Obama Orders Climate Change Be Considered in Military Planning

[ABikerSailor]

Anti-science is the enemy of man.

Professional Climate Change deniers should be jailed.

It's one thing to be an ignorant denier troll on some internet discussion board, we pity you.

But if you're taking a salary to spread false information that slows down meaningful progress on Global Warming solutions, then we need to charge you with a crime as you are causing harm.

No its you fuckers are causing harm and killing millions of people in third world country's, the big banks don't want to lend money to African country's to build fossil fuel power plants.


Fuck you.

Btw who is worse the anti science crowd of the liberals who deny a fetus is a baby and kills millions of them a year or us who knows the AGW is just a Fucking scam?



.

You know tons of bs lol...African countries are a big risk for all loans. link?

Just go to the environment forum I posted a bunch of links on this subject, I know it first hand..

I worked another 12 hours you research it for your self..

Just Google millions die each year in Africa because of smoke inhalation and the causes why:

1. Indoor fire pits

2. Big banks won't lend money because of the propaganda on man made climate change.


.

Link to #2 please. Not a wild goose chase like Whetherman. Banks don't lend money to them anyway.

Speaking of wild geese, how come you can't tell us how high the ocean has risen to accomplish all of these catastrophic disasters you claim is linked to rising oceans?

Here's a link to NOAA, which will tell you how much it has risen. However, you're going to have to do the calculations yourself, because they only tell you how many inches per decade it has risen.

Is sea level rising?

 

[francoHFW]

Africa is probably going chinese, thanks cheapskate, must save the greedy idiot rich GOP....

Here is a few articles Franco...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects?0p19G=e?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.



“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

 

[Wyatt earp]

Africa is probably going chinese, thanks cheapskate, must save the greedy idiot rich GOP....

Here is a few articles Franco...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects?0p19G=e?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.



“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

Here is the other I had to search USMB..

You know about this :



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.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Africa is probably going chinese, thanks cheapskate, must save the greedy idiot rich GOP....

Here is a few articles Franco...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects?0p19G=e?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.



“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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

 

[francoHFW]

Africa is probably going chinese, thanks cheapskate, must save the greedy idiot rich GOP....

Here is a few articles Franco...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects?0p19G=e?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.

The World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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 World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Africa is probably going chinese, thanks cheapskate, must save the greedy idiot rich GOP....

Here is a few articles Franco...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects?0p19G=e?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.

The World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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 World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

 

[francoHFW]

Africa is probably going chinese, thanks cheapskate, must save the greedy idiot rich GOP....

Here is a few articles Franco...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects?0p19G=e?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.

The World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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 World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

That link shows Africa has their own oil and gas. If they could get educated and organized...bad leaders.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here is a few articles Franco...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects?0p19G=e?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

The World Bank said coal was no cure for global poverty on Wednesday, rejecting a main industry argument for building new fossil fuel projects in developing countries.

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.

The World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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 World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

That link shows Africa has their own oil and gas. If they could get educated and organized...bad leaders.

Oh shit I didn't read it all?

 

[francoHFW]

That doesn't bother me. They seem to have plenty of gas and oil. In the future perhaps we'll figure out how clean coal.

file:///C:/Users/Richard/Downloads/country-resource-maps.pdf

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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 World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

That link shows Africa has their own oil and gas. If they could get educated and organized...bad leaders.

Oh shit I didn't read it all?

Has world maps of resources near end

 

[Wyatt earp]

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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 World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

That link shows Africa has their own oil and gas. If they could get educated and organized...bad leaders.

Oh shit I didn't read it all?

Has world maps of resources near end

Dang Franco you are an ok guy once someone pulls the layers off of protection

 

[Wyatt earp]

I kind of thought that

 

[Wyatt earp]

This was the one I was trying to find




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 itand 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 World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

That link shows Africa has their own oil and gas. If they could get educated and organized...bad leaders.

Oh shit I didn't read it all?

Has world maps of resources near end

I see it.

 

[francoHFW]

The World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

That link shows Africa has their own oil and gas. If they could get educated and organized...bad leaders.

Oh shit I didn't read it all?

Has world maps of resources near end

Dang Franco you are an ok guy once someone pulls the layers off of protection

Ditto. I have no patience with GOP propaganda/bs/hate...See sig last line.

 

[francoHFW]

The World Bank's problem seems to be with coal. I've seen lots of new AE gimmicks to help with the smoke problem. At least the problem is identified.

You read anything about natural gas , I assume nuke plants are to expensive?

But wait natural gas comes from Russia right????? It supply Europe, any pipelines go to Africa and such? I never looked into that.

That link shows Africa has their own oil and gas. If they could get educated and organized...bad leaders.

Oh shit I didn't read it all?

Has world maps of resources near end

I see it.

Too bad Africa has such bad leadership, and the white and yellow devils behind them...