A Balanced View of Climate Change

[ding]

I can discuss the conclusions of scientists.

I am not interested in the internet braying of uneducated slobs.

Great then what have the scientists concluded will happen when the AMOC collapses?

 

[Foxfyre]

Then you would immediately agree that humans have caused the rapid climate change.

But you arent doing any of the above, in your post. You think characterizing ideas is a substitute for evidence and argument. It isn't.

I do not agree or disagree. The concept being discussed is assuming the Earth will warm by 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century and what our policy should be to address that. If the topic doesn't appeal to you there are many MANY other threads to spew nonsense on.

 

[ding]

I can discuss the conclusions of scientists.

I am not interested in the internet braying of uneducated slobs.

What percentage of heat do those scientists say is stored in the ocean relative to the atmosphere?

 

[ding]

I can discuss the conclusions of scientists.

I am not interested in the internet braying of uneducated slobs.

What do the scientist conclude is the cause of D-O events?

 

[ding]

You just got to shake your head at the idiocy of accepting something on authority without ever questioning it.

 

[Crick]

Everywhere in this country has this ... Solar in Southern California, Wind in Texas, Hydro along the Mississippi ... if these are cheaper alternatives, then why not exploit them? ...

Yeah, that means burning coal in coal country ... oil in oil country ... I'm fine with that ... conservation saves money ... now who doesn't want to save money? ...

There are fine people on both sides, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Great then what have the scientists concluded will happen when the AMOC collapses?

You tell me. I'm not here to answer your questions. Just answer it yourself and make your point.

 

[ding]

You tell me. I'm not here to answer your questions. Just answer it yourself and make your point.

Asking the questions was all I needed to do to make my point.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Maybe part of the problem is that the seriousness or urgency for climate change has yet to be proven. Most people today do not see the problem as dire as many on the Left portray it to be, hence not much interest in adapting to or preventing possible future catastrophes, should they arise.

Climate change is fuelling the US insurance problem

Extreme weather events are making it hard to insure homes in certain parts of the US. What happens when insurance companies simply stop insuring?

www.bbc.com

 

[task0778]

Climate change is fuelling the US insurance problem

Extreme weather events are making it hard to insure homes in certain parts of the US. What happens when insurance companies simply stop insuring?

www.bbc.com

There is no proof or credible evidence that extreme weather and flooding is a result of climate change due to anthropogenic causes. Correlation does not proof causation. Neither is there any evidence that proposed solutions to CC that require throwing trillions of dollars are effective.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

There is no proof or credible evidence that extreme weather and flooding is a result of climate change due to anthropogenic causes. Correlation does not proof causation. Neither is there any evidence that proposed solutions to CC that require throwing trillions of dollars are effective.

Again, this is the problem approaching the future any envisioning type of planet we may have to 'constructively adapt' to. Newsflash - we won't. The OP is a false premise.

 

[Crick]

There is no proof or credible evidence that extreme weather and flooding is a result of climate change due to anthropogenic causes. Correlation does not proof causation. Neither is there any evidence that proposed solutions to CC that require throwing trillions of dollars are effective.

There is never any proof in the natural sciences. There is a great deal of evidence all based on the dependence of weather severity on temperature; the energy content of the atmosphere and the oceans which drive it. Correlation does not prove causation, but ALL causation sports correlation. Cause and effect are always correlated. The theory that the primary cause of global warming is human GHG emissions is, at this point, simply irrefutable and is accepted by more than 99% of climate scientists; the folks most able to accurately judge the evidence. If we know the cause, we know what to address to deal with the problem. That's no guarantee that it will solve the problem overnight. This issue was produced by 175 years of human actions and it will not be eliminated in a single decade or evern several. But we cannot continue to make it worse and at present, that is STILL what we are doing.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

America’s Climate Boomtowns Are Waiting

Rising temperatures could push millions of people north.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[ding]

America’s Climate Boomtowns Are Waiting

Rising temperatures could push millions of people north.

www.theatlantic.com

When the AMOC switches off you're really going to see an exodus but it won't be from the south.

 

[ding]

The theory that the primary cause of global warming is human GHG emissions is, at this point, simply irrefutable

Except it's not. They have mistaken a natural warming trend for AGW. The planet is still warming up to its preglacial temperature before plunging into another glacial period like it has for the past 3 million years.

 

[ReinyDays]

I do not agree or disagree. The concept being discussed is assuming the Earth will warm by 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century and what our policy should be to address that. If the topic doesn't appeal to you there are many MANY other threads to spew nonsense on.

2ºC and two feet sea level rise are nothing by Year 2100 ... we have generations to deal with this ... our policy should re-focus on environmental hazards today ... and horsewhipping the Oil industry into compliance ... make 'em eat dirt ...

 

[Flopper]

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.

So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.

I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here to stay for now. The world's population has expanded from one billion people at the beginning of the industrial revolution to more than eight billion people now. And there is no realistic way to convince eight billion people that, for our foreseeable future, living in a fossil fuel free world is either desirable or even possible unless they are clueless re the facts and the cost.

Instead of confiscating so much of the world's financial resources to 'combat climate change' that obviously isn't combating climate change, a much better approach would be to find ways for humans to constructively adapt to inevitable climate change.

Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus, presents the reality of how governments deal with climate change and, while he does not deny that climate change is occurring and will continue to occur, he has a much more realistic and honest approach to how the world should 'follow the science.'

Emphasis in the quoted material is mine:
". . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address.

