Weather disasters over the last year likely due to record ocean warming

[Crick]

But you offer nothing to refute it.

You need me to refute the idea that CO2 is as dangerous than lead?
Tell me you're joking.

No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.

Reducing fuel consumption, GHG emissions and pollution

How many excess deaths are worth an extra MPG?

How many excess deaths are worth an automobile or a truck or a train or an aircraft or dinrking while we drive or owning a gun? I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents. Car to large truck collisions always had bad numbers. And coincident improvements in passenger safety technology: seat belts, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking, antiskid brakes, blind spot detection, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc, with more on the way, are reducing accidents. I just read of a Nissan system that can detect alcohol in the sweat of your palm and will lock the transmission in Park if you attempt to drive drunk. So...
From Are Vehicle Safety Features Actually Reducing Car Accidents?. "But do cars with advanced safety systems really make everything safer? Most studies suggest they do. For example, the crash involvement rate for vehicles with blind-spot monitoring was 14% lower than the same models without the equipment, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

When the topic represent a threat to humanity's well being and the question has been made political by people taken in by the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign, how would you suggest science react?

Obviously science reacts by not funding or publishing skeptics.

Science has reacted by doing its best to get valid information to policymakers and the public. It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.

What trillions of dollars? What money wasted? What bad priorities?
Hilarious!

But you don't answer the question.

What green mandates?
The stuff I have to explain to the greens. It's like they're children.
You didn't know that fracking was responsible for lower CO2, that CAFE
standards are killing people and now you've never seen a green mandate?

You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires. I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.

How many excess deaths are worth an automobile or a truck or a train or an aircraft or dinrking while we drive or owning a gun? I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents. Car to large truck collisions always had bad numbers. And coincident improvements in passenger safety technology: seat belts, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking, antiskid brakes, blind spot detection, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc, with more on the way, are reducing accidents. I just read of a Nissan system that can detect alcohol in the sweat of your palm and will lock the transmission in Park if you attempt to drive drunk. So...
From Are Vehicle Safety Features Actually Reducing Car Accidents?. "But do cars with advanced safety systems really make everything safer? Most studies suggest they do. For example, the crash involvement rate for vehicles with blind-spot monitoring was 14% lower than the same models without the equipment, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

Science has reacted by doing its best to get valid information to policymakers and the public. It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.

But you don't answer the question.

You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires. I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.

No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.

So CO2 is not as dangerous as lead?

I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents.

Of course you do. So what's the answer? How many excess deaths are worth an extra MPG?

It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.

Right. And who better to decide who gets funded or what gets published than Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann? Saving us from the oil companies. What a guy.

But you don't answer the question.

You've never seen a green mandate? You don't know what the term means?
Never read about an example? I thought you were fairly educated, well read, was I mistaken?

You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires.

Obviously.

I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.

What do you read on a daily, weekly or monthly basis?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.

How many excess deaths are worth an automobile or a truck or a train or an aircraft or dinrking while we drive or owning a gun? I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents. Car to large truck collisions always had bad numbers. And coincident improvements in passenger safety technology: seat belts, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking, antiskid brakes, blind spot detection, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc, with more on the way, are reducing accidents. I just read of a Nissan system that can detect alcohol in the sweat of your palm and will lock the transmission in Park if you attempt to drive drunk. So...
From Are Vehicle Safety Features Actually Reducing Car Accidents?. "But do cars with advanced safety systems really make everything safer? Most studies suggest they do. For example, the crash involvement rate for vehicles with blind-spot monitoring was 14% lower than the same models without the equipment, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

Science has reacted by doing its best to get valid information to policymakers and the public. It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.

But you don't answer the question.

You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires. I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.

Under the legislation, which builds upon standards already on the books, California will need to generate half of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2030. At the same time, the state will need to double energy efficiency in homes, offices and factories.

