75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming

[Sunsettommy]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

I think the question was what caused the cooling, dummy. What made the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I still haven't seen your answer on that. It's totally understandable though because after all it is a climate discussion, right?

He can't admit that CO2 has nothing to do with large climate changes from hot house to ice house, he just ignores that inconvenience because he idiotically thinks a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range can materially effect the heat budget of the entire planets climate system.

It is their fatal error they can't face.

 

[jc456]

Let me just come right out and say it.

The emperor isn't wearing any clothes. The emperor is naked. There. I said it. Now you say it too, Crick .

Note, Crick has informed me he will be ignoring my posts, so he doesn't wish to resolve the open questions on the thread. And yes, the emperor is naked.

 

[jc456]

He can't admit that CO2 has nothing to do with large climate changes from hot house to ice house, he just ignores that inconvenience because he idiotically thinks a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range can materially effect the heat budget of the entire planets climate system.

It is their fatal error they can't face.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

Actually I am discussing the climate. You are probably confused because you have confused computer simulations with climate.

So, you've figured out how to make a climate prediction without the use of a model. Please enlighten us as to how that works. And, just in case you haven't noticed, the temperature, CO2 levels and sea level data I have posted here are NOT the output of simulations. They are MEASUREMENTS. I didn't post projections till I was asked to do so.

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

Paleoclimatology

Paleoclimatology is the study of the climate history of Earth. This science helps people better understand the climate of Earth in the past and how it relates to the present and future climate on the planet.

www.nationalgeographic.org

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

Actually I am discussing the climate. You are probably confused because you have confused computer simulations with climate.

So, you've figured out how to make a climate prediction without the use of a model. Please enlighten us as to how that works. And, just in case you haven't noticed, the temperature, CO2 levels and sea level data I have posted here are NOT the output of simulations. They are MEASUREMENTS.

That's totally unresponsive to what I wrote.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT DRIVES EARTHS CLIMATE.

EVEN WORSE, YOU DISMISS THAT DISCUSSION AS BEING IRRELEVANT TO EARTHS FUTURE CLIMATE.

Were you able to follow that?

 

[Crick]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Do you know why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

Was it magic? Blind luck? A random occurrence? Do you know?

Please carry on. I have no interest in playing your games.

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

I think the question was what caused the cooling, dummy. What made the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I still haven't seen your answer on that. It's totally understandable though because after all it is a climate discussion, right?

He can't admit that CO2 has nothing to do with large climate changes from hot house to ice house, he just ignores that inconvenience because he idiotically thinks a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range can materially effect the heat budget of the entire planets climate system.

It is their fatal error they can't face.

I have repeatedly - including in this very thread - noted that the glacial cycle's large temperature transitions were caused by Milankovich cycles in orbital mechanics. Your "trace gas" argument is pathetic and, again, indicates an extremely poor foundation in basic science.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Do you know why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

Was it magic? Blind luck? A random occurrence? Do you know?

Please carry on. I have no interest in playing your games.

See what is happening here, he is refusing to answer questions, acknowledge science papers and sources, a classic example that he is completely closed to a real debate/discussion paradigm.

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Do you know why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

Was it magic? Blind luck? A random occurrence? Do you know?

Please carry on. I have no interest in playing your games.

I don't believe climate is a game. I believe we shouldn't be playing games. I believe YOU are playing a game.

I want to discuss the climate and the trend of the climate. And that discussion starts 2.7 million years ago.

The risk narrative is all out of whack because we are disregarding the risk we know for a fact exists; northern hemisphere glaciation.

You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to squelch debate.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

I think the question was what caused the cooling, dummy. What made the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I still haven't seen your answer on that. It's totally understandable though because after all it is a climate discussion, right?

He can't admit that CO2 has nothing to do with large climate changes from hot house to ice house, he just ignores that inconvenience because he idiotically thinks a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range can materially effect the heat budget of the entire planets climate system.

It is their fatal error they can't face.

I have repeatedly - including in this very thread - noted that the glacial cycle's large temperature transitions were caused by Milankovich cycles in orbital mechanics. Your "trace gas" argument is pathetic and, again, indicates an extremely poor foundation in basic science.

What caused the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

That is a climate discussion, right?

 

[Sunsettommy]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

I think the question was what caused the cooling, dummy. What made the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I still haven't seen your answer on that. It's totally understandable though because after all it is a climate discussion, right?

