and kills plant and animal life and contributes yearly to fair amount of human illnesses and death. We know it befouls productive land and ruins habitats.

Trying to look at it from one extreme or the other(no pollution allowed versus unfettered industrial practices) is folly. Human beings are going to create pollution as part of our modern societies and that's not going to change. But the amount of pollution that we create can be mitigated, and would be, if those mitigation methods were not inconvenient or costly. And therein lies the problem. We know we're befouling our home, but we can't quite bring ourselves to accept the inconvenience and added cost of being responsible.

 

Gas is already being replaced with batteries. A new Tesla Model S has a 402 mile range, putting it on a par with large sedans and mid-size cars with smaller gas tanks.

 

You'll have to ask them. I'm talking about record setting temperatures in California. 90 is normal. 115 is not.

 

Well, if ProPublica and the NY Times magazine says it, it must be true -- (not). If some scientists say Antarctica glaciers are becoming unmoored -- not that that would have much effect on sea level -- we had better take serious note -- (not). Tropical storms have increased gradually and linearly from about 9 in 1880 to 11 now and from about 7 in 1900 to 11 now, though with statistical adjustment have not increased on average at all since 1960.

Hey! There was a great thunderstorm in Pisgah yesterday! Must be global warming!

 

You can google studies and check out the IPCC report though you will have to dig it out of the latter.

 

It's courtesy to do your own damn homework, and not pass it off onto others

Back your claims up. Don't be lazy. I back mine up all the time, and I'm sure as hell not going to do your work for you.

 

Neither is a drop of nearly sixty degrees over night.

What happened was unusual, but not unique by any means. For example, it has happened elsewhere on this globe, but not previously to this extent in California. So it set a record in California. When the flow of the jet stream gets a strong north south orientation, it is accompanied with strong temperature extremes. High temperatures pushed further north than usual and cold temperature pushed further south than normal. It was neither a high nor low global temperature. The global temperature remained pretty much where it was previously.

There are around a hundred thousand weather stations globally. Most of them take measurements every hour plus special observations. Each one of those observations has temperatures, wind and moisture plus a number of other parameters.. There are millions of observations every day. Each with the potential of setting a new record of some sort. Multiple new records are set daily. It has been that way since weather observations were first recorded and will continue until we stop taking weather observations. They just won't all be in California.

So when the California governor called it global warming, he was wrong. California is not the globe. It was absurd for Biden to call Trump a climate arsonist. There is no way that any policy Trump initiated is any way responsible for those fires. If any one group or person is responsible, it is California themselves for allowing fuel to build up in their forests.

 

The federal government is in charge of 60% of California's forest. Are you sure that only California's 40% is on fire?

 

We can actually put the climate issue aside and have an honest discussion on how these particulates affect health. No one can argue that it is safe to breath exhaust or other airborne contaminates. Politicians only use the issue to gain power. If we really wanted to reduce pollution, it would involve going to war with some very powerful companies. So lets agree that we need to stop polluting the air, water, and soil. Now what?

 

It is vastly more complicated than that. There are numerous laws and regulations which prevent controlled burns. California themselves do not want the controlled burns because of the air pollution even on federal land. The federal government shares in the blame, but it is mostly on California themselves. If they asked for controlled burns in the federal land, they would most likely get them . Maybe they will now.

 

Burnable liquid hydrocarbons are very renewable.

But that's not the problem here. The problem is that climate alarmists aren't just arguing for the development of alternatives. They are arguing to stop the use of hydrocarbons now. Immediately. I'm not against alternative energy generation technologies. I'm against the alarmist calls to completely destroy the infrastructure we currently have to produce those technologies. You stop burning coal and oil now, and you don't have enough energy to produce the things you need to survive right now. Not 100 years in the future.

 

What classifies someone as a "denier?" Simply not believing in the catastrophic man-made global warming hysteria, that we only have ten years or s to act, or we are doomed, or other such sensationalism?

Your side has a lot of people who believe the earth will be uninhabitable because of fossil fuels, and we' be better off living on Mars.

 

How are liquid hydrocarbons renewable? With the Fischer Tropsch process? Newsflash: You need to generate the hydrogen first, through electrolysis, etc.

Second, apart from extremists, most people do not want to stop burning coal and oil immediately. That's just a lazy position to dismiss the argument for accelerating the transition to renewables.

 

Yeah. That's the problem with the alarmist's argument. It's simplistic. How do you store the energy you produce with renewables? Energy produced by renewables has to be stored, transported, and regulated. You don't plug a solar panel into a farm tractor and magically have enough energy to plow a 200 acre field. The sun puts out 15 watts per square foot. Solar panels are not 100% efficient, electric motors aren't 100% efficient, but even if they were, you'd need 5000 square feet of panel to match a 100HP tractor. Since we can't have a 5000 square foot panel on the tractor, it has to be stored in a chemical battery on the tractor so that it can be transported to where the energy needs to be used.

Energy isn't stored in the grid. It's supplied on demand. You can't instantly increase the speed of your windmill when someone turns on an AC across town. You have to run the windmill at a constant speed and store the extra energy somewhere. Not to mention the fact that our grid is AC and solar panels only produce DC that must be inverted and lose energy in the process.

And not all ac loads are the same, so that power has to be constantly regulated. An inductive load (your fridge) has a different effect on the grid than a resistive load (your oven). These different types of loads create a discrepancy between the true power use, and the apparent power use. This is called the power factor. Currently the power company corrects the leading or lagging current with easily ramped fossil fuel generators and huge capacitor banks. Not so easy with our current renewables.

Straw man: "no democrat I know is against the free market."

Be better.