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

[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.

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

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

So you don't know?

Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why there are different threshold levels for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation?

I know when someone deserves to be ignored. Buh-bye.

 

[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

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

So you don't know?

Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why there are different threshold levels for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation?

I know when someone deserves to be ignored. Buh-bye.

If you don't know that extensive continental glaciation occurs at different atmospheric thresholds at the northern and southern hemispheres then you can't know why extensive continental glaciation occurs at different atmospheric thresholds at the northern and southern hemispheres, right?

It's really important stuff. Aren't you interested in understanding the drivers for the earth's climate?

 

[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

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

So you don't know?

Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why there are different threshold levels for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation?

I know when someone deserves to be ignored. Buh-bye.

You seriously don't know anything about earth's climate, do you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your dishonesty follows your every post, you have the well honed talent to misrepresent what I post.

No. I am saying that long term CO2 changes FOLLOWS long term temperature changes, which YOU never dispute, that is why you can't say that CO2 is a main factor in changing climate into a different direction, the postulated increase in CO2 warm forcing effects are too small for that.

That is entirely different from saying it has no part in the heat budget, it does but it is so small and the 100 ppm increase adds so little more warm forcing to the total, THAT is where warmist/alarmists blows it so badly, since the increase in warm forcing of CO2 of the last 150 years is very small.

You have yet to give the slightest hint as to why CO2 can't be dissolved in the world's oceans, and therefore released by rising temperatures, AND possess an absorption spectra that includes a large chunk of infrared. WHY would those two things be mutually exclusive?

You just keep avoiding what I say with your evasive replies to something else.

It is clear you can't address what I post at all.

Try again if you have the courage:

" I am saying that long term CO2 changes FOLLOWS long term temperature changes, which YOU never dispute, that is why you can't say that CO2 is a main factor in changing climate into a different direction, the postulated increase in CO2 warm forcing effects are too small for that.

That is entirely different from saying it has no part in the heat budget, it does but it is so small and the 100 ppm increase adds so little more warm forcing to the total, THAT is where warmist/alarmists blows it so badly, since the increase in warm forcing of CO2 of the last 150 years is very small. "

 

[jc456]

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

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

So you don't know?

Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why there are different threshold levels for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation?

I know when someone deserves to be ignored. Buh-bye.

You seriously don't know anything about earth's climate, do you?

welcome to the crick ignore list. He is incapable of an honest debate, he is not an objective person. His posts have never varied even though his evidence has been completely debunked.

 

[Crick]

Returning to the actual topic of this thread, I find it interesting that businesses around the world seem to be taking on a great deal of the tasks of dealing with AGW on their own. The automobile industry in the US and abroad is moving rapidly to electric vehicles as is the demand. Alternative energy growth has been phenomenal. With those two sectors moving away from fossil fuel use on their own, I'm not sure where the $78 trillion that was recently claimed as the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions will need to be spent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The automobile industry in the US and abroad is moving rapidly to electric vehicles as is the demand.

No kidding!!!

What were EV sales last year, about 2% of the total?

I'm not sure where the $78 trillion that was recently claimed as the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions will need to be spent.

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion | Fox News

 

[ReinyDays]

Your first sentence shows a fundamental misunderstanding of radiative physics and the thermodynamic processes taking place in the Earth's atmosphere. If what you suggest were actually taking place - that the process is NOT a continuous flow of energy both INTO and OUT OF the atmosphere - the Earth would long ago have burnt to a cinder. Keep one fact in mind: ALL matter radiates all the time. It doesn't stop radiating when it reaches thermal equilibrium. That is simply when its emission and absorption become equal.

The Earth is continually bathed in EM energy from the sun. That energy travels through the transparent atmosphere and is absorbed or reflected by the land and sea. The land and sea reradiate that energy as IR radiation which is absorbed by the GHGs in our atmosphere. The GHGs reradiate the energy, again as IR which gets absorbed by other GHG molecules. This step by step process carries on till the energy finally reaches the top of the atmosphere and radiates freely into space. So, what happens when you add more GHGs to the atmosphere? The average distance a photon travels before striking and being absorbed by a GHG molecule becomes shorter. The number of steps to the trip out of the atmosphere goes up and thus the amount of thermal energy present in the conveyor belt to space increases. That changing state is evinced by the increasing temperature of the atmosphere. Global warming.

Nice ... that's a well thought out description ...

You seem to be ignoring the quatum nature of these absorptions and re-radiations ... GHG only react to certain wavelengths, and not others ... yes, all matter radiates all the time, what it radiates depends on temperature ... the higher the temperature, the shorter the wavelengths the material radiates it's energy ...

