Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What "damages" are caused by mild winters?
Drought, the failure of winter to kill off insect species that normally die-back during the extended freezes and cool periods in most winters, the spread and proliferation of disease, fungus and all manner of pests and pestilence. But of course, mild winters aren't the only impact; there are increased energy levels in storm systems as this extra energy in our system jostles about trying to equilibrate. there is the added climate change stress impacting biomes we have already pushed beyond tolerable levels for much of the diversity of wildlife across the face of the planet. But we don't even need to look to the butterflies and burrowing owls, look at people. We're projected to reach a peak of around 9 Billion within a few decades. Tell an overwhelming majority of people on the planet that it is no longer economical to produce enough food to feed them, or purify and transport enough water to quench their thirst, and we'll see how long and how expensive it becomes to maintain western civilization. And this is just the beginning.
The proper pricing of carbon is the market price.
The current "market price" is a distortion (economically, a market failure) as it is artificially divorced from the costs and consequences (externalities) of its usage. Until these costs are accurately and adequately internalized there is no valid market price.
Just a quick shout out from reality.
The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.
Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots. They want to bring about death to billions.
"Pennies"? 76 TRILLION dollars spent over a period of decades to possibly prevent the global temp increase of one degree in 100 years is far from pennies. And that according to the IPCC.
You need to get your facts straight....
Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.
Here's the whole report. Knock yourself out.
Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.
"Pennies"? 76 TRILLION dollars spent over a period of decades to possibly prevent the global temp increase of one degree in 100 years is far from pennies. And that according to the IPCC.
You need to get your facts straight....
Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.
. . . because that is Pig Shitz, trying to baffle a doc, with bullshit, about a doc.
Pig Shitz is a leading fecophile, among many, which post at USMB. No good links yet, from:
1. Pig Shitz
2. Wallyfucktard
3. Suckassbil the tweaker
4. T-Tard
5. CodePunk
. . . and one good graph came from Wienerbitch, with one from Fatass, in all pages, of all threads, at USMB.
It is especially hard to lay all of "solely this at the feet of one factor" when the effect that you cite, warming, started about 250 years before the "factor" you cite, industrialization.
According to the proxies, the climate warmed by more in the years between 1600 and the start of the Industrial Revolution than it has since that time.
This is simply incorrect.
Even the chart you are using indicates a mean temp average warming from 1600 to 1850 of less than 0.2º C, temps have risen (excluding that last 8 years as per your graph) nearly 5x as much, or approximately 1.0º C.
We are about as cool right now as we ever have been as a planet.
File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art
Again, simply incorrect, the coolest our planet has been is estimated at around minus 50 C in some of the possible snowball events.
Drought, the failure of winter to kill off insect species that normally die-back during the extended freezes and cool periods in most winters, the spread and proliferation of disease, fungus and all manner of pests and pestilence. But of course, mild winters aren't the only impact; there are increased energy levels in storm systems as this extra energy in our system jostles about trying to equilibrate. there is the added climate change stress impacting biomes we have already pushed beyond tolerable levels for much of the diversity of wildlife across the face of the planet. But we don't even need to look to the butterflies and burrowing owls, look at people. We're projected to reach a peak of around 9 Billion within a few decades. Tell an overwhelming majority of people on the planet that it is no longer economical to produce enough food to feed them, or purify and transport enough water to quench their thirst, and we'll see how long and how expensive it becomes to maintain western civilization. And this is just the beginning.
The current "market price" is a distortion (economically, a market failure) as it is artificially divorced from the costs and consequences (externalities) of its usage. Until these costs are accurately and adequately internalized there is no valid market price.
Just a quick shout out from reality.
not according to the content of yoiur posts.
The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.
It is neither the only thing currently providing such support nor the only thing capable of providing such support, as demonstrated by the reality that fossil fuels do not make up 100% of our fuels for transportation or electrical production. We can choose alternatives for such applications.
Just a quick shout out from reality.
not according to the content of yoiur posts.
The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.
It is neither the only thing currently providing such support nor the only thing capable of providing such support, as demonstrated by the reality that fossil fuels do not make up 100% of our fuels for transportation or electrical production. We can choose alternatives for such applications.
If you truly believe this, in view of the methods of farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are delusional.
"Pennies"? 76 TRILLION dollars spent over a period of decades to possibly prevent the global temp increase of one degree in 100 years is far from pennies. And that according to the IPCC.
You need to get your facts straight....
Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
Page 20 has the EPA estimate of the benefit of adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act.
not according to the content of yoiur posts.
It is neither the only thing currently providing such support nor the only thing capable of providing such support, as demonstrated by the reality that fossil fuels do not make up 100% of our fuels for transportation or electrical production. We can choose alternatives for such applications.
If you truly believe this, in view of the methods of farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are delusional.
We currently use fossil fuels for most transportation work, this does not mean that it is the only method possible to accomplish these tasks. If you believe that it is the only method of accomplishing these tasks and if we stopped using fossil fuels we would not accomplish farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are either delusional, or simply being disingenuous.
Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
Page 20 has the EPA estimate of the benefit of adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act.
Look, T-tard, page 20 has cites on it, not estimates, you lying shitter. This publication is neither scholarly nor useful, as reference. It has nothing, about CO2-neutral biomass or re-greening, just shit about the how the bad, old Clean Air Act will mess up the crime-pays economy, which pays wingpunk-pubs and their blow-buddy Democrats, for daisy-chaining and circle-jerking, in their usual way.