He can't admit that CO2 has nothing to do with large climate changes from hot house to ice house, he just ignores that inconvenience because he idiotically thinks a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range can materially effect the heat budget of the entire planets climate system.

It is their fatal error they can't face.

I have repeatedly - including in this very thread - noted that the glacial cycle's large temperature transitions were caused by Milankovich cycles in orbital mechanics. Your "trace gas" argument is pathetic and, again, indicates an extremely poor foundation in basic science.

Your reply was completely empty, it is a indeed a fact that CO2 TODAY is a TRACE gas with a tiny IR absorption range, and that changes to the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere effecting part of the heat budget is tiny, how come you avoid addressing them?

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

I am certainly not ignoring rising sea levels, particularly in a discussion of the costs of dealing with the consequences of AGW. No civilization has experienced the range or rate of sea level rise we will likely experience.

 

[Sunsettommy]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

I am certainly not ignoring rising sea levels, particularly in a discussion of the costs of dealing with the consequences of AGW. No civilization has experienced the range or rate of sea level rise we will likely experience.
View attachment 477289

Another link free chart, how come you rarely post the links Crick?

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

I think the question was what caused the cooling, dummy. What made the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I still haven't seen your answer on that. It's totally understandable though because after all it is a climate discussion, right?

He can't admit that CO2 has nothing to do with large climate changes from hot house to ice house, he just ignores that inconvenience because he idiotically thinks a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range can materially effect the heat budget of the entire planets climate system.

It is their fatal error they can't face.

I have repeatedly - including in this very thread - noted that the glacial cycle's large temperature transitions were caused by Milankovich cycles in orbital mechanics. Your "trace gas" argument is pathetic and, again, indicates an extremely poor foundation in basic science.

Your reply was completely empty, it is a indeed a fact that CO2 TODAY is a TRACE gas with a tiny IR absorption range, and that changes to the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere effecting part of the heat budget is tiny, how come you avoid addressing them?

As has been stated by others in this thread, ALL the IR radiated by the planet's surface is absorbed by GHG's in the Earth's atmosphere. That energy is repeatedly emitted and absorbed in a multi-step trip out of the atmosphere. That process has a significant effect on the Earth's temperature: currently ~14C. Without the warming of the greenhouse effect, its temperature would be -18C.

 

[jc456]

So, you've figured out how to make a climate prediction without the use of a model

All your experts use models and always wrong. Means modeling isn’t a useful tool

 

[Crick]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

I am certainly not ignoring rising sea levels, particularly in a discussion of the costs of dealing with the consequences of AGW. No civilization has experienced the range or rate of sea level rise we will likely experience.
View attachment 477289

Another link free chart, how come you rarely post the links Crick?

Brain-free posters?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the current warming trend has no parallels with past warming events. None.

You have no proof of that. None.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

He smokes a ton of weed. Just ignore him.

 

[jc456]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

I think the question was what caused the cooling, dummy. What made the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I still haven't seen your answer on that. It's totally understandable though because after all it is a climate discussion, right?

He can't admit that CO2 has nothing to do with large climate changes from hot house to ice house, he just ignores that inconvenience because he idiotically thinks a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption range can materially effect the heat budget of the entire planets climate system.

It is their fatal error they can't face.

I have repeatedly - including in this very thread - noted that the glacial cycle's large temperature transitions were caused by Milankovich cycles in orbital mechanics. Your "trace gas" argument is pathetic and, again, indicates an extremely poor foundation in basic science.

Your reply was completely empty, it is a indeed a fact that CO2 TODAY is a TRACE gas with a tiny IR absorption range, and that changes to the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere effecting part of the heat budget is tiny, how come you avoid addressing them?

As has been stated by others in this thread, ALL the IR radiated by the planet's surface is absorbed by GHG's in the Earth's atmosphere. That energy is repeatedly emitted and absorbed in a multi-step trip out of the atmosphere. That process has a significant effect on the Earth's temperature: currently ~14C. Without the warming of the greenhouse effect, its temperature would be -18C.

Why do deserts get cold at night?

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

I am certainly not ignoring rising sea levels, particularly in a discussion of the costs of dealing with the consequences of AGW. No civilization has experienced the range or rate of sea level rise we will likely experience.
View attachment 477289

Another link free chart, how come you rarely post the links Crick?

Brain-free posters?

Ohhhhhhhhh the irony