Gov. Brown signs climate change bill to spur renewable energy, efficiency standards

California launched an ambitious effort Wednesday to expand renewable energy and increase energy efficiency, advancing Gov.

www.latimes.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.

How many excess deaths are worth an automobile or a truck or a train or an aircraft or dinrking while we drive or owning a gun? I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents. Car to large truck collisions always had bad numbers. And coincident improvements in passenger safety technology: seat belts, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking, antiskid brakes, blind spot detection, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc, with more on the way, are reducing accidents. I just read of a Nissan system that can detect alcohol in the sweat of your palm and will lock the transmission in Park if you attempt to drive drunk. So...
From Are Vehicle Safety Features Actually Reducing Car Accidents?. "But do cars with advanced safety systems really make everything safer? Most studies suggest they do. For example, the crash involvement rate for vehicles with blind-spot monitoring was 14% lower than the same models without the equipment, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

Science has reacted by doing its best to get valid information to policymakers and the public. It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.

But you don't answer the question.

You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires. I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.

Senate Bill 100 by state Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) requires the state to obtain all of its electricity from clean sources — such as solar, wind and hydropower — by 2045. The bill also requires electric utilities and other service providers to generate 60% of their power from renewable sources by 2030, up from the 50% goal previously set for that date.

California to rely on 100% clean electricity by 2045 under bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown

All of California’s electricity will come from clean power sources by 2045 under legislation signed by Gov.

www.latimes.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.

How many excess deaths are worth an automobile or a truck or a train or an aircraft or dinrking while we drive or owning a gun? I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents. Car to large truck collisions always had bad numbers. And coincident improvements in passenger safety technology: seat belts, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking, antiskid brakes, blind spot detection, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc, with more on the way, are reducing accidents. I just read of a Nissan system that can detect alcohol in the sweat of your palm and will lock the transmission in Park if you attempt to drive drunk. So...
From Are Vehicle Safety Features Actually Reducing Car Accidents?. "But do cars with advanced safety systems really make everything safer? Most studies suggest they do. For example, the crash involvement rate for vehicles with blind-spot monitoring was 14% lower than the same models without the equipment, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

Science has reacted by doing its best to get valid information to policymakers and the public. It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.

But you don't answer the question.

You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires. I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.

SB 350 increases California's renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This objective will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and others.

SB 350 also requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. To help meet these goals and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, large utilities will be required to develop and submit integrated resource plans (IRPs). These plans detail how utilities will meet their customers’ resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and ramp up the use of clean energy resources.

Moving forward, this coordination will include reviewing IRPs of the 16 largest publicly owned utilities starting in 2019. This review will help ensure the utilities reach the 50 percent RPS target by 2030 and meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction target while maintaining reasonable customer rates and reliable electric service.

Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act - SB 350

The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act (Senate Bill 350) established clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, including reducing GHG to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The California Energy Commission is working...

www.energy.ca.gov

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Recall that to a large degree lead exposure has already been eliminated and if the law were followed, would be gone completely in this country.

How many excess deaths are worth an automobile or a truck or a train or an aircraft or dinrking while we drive or owning a gun? I dispute that CAFE standards have increased fatality rates in car-to-car or car-to-pedestrian accidents. Car to large truck collisions always had bad numbers. And coincident improvements in passenger safety technology: seat belts, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking, antiskid brakes, blind spot detection, lane departure warning, electronic stability control, etc, etc, etc, with more on the way, are reducing accidents. I just read of a Nissan system that can detect alcohol in the sweat of your palm and will lock the transmission in Park if you attempt to drive drunk. So...
From Are Vehicle Safety Features Actually Reducing Car Accidents?. "But do cars with advanced safety systems really make everything safer? Most studies suggest they do. For example, the crash involvement rate for vehicles with blind-spot monitoring was 14% lower than the same models without the equipment, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

Science has reacted by doing its best to get valid information to policymakers and the public. It has also done what it could to suppress intentionally spread misinformation the bulk of which originates with the fossil fuel industry fighting for its survival.

