Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
apnews.com
The next glacial period will cover significant parts of NA, Asia and Europe with 1000's of feet of ice and displace 250 million people. Property loss would exceed 1 quadrillion dollars.Climate Change Could Cost Each American Born Today $500,000 - Consumer Reports
Climate change could cost each American born in 2024 $500,000, a new study finds.www.consumerreports.org
View attachment 937104
Where is the reference source for your property loss claim?The next glacial period will cover significant parts of NA, Asia and Europe with 1000's of feet of ice and displace 250 million people. Property loss would exceed 1 quadrillion dollars.
Good grief. Seriously? New York City alone is 2.8 trillion dollars. How much do you think the rest of the NE US, all of Canada, the UK, etc. is worth?Where is the reference source for your property loss claim?
So, you don't have a reference. When you don't you should either avoid numbers or use some serious qualifiers.Good grief. Seriously? New York City alone is 2.8 trillion dollars. How much do you think the rest of the NE US, all of Canada, the UK, etc. is worth?
Globally, the most significant impact of the ice age was the formation of massive ice sheets at the poles. Ice sheets up to 4km thick blanketed much of northern Europe, Canada, northern America and northern Russia.
Today, these ice caps would displace around 250 million people and bury cities such as Detroit, Manchester, Vancouver, Hamburg, and Helsinki.
Don't worry... when the AMOC switches off there will be plenty of references. As for when that will happen...So, you don't have a reference. When you don't you should either avoid numbers or use some serious qualifiers.
Now how long do you think it will take for Detroit and the rest to become inundated by ice? And please let us know if you have a reference for your answer or if its anally derived like all the rest of your work.
And we have passed its peak 6,000 years ago. Until the Industrial Revolution, the world was getting cooler.Don't worry... when the AMOC switches off there will be plenty of references. As for when that will happen...
"...The preceding four interglacial periods are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typically lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present inter-glacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years..."
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Are you even listening to yourself?And we have passed its peak 6,000 years ago. Until the Industrial Revolution, the world was getting cooler.
Is it? You should listen to yourself now and then. I've been listening to scientists who tell us such things. They show us data like these:That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Are you even listening to yourself?
Were the previous transitions from glacial periods to interglacial periods gentle or abrupt? Can you tell me why you believe transitions from glacial periods to interglacial periods would be gentle transitions? Because I can tell you why they are abrupt.I've been listening to scientists who tell us such things. They show data like these:
View attachment 943678
View attachment 943680
View attachment 943681
View attachment 943682
I don't give two shits for your opinion on anything. If you want to impress me with ideas, bring them from other people that might actually have some scientific credentials.Were the previous transitions from glacial periods to interglacial periods gentle or abrupt? Can you tell me why you believe transitions from glacial periods to interglacial periods would be gentle transitions? Because I can tell you why they are abrupt.
View attachment 943684
So in other words, you can't post any climate data from previous transitions from interglacial periods to glacial periods or driving mechanism that supports your silly belief that the planet was on a gentle cooling trend that I can only assume you believe would have kept gently cooling.You're changin
I don't give two shits for your opinion on anything. If you want to impress me with ideas, bring them from other people that might actually have some scientific credentials.
The HCO was this interglacial's maximum temperature and the world was cooling prior to the Industrial Revolution.
So in other words, you can't post any climate data from previous transitions from interglacial periods to glacial periods or driving mechanism that supports your silly belief that the planet was on a gentle cooling trend that I can only assume you believe would have kept gently cooling.
Obviously you don't give a shit about them since nothing about them support your beliefs about this one.I don't give a shit about previous transitions. My concern regards THIS one; the one you never want to talk about.
It's a wonder why summertime doesn't destroy economies.
New study calculates climate change's economic bite will hit about $38 trillion a year by 2049
A new study says climate change will reduce future global income by about 19% in the next 25 years compared to a fictional world that’s not warming.
New study calculates climate change’s economic bite will hit about $38 trillion a year by 2049
Climate change will reduce future global income by about 19% in the next 25 years compared to a fictional world that’s not warming, with the poorest areas and those least responsible for heating the atmosphere taking the biggest monetary hit, a new study said.
Climate change’s economic bite in how much people make is already locked in at about $38 trillion a year by 2049, according to Wednesday’s study in the journal Nature by researchers at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. By 2100 the financial cost could hit twice what previous studies estimate.
“Our analysis shows that climate change will cause massive economic damages within the next 25 years in almost all countries around the world, also in highly-developed ones such as Germany and the U.S., with a projected median income reduction of 11% each and France with 13%,” said study co-author Leonie Wenz, a climate scientist and economist.
These damages are compared to a baseline of no climate change and are then applied against overall expected global growth in gross domestic product, said study lead author Max Kotz, a climate scientist. So while it’s 19% globally less than it could have been with no climate change, in most places, income will still grow, just not as much because of warmer temperatures.
Weather is short term. Climate is very very long term.Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.
So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.
I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here to stay for now. The world's population has expanded from one billion people at the beginning of the industrial revolution to more than eight billion people now. And there is no realistic way to convince eight billion people that, for our foreseeable future, living in a fossil fuel free world is either desirable or even possible unless they are clueless re the facts and the cost.
Instead of confiscating so much of the world's financial resources to 'combat climate change' that obviously isn't combating climate change, a much better approach would be to find ways for humans to constructively adapt to inevitable climate change.
Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus, presents the reality of how governments deal with climate change and, while he does not deny that climate change is occurring and will continue to occur, he has a much more realistic and honest approach to how the world should 'follow the science.'
Emphasis in the quoted material is mine:
". . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.
Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address.
Our goal in forming climate policy should be the same we bring to traffic laws and any other political question: achieve more benefits than costs to society. A richer world is much more resilient against weather extremes. In the short term, therefore, policymakers should focus on lifting the billions of people still in poverty out of it, both because it will make them more resilient against extreme weather and because it will do so much good in a myriad of other ways. For the longer term, governments and companies should invest in green-energy research and development to drive down the costs and increase the reliability of fossil-fuel alternatives.
Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it. Sensible public debate requires all the facts, including about the costs of our choices. Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.
”
Think about human lives compared to weather and also climate.
Climate spans at least 30 years. This means a man of 90 has had 3 climates in his life but 90 years of weathers. Alarmists talk climate but they are actually discussing weather. And even at that weather makes them say silly things. I want to also state that to the alarmists, 2 degrees really scares the hell out of them. I survive daily with changes to weather of 40 degrees. So do not try to scare me using 2 degrees over a span of 30 or more years.
