There is no Planet B

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Ah, bitter sarcasm! That's what I was looking for, thanks!.

If you read my previous posts, it's pretty clear I have nooo interest in reducing carbon emissions. They are not what is causing global warming, except to a tiny degree. The great bulk of global warming is either natural or caused by other man-made effects like deforestation and urbanization. CO2 is good for the environment, and the overall beneficial effects far outweigh any negative ones, if there even are any.

Decarbonizing the economy is a cure that is far, far worse than the disease.

Thank you. It's made your viewpoint crystal clear.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Warren Buffets needs to step out of his ivory tower once in a while. The vast majority of trees haven't been planted by anyone and they do just fine at providing shade.

well

1. it's a metaphor
2. many people, perhaps most, only experience trees in man-infested areas - parks, reclaimed areas, etc. Where, yeah, many if not most trees were planted.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to B.P., “... Global proved oil reserves, in 2017, fell slightly by 0.5 billion barrels (-0.03%) to 1696.6 billion barrels, which would be sufficient to meet 50.2 years of global production at 2017 levels ...”
➥ https://www.bp.com/en/global/corpora...l#oil-reserves

“World Oil Review 2018"
➥ https://www.eni.com/docs/it_IT/eni-c...8-Volume-1.pdf

Page 14 "... World Oil Reserves (2017) 1,680,004 million barrels as at 31st December ..."

Page 25 “... Reserves/Production Ratio (2017) World: 50years ...”



Politicians were involved, from the very outset. Who do you think, proposed, passed, and implemented the carbon tax legislation?

"Proven oil reserves" is a science in itself. It includes oil that can be economically extracted from the ground at today's oil prices. As oil prices go up, so do proven oil reserves. At any rate it's a finite resource and there certainly isn't an alternative to it for a lot of applications. What's worse is there isn't an alternative in the foreseeable future. Changes will have to be made.

[kmacdonald]

A while back I asked if we would run out of fossil fuels before destroying the planet with CO2 emissions. Someone responded that it was universally accepted that we could destroy the planet before burning all the fossil fuel. If we only have 50 years of fossil fuel left, haven't we already sealed the fate of the earth?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

A while back I asked if we would run out of fossil fuels before destroying the planet with CO2 emissions. Someone responded that it was universally accepted that we could destroy the planet before burning all the fossil fuel. If we only have 50 years of fossil fuel left, haven't we already sealed the fate of the earth?

Nobody said "destroying the planet".

There's the possibility that continuing without some efforts to rein in CO2 emissions will at a minimum make things more difficult for our descendants (ocean rise, less food, desertification, etc). If the planet's current