Consider a neutral Hydrogen atom in it's ground state ... as temperature rises, the electron will be in a higher orbital ... high enough temperature and the atom will stop absorbing and emitting the 121 nm associated with the 1 -> 2 transition ... the temperture is too high for the atom to jump down to it's ground state ... (Yes, I know in a mole of Hydrogen, we will see 121 nm emission, random chance as it were) ...

Did you look up the statements in the IPCC report about this? ... are you saying they have a fundamental misunderstanding of radiative physics? ... seems like your picking an economist's word over a climatologist's ...

I'm glad you think its easy to build and maintain sea walls but I'm afraid your estimate of 3 feet won't cut it. Consider storm surges, not infrequently cresting 20 feet above MSL and, with global warming increasing the temperature of air and water, certain to increase in height and frequency. I'm fairly certain that the economists considering this problem took into account the cost of building sea walls. In fact, I'm quite certain that they took into account a hundred factors that you and I would never think of. That would be because they're PhD economists and we're not.

But we can read the survey questions and note the question was not asked ... indeed none of the methodology is presented ... I can see why they had to publish the material themselves, this would never pass peer review ...

 

[Crick]

The automobile industry in the US and abroad is moving rapidly to electric vehicles as is the demand.

No kidding!!!

What were EV sales last year, about 2% of the total?

I'm not sure where the $78 trillion that was recently claimed as the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions will need to be spent.

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion | Fox News

No, 4.2% of total globally

EV Volumes - The Electric Vehicle World Sales Database

EV-volumes is a database of sales statistics, charging infrastructure, batteries, car models, and sales forecasts for plug-in cars.

www.ev-volumes.com

 

[Crick]

Your first sentence shows a fundamental misunderstanding of radiative physics and the thermodynamic processes taking place in the Earth's atmosphere. If what you suggest were actually taking place - that the process is NOT a continuous flow of energy both INTO and OUT OF the atmosphere - the Earth would long ago have burnt to a cinder. Keep one fact in mind: ALL matter radiates all the time. It doesn't stop radiating when it reaches thermal equilibrium. That is simply when its emission and absorption become equal.

The Earth is continually bathed in EM energy from the sun. That energy travels through the transparent atmosphere and is absorbed or reflected by the land and sea. The land and sea reradiate that energy as IR radiation which is absorbed by the GHGs in our atmosphere. The GHGs reradiate the energy, again as IR which gets absorbed by other GHG molecules. This step by step process carries on till the energy finally reaches the top of the atmosphere and radiates freely into space. So, what happens when you add more GHGs to the atmosphere? The average distance a photon travels before striking and being absorbed by a GHG molecule becomes shorter. The number of steps to the trip out of the atmosphere goes up and thus the amount of thermal energy present in the conveyor belt to space increases. That changing state is evinced by the increasing temperature of the atmosphere. Global warming.

Nice ... that's a well thought out description ...

You seem to be ignoring the quatum nature of these absorptions and re-radiations ... GHG only react to certain wavelengths, and not others ... yes, all matter radiates all the time, what it radiates depends on temperature ... the higher the temperature, the shorter the wavelengths the material radiates it's energy ...

Consider a neutral Hydrogen atom in it's ground state ... as temperature rises, the electron will be in a higher orbital ... high enough temperature and the atom will stop absorbing and emitting the 121 nm associated with the 1 -> 2 transition ... the temperture is too high for the atom to jump down to it's ground state ... (Yes, I know in a mole of Hydrogen, we will see 121 nm emission, random chance as it were) ...

Did you look up the statements in the IPCC report about this? ... are you saying they have a fundamental misunderstanding of radiative physics? ... seems like your picking an economist's word over a climatologist's ...

I'm glad you think its easy to build and maintain sea walls but I'm afraid your estimate of 3 feet won't cut it. Consider storm surges, not infrequently cresting 20 feet above MSL and, with global warming increasing the temperature of air and water, certain to increase in height and frequency. I'm fairly certain that the economists considering this problem took into account the cost of building sea walls. In fact, I'm quite certain that they took into account a hundred factors that you and I would never think of. That would be because they're PhD economists and we're not.

But we can read the survey questions and note the question was not asked ... indeed none of the methodology is presented ... I can see why they had to publish the material themselves, this would never pass peer review ...

Nothing I have said here (or that appears in the lead article) conflicts with anything in the IPCC's ARs, basic atmospheric science or thermodynamics. I do not understand why you suggest I am taking the word of economists over that of climatologists. This material was a discussion with a poster who claimed that further GHG emissions would not increase warming as the process was "saturated".