Here's the junior wingpunks who wrote all this shit, who aren't anything but pubs, with tiny brains, scamming a pub-infested committee, with Tea Party propaganda, while the jerks circle, and jerk some more:
Contact:
Matt Dempsey [email protected] (202) 224-9797
David Lungren [email protected] (202) 224-5642
Skook, don't even compliment him with the attention. Little boy booboo is a waste of bandwidth. Let him wither on the vine.. . . because that is Pig Shitz, trying to baffle a doc, with bullshit, about a doc.
Pig Shitz is a leading fecophile, among many, which post at USMB. No good links yet, from:
1. Pig Shitz
2. Wallyfucktard
3. Suckassbil the tweaker
4. T-Tard
5. CodePunk
. . . and one good graph came from Wienerbitch, with one from Fatass, in all pages, of all threads, at USMB.
LOL....but the fecophiles are winning!!!
And please with the "where are the links?" crap. Well over 6 months ago, I challenged every k00k on here to come up with a single link displaying where the green radicals are winning!!!! Still waiting..............
And lets not forget the recent Pew Poll conducted in February regarding voters highest priorities. Global warming? #22 out of...........22!!!!!
It is especially hard to lay all of "solely this at the feet of one factor" when the effect that you cite, warming, started about 250 years before the "factor" you cite, industrialization.
According to the proxies, the climate warmed by more in the years between 1600 and the start of the Industrial Revolution than it has since that time.
This is simply incorrect.
Even the chart you are using indicates a mean temp average warming from 1600 to 1850 of less than 0.2º C, temps have risen (excluding that last 8 years as per your graph) nearly 5x as much, or approximately 1.0º C.
We are about as cool right now as we ever have been as a planet.
File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art
Again, simply incorrect, the coolest our planet has been is estimated at around minus 50 C in some of the possible snowball events.
To the first point, we disagree on the amount of increase in the periods before and after the cause that you cite as the driving factor in the warming, but we do agree that the warming started before the cause you cite as the driving factor in the warming.
The future, therefore, causes the past.
Revise the statement to include only the last 65 million years. The recent times in our climate's temperature are more cool right now compared to any period in the last 65 million years.
Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
Page 20 has the EPA estimate of the benefit of adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act.
Look, T-tard, page 20 has cites on it, not estimates, you lying shitter. This publication is neither scholarly nor useful, as reference. It has nothing, about CO2-neutral biomass or re-greening, just shit about the how the bad, old Clean Air Act will mess up the crime-pays economy, which pays wingpunk-pubs and their blow-buddy Democrats, for daisy-chaining and circle-jerking, in their usual way.
Here's the junior wingpunks who wrote all this shit, who aren't anything but pubs, with tiny brains, scamming a pub-infested committee, with Tea Party propaganda, while the jerks circle, and jerk some more:
Contact:
Matt Dempsey [email protected] (202) 224-9797
David Lungren [email protected] (202) 224-5642
If you truly believe this, in view of the methods of farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are delusional.
We currently use fossil fuels for most transportation work, this does not mean that it is the only method possible to accomplish these tasks. If you believe that it is the only method of accomplishing these tasks and if we stopped using fossil fuels we would not accomplish farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are either delusional, or simply being disingenuous.
Fossil fuels are used in every step of the process and power the vehicles and machines that do the work.
While it may not be the only method method available, it is the method that has allowed the vast increase in the world's population. That increase is due in large part to the ability of the race to feed itself.
Note in the link that the world's population increases as the use of the combustion engine spreads worldwide.
Please recall that half of the land vehicles used by the Nazis to invade France were drawn by horses.
File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
Page 20 has the EPA estimate of the benefit of adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act.
Look, T-tard, page 20 has cites on it, not estimates, you lying shitter. This publication is neither scholarly nor useful, as reference. It has nothing, about CO2-neutral biomass or re-greening, just shit about the how the bad, old Clean Air Act will mess up the crime-pays economy, which pays wingpunk-pubs and their blow-buddy Democrats, for daisy-chaining and circle-jerking, in their usual way.
Here's the junior wingpunks who wrote all this shit, who aren't anything but pubs, with tiny brains, scamming a pub-infested committee, with Tea Party propaganda, while the jerks circle, and jerk some more:
Contact:
Matt Dempsey [email protected] (202) 224-9797
David Lungren [email protected] (202) 224-5642
"Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 C by 2100"
How many trillions of dollars do you think we should spend to achieve that massive reduction in future temperature?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e
Page 20 has the EPA estimate of the benefit of adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act.
Look, T-tard, page 20 has cites on it, not estimates, you lying shitter. This publication is neither scholarly nor useful, as reference. It has nothing, about CO2-neutral biomass or re-greening, just shit about the how the bad, old Clean Air Act will mess up the crime-pays economy, which pays wingpunk-pubs and their blow-buddy Democrats, for daisy-chaining and circle-jerking, in their usual way.
Here's the junior wingpunks who wrote all this shit, who aren't anything but pubs, with tiny brains, scamming a pub-infested committee, with Tea Party propaganda, while the jerks circle, and jerk some more:
Contact:
Matt Dempsey [email protected] (202) 224-9797
David Lungren [email protected] (202) 224-5642
Though Toddster's reference is a hyperpartisan sophist rant with zero credibility or validity, I would have to ask you to be careful with the broad-brush strokes that you are using. I am Republican. I am not conservative nor libertarian. If you want to call out idiots, please proceed, but not all "pubs" are idiots or fascists.