Our goal in forming climate policy should be the same we bring to traffic laws and any other political question: achieve more benefits than costs to society. A richer world is much more resilient against weather extremes. In the short term, therefore, policymakers should focus on lifting the billions of people still in poverty out of it, both because it will make them more resilient against extreme weather and because it will do so much good in a myriad of other ways. For the longer term, governments and companies should invest in green-energy research and development to drive down the costs and increase the reliability of fossil-fuel alternatives.

Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it. Sensible public debate requires all the facts, including about the costs of our choices. Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-the-science-leads-to-ruin-climate-environment-policy-3f427c05?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

”

The problem with your idea of adapting to climate changes assumes that it will stop at some point in the future even if greenhouse gases continue rising. There is nothing that leads science to that conclusion.

A reasonable solution is to do what we can to reduce the use of fossil fuel by encouraging the transition to electric vehicles as our older vehicles reach a replace age. The same logic should be applied to solar cells and wind farms, promoting the transition in areas where it makes sense. Forming a national electric grid with 3 segments (east, west, and central). This would replace the hundreds of small grids that are not connected.

If we accept the fact that we will not be able replace all fossil fuel vehicles by 2050 and have windfarms and solar cells everywhere it is practical, then we can have a plan that is doable and will not bankrupt the country. I would think pushing the date out by 25 years would be practical. It will probable happen anyway.

If we follow this path then we will certainly have to adapt to the lost of the North Atlantic ice pack combined with the the lost of coral reefs in the Atlantic and Caribbean as well as movement north of US agriculture.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with your idea of adapting to climate changes assumes that it will stop at some point in the future even if greenhouse gases continue rising. There is nothing that leads science to that conclusion.

A reasonable solution is to do what we can to reduce the use of fossil fuel by encouraging the transition to electric vehicles as our older vehicles reach a replace age. The same logic should be applied to solar cells and wind farms, promoting the transition in areas where it makes sense. Forming a national electric grid with 3 segments (east, west, and central). This would replace the hundreds of small grids that are not connected.

If we accept the fact that we will not be able replace all fossil fuel vehicles by 2050 and have windfarms and solar cells everywhere it is practical, then we can have a plan that is doable and will not bankrupt the country. I would think pushing the date out by 25 years would be practical. It will probable happen anyway.

If we follow this path then we will certainly have to adapt to the lost of the North Atlantic ice pack combined with the the lost of coral reefs in the Atlantic and Caribbean as well as movement north of US agriculture.

Nothing we are doing is changing anything related to the Atlantic ice pack or the coral reefs. Nothing we have done has apparently lowered the CO2 in the atmosphere by a single particle. I agree with the author of the piece that is is time to stop throwing more trillions of wasted dollars to stop something that will in no way be the catastrophe so many of the climate change alarmists project and instead help people adjust to inevitable climate change.

Think how far technology has come in the last 50 to 75 years--more than all the thousands of years preceding the last 50 to 75 years.. Instead of forcing technology to be used on a civilization that is in no way prepared for it, instead look for ways to increase potable water, develop plants that thrive in a warmer climate, etc. And good old human creativity, innovation, and genius will have solved the problems associated with fossil fuels by the end of the Century if in fact fossil fuels are the culprit here.

 

[task0778]

Again, this is the problem approaching the future any envisioning type of planet we may have to 'constructively adapt' to. Newsflash - we won't. The OP is a false premise.

It is dumbshit stupid to spend untold trillions of dollars on any program to address or adapt to a perceived but unproven climate change problem, not knowing how bad the problem really is and also not knowing if the program will make enough difference to be worth the cost.

 

[ReinyDays]

The problem with your idea of adapting to climate changes assumes that it will stop at some point in the future even if greenhouse gases continue rising. There is nothing that leads science to that conclusion.

A reasonable solution is to do what we can to reduce the use of fossil fuel by encouraging the transition to electric vehicles as our older vehicles reach a replace age. The same logic should be applied to solar cells and wind farms, promoting the transition in areas where it makes sense. Forming a national electric grid with 3 segments (east, west, and central). This would replace the hundreds of small grids that are not connected.

If we accept the fact that we will not be able replace all fossil fuel vehicles by 2050 and have windfarms and solar cells everywhere it is practical, then we can have a plan that is doable and will not bankrupt the country. I would think pushing the date out by 25 years would be practical. It will probable happen anyway.

If we follow this path then we will certainly have to adapt to the lost of the North Atlantic ice pack combined with the the lost of coral reefs in the Atlantic and Caribbean as well as movement north of US agriculture.

A few errors here ... first and foremost, science does predict more CO2 effects temperature less ... both in Classical Physics' Oldham logarithmic relationship to Modern Physics' Stefan-Boltzmann Law ... and this is clearly stated in the IPCC report's predictions ... Foxfyre is correct, another degree of warming is all science expects (IPCC AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) ... no matter how much carbon dioxide man-kind emits to the atmosphere ...

It is unreasonable to replace piston-engined passenger rigs with EVs ... it's the manufacturing of these 3 or 4 ton vehicles that's destroying our environment ... and then burn coal to produce the electricity ... blind stupid ... we removing 90% of passenger vehicles, not replacing, folks can take the bus or bike their lazy asses to work ...

The Titanic hit North Atlantic ice and sank ... coral reefs are dying due to titanium oxide in sunscreen ... the reefs humans don't visit are perfectly healthy right now ... and without ice, goods can be shipped at a cheaper cost through the Northwest Passage ... so burn tires wil ya'? ...