Pages 5-9 cover Methodology, pages 39-45 give the questions asked. Pages 46 & 47 provide the names of economic journals that were used to identify economists to survey, page 48 gives response data by survey question, pages 49 - 56 provide 95th percentile confidence intervals for every question. What methodology do you believe was lacking?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The automobile industry in the US and abroad is moving rapidly to electric vehicles as is the demand.

No kidding!!!

What were EV sales last year, about 2% of the total?

I'm not sure where the $78 trillion that was recently claimed as the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions will need to be spent.

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion | Fox News

No, 4.2% of total globally
View attachment 477659

EV Volumes - The Electric Vehicle World Sales Database

EV-volumes is a database of sales statistics, charging infrastructure, batteries, car models, and sales forecasts for plug-in cars.

www.ev-volumes.com

China's coal powered cars are awesome!!!

 

[Crick]

The automobile industry in the US and abroad is moving rapidly to electric vehicles as is the demand.

No kidding!!!

What were EV sales last year, about 2% of the total?

I'm not sure where the $78 trillion that was recently claimed as the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions will need to be spent.

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion | Fox News

No, 4.2% of total globally
View attachment 477659

EV Volumes - The Electric Vehicle World Sales Database

EV-volumes is a database of sales statistics, charging infrastructure, batteries, car models, and sales forecasts for plug-in cars.

www.ev-volumes.com

China's coal powered cars are awesome!!!

The Stanley Steamer makes a comeback!

Sorry, no link for the graphic but I understand it's Jay Leno's

 

[ReinyDays]

Nothing I have said here (or that appears in the lead article) conflicts with anything in the IPCC's ARs, basic atmospheric science or thermodynamics.

Yes you have ... you're disputing the claim that temperature depends on the logarithm of CO2 concentration ... what the IPCC, basic atmospheric science and thermodynamics tells us is true ...

I understand this refutes your fears ... that's because your fears were unfounded to begin with ... you live a comfortable life, and your instincts drive youto fighting for survival ... you have to invent things to be afraid of ... maybe take up sky-diving as a new hobby ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

The automobile industry in the US and abroad is moving rapidly to electric vehicles as is the demand.

No kidding!!!

What were EV sales last year, about 2% of the total?

I'm not sure where the $78 trillion that was recently claimed as the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions will need to be spent.

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion | Fox News

No, 4.2% of total globally
View attachment 477659

EV Volumes - The Electric Vehicle World Sales Database

EV-volumes is a database of sales statistics, charging infrastructure, batteries, car models, and sales forecasts for plug-in cars.

www.ev-volumes.com

China's coal powered cars are awesome!!!

The Stanley Steamer makes a comeback!
View attachment 477672
Sorry, no link for the graphic but I understand it's Jay Leno's

There is one similar to this at the Ellensburg Museum, saw a few more cars from 1900 onwards there.

 

[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.

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

And how does it relate?

How does it not?

It relates because the same conditions which led to the transition still exist today. And if we want to prevent a 3 mile thick sheet of ice destroying a good portion of the industrialized world and parts of Asia we shouldn't be taking actions to reduce atmospheric CO2.

But the conditions that exist today, CO2 levels increased by 50% in less than two centuries, did not exist then.

From that statement it is clear that you don't understand the background conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world.

What do you think those conditions are anyway?

For fuck's sake, just tell us what you want to tell us. Be a fucking grownup and stop playing stupid games.

So you don't know?

Do you at least know at what atmospheric CO2 concentration that extensive continental glaciation occurs at the south and north poles and why there are different threshold levels for northern and southern hemisphere glaciation?

I know when someone deserves to be ignored. Buh-bye.

You seriously don't know anything about earth's climate, do you?

He never does, that is why so many have to correct him.

He put you on ignore despite that you were always civil and tries to discuss the issues.

 

[Crick]

Nothing I have said here (or that appears in the lead article) conflicts with anything in the IPCC's ARs, basic atmospheric science or thermodynamics.

Yes you have ... you're disputing the claim that temperature depends on the logarithm of CO2 concentration ... what the IPCC, basic atmospheric science and thermodynamics tells us is true ...

I understand this refutes your fears ... that's because your fears were unfounded to begin with ... you live a comfortable life, and your instincts drive youto fighting for survival ... you have to invent things to be afraid of ... maybe take up sky-diving as a new hobby ...

Please show me a quote supporting that claim. And, in order to facilitate future discussion on this topic, what was the last mathematics class you completed? I'm just curious if you understand what effect the base of a logarithm might have on processes having such natures.