Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time

Wyatt earp

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2012
69,975
16,382
2,180
It figures, the pompous AGW cult doing more harm then good..


Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time




The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time



Since 2013 aid agencies such as the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank have restricted funding for building fossil-fuel plants in Asia and Africa; that has slowed progress in bringing electricity to the one billion people who live without it and the four million who die each year from the effects of cooking over wood fires.

At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2 degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.

Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly overestimated, in the models.

The last IPCC report also included a table debunking many worries about “tipping points” to abrupt climate change. For example, it says a sudden methane release from the ocean, or a slowdown of the Gulf Stream, are “very unlikely” and that a collapse of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets during this century is “exceptionally unlikely.”

If sensitivity is low and climate change continues at the same rate as it has over the past 50 years, then dangerous warming—usually defined as starting at 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels—is about a century away. So we do not need to rush into subsidizing inefficient and land-hungry technologies, such as wind and solar or risk depriving poor people access to the beneficial effects of cheap electricity via fossil fuels




 
The economic damage wrought by Climate Nazis is doing far more damage to humanlifekind than an eensy beensy theoretical temperature blip.
 
Oh that's how, why don't they cook outdoors?

4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke



The WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles
he WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles, which makes indoor cooking fires the biggest culprit for these deaths. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”
 
It figures, the pompous AGW cult doing more harm then good..


Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time




The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time



Since 2013 aid agencies such as the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank have restricted funding for building fossil-fuel plants in Asia and Africa; that has slowed progress in bringing electricity to the one billion people who live without it and the four million who die each year from the effects of cooking over wood fires.

At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2 degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.

Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly overestimated, in the models.

The last IPCC report also included a table debunking many worries about “tipping points” to abrupt climate change. For example, it says a sudden methane release from the ocean, or a slowdown of the Gulf Stream, are “very unlikely” and that a collapse of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets during this century is “exceptionally unlikely.”

If sensitivity is low and climate change continues at the same rate as it has over the past 50 years, then dangerous warming—usually defined as starting at 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels—is about a century away. So we do not need to rush into subsidizing inefficient and land-hungry technologies, such as wind and solar or risk depriving poor people access to the beneficial effects of cheap electricity via fossil fuels




How about real, happening right now as we speak, but entirely natural?
 
I heard that climate change is very real and will happen in about a billion years, better get ready...
I heard it's real, and happening all the time.

Damn, it got a shit load colder just last night.

Did you know last week there was no snow on the ground, and now there is some? This damn climate, it just keep's on a chanin'.
 
The climate is always chaning. Man might have a minuscule effect but at this point it can not be defined.

As to teaching people how to cook and vent their cooking areas properly, that could be easily done with a lot less money than the 76 trillion they want to redistribute for a non-problem.
 
The climate is always chaning. Man might have a minuscule effect but at this point it can not be defined.

As to teaching people how to cook and vent their cooking areas properly, that could be easily done with a lot less money than the 76 trillion they want to redistribute for a non-problem.

Soooo we have a billion people that are being denied electricity, millions of people with no water or indoor plumbing (and God knows how many people dying because of it) , 4 million people dying a year cooking with crap fuel...
By the looks of the New C02 sattelite most of the C02 coming from the southern hemisphere...

Hmmmmm.... .......
 
Well this was easy enough....wonder why the AGW cult don't make a big deal about this?


Water Crisis: Water & Sanitation

The water crisis is the #1 global risk based on impact to society (as a measure of devastation), as announced by the World Economic Forum in January 2015...

663 million people - 1 in 10 - lack access to safe water.1,2

2.4 billion people - 1 in 3 - lack access to a toilet.1,2

Twice the population of the United States lives without access to safe water.1,2

1/3 of the global population lives without access to a toilet.1,2

More people have a mobile phone than a toilet
 
The economic damage wrought by Climate Nazis is doing far more damage to humanlifekind than an eensy beensy theoretical temperature blip.

It appears so, I want to know how 4 million people a year die from cooking over a camp fire?


Link? If campfire's are so dangerous, then we should definitely promote natural gas and electricity (from fossil fuels).
 
More bad logic and dishonesty from deniers. Ho hum.

Their cost calculations for fossil fuels are a joke. A big ol' lie, that is. They calculate fuel cost, but leave out the costs of the grid itself, which is one of the biggest expenses. And they don't mention that a grid is a big easy target in any violence prone area, making a grid impossible to keep running in such areas.

They use a false dichotomy fallacy, declaring it's either "grid" or "nothing". Not very honest, as they leave out the options of non-grid solar (solar ovens work very well) and other renewables.

And given environmentalists are the only ones making a fuss about clean water and sanitation, it's shockingly dishonest of Bear to spin things the exact opposite of how reality works. Nice of you to finally give a shit about the topic, Bear. What took you so long? No matter, you'll stop caring the instant the topic no longer helps you hate liberals. Fortunately, not being stinking partisan hypocrites, the environmentalists will keep on addressing the problem no matter what.

Oh, the article author, Matt Ridley, is a lifelong paid denier shill. He's been faking bad science for his masters for many, many years.
 
More bad logic and dishonesty from deniers. Ho hum.

Their cost calculations for fossil fuels are a joke. A big ol' lie, that is. They calculate fuel cost, but leave out the costs of the grid itself, which is one of the biggest expenses. And they don't mention that a grid is a big easy target in any violence prone area, making a grid impossible to keep running in such areas.

They use a false dichotomy fallacy, declaring it's either "grid" or "nothing". Not very honest, as they leave out the options of non-grid solar (solar ovens work very well) and other renewables.

And given environmentalists are the only ones making a fuss about clean water and sanitation, it's shockingly dishonest of Bear to spin things the exact opposite of how reality works. Nice of you to finally give a shit about the topic, Bear. What took you so long? No matter, you'll stop caring the instant the topic no longer helps you hate liberals. Fortunately, not being stinking partisan hypocrites, the environmentalists will keep on addressing the problem no matter what.

Oh, the article author, Matt Ridley, is a lifelong paid denier shill. He's been faking bad science for his masters for many, many years.

Poor little hairball... Slammed by Matt Riley with facts you cant hope to dispute so you resort to adhomenim.. Riely shows that it is simply how they use fire indoors that is the problem.
 
The climate is always chaning. Man might have a minuscule effect but at this point it can not be defined.

As to teaching people how to cook and vent their cooking areas properly, that could be easily done with a lot less money than the 76 trillion they want to redistribute for a non-problem.

Soooo we have a billion people that are being denied electricity, millions of people with no water or indoor plumbing (and God knows how many people dying because of it) , 4 million people dying a year cooking with crap fuel...
By the looks of the New C02 sattelite most of the C02 coming from the southern hemisphere...

Hmmmmm.... .......

Green forests and jungles do that..(they expire CO2 at night) IF the populace had proper venting and use of fire this would not be a problem. But hey they need a boogie man to promote populace control and forced poverty..
 

Forum List

Back
Top