But you don't answer the question.

You claimed that green mandates were costing PG&E billions of dollars and that that expenditure may have prevented them from performing maintenance on their towers that led to forest fires. I simply wnat to know what green mandates cost them billions of dollars. You could have answered it in less time than you took to deflect the question.

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS), also referred to as renewable electricity standards (RES), are policies designed to increase the use of renewable energy sources for electricity generation. These policies require or encourage electricity suppliers to provide their customers with a stated minimum share of electricity from eligible renewable resources. Although national RPS or other clean energy policies have been proposed, no federal RPS or similar policy is currently in place. However, most states have enacted their own RPS programs.

Renewable energy explained - portfolio standards - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and the status of state renewable portfolio standards.

www.eia.gov

 

[Crick]

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS), also referred to as renewable electricity standards (RES), are policies designed to increase the use of renewable energy sources for electricity generation. These policies require or encourage electricity suppliers to provide their customers with a stated minimum share of electricity from eligible renewable resources. Although national RPS or other clean energy policies have been proposed, no federal RPS or similar policy is currently in place. However, most states have enacted their own RPS programs.
View attachment 749444

Renewable energy explained - portfolio standards - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and the status of state renewable portfolio standards.

www.eia.gov

Excellent.

Perhaps folks around here don't realize how far back in fantasy land they actually are. While here we find folks yelling about hoaxes and lying scientists, the rest of the world has accepted reality and moved on

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent.

Perhaps folks around here don't realize how far back in fantasy land they actually are. While here we find folks yelling about hoaxes and lying scientists, the rest of the world has accepted reality and moved on

Yes, wasting money on unreliable renewables is awesome.

 

[ding]

Excellent.

Perhaps folks around here don't realize how far back in fantasy land they actually are. While here we find folks yelling about hoaxes and lying scientists, the rest of the world has accepted reality and moved on

I truly can’t wait for the predictable surprises. It’s only a matter of time.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your linked data make a good case for no increase in hurricane activity from global warming, but there are hurricane parameters that show an impact from increasing warmer sea surface temperatures (SST)

According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and eight of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.Aug 1, 2022

Climate Change Indicators: Tropical Cyclone Activity | US EPA

This indicator examines the frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes and other tropical storms in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.

www.epa.gov

Sea surface temperature, which drives hurricane development, powering storms, has steadily risen

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA

This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.

www.epa.gov

Notice that spike in temperature just after 1940, a point in time when atmospheric temperatures were stagnant or even falling.

Several records have been sent in rapid storm development. What would become Super Typhoon Noru, approaching the Phillipines, went from a 50 knot storm to a Category 5 (>150 kts) cyclone in less than 24 hours. Hurricane Ian, late this last September, was the deadliest storm to strike Florida since 1935 (not reflected in your graphic, of course) and produced a storm surge of 12-18 feet, devastating the low-lying Florida communities it struck. Ian's development met the NOAA criteria for "rapid intensification" its winds gaining 35mph in less than 24 hours.

Hurricane Maria (or PR fame) intensified 70 mph in 18 hours and set a record for Atlantic hurricane intensification.
Highly Unusual Upward Trends in Rapidly Intensifying Atlantic Hurricanes Blamed on Global Warming Read this

Figure 1. VIIRS image of Super Typhoon Haiyan at 1619 UTC November 7, 2013. At the time, Haiyan was about to make landfall near Tacloban in the Philippines as the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone in world recorded history, with 190 mph winds. Image credit: NOAA/CIRA.

LOL, you didn't address anything I posted because you employed the ducking technique when you know you have no counterpoint to offer.

Carry on with your delusions.

 

[Crick]

LOL, you didn't address anything I posted because you employed the ducking technique when you know you have no counterpoint to offer.

Carry on with your delusions.

I clearly offered several counterpoints while admitting that the evidence you presented made a good case for the absence of an increase in hurricane activity. Being a Trump fan must have gotten you unacustomed to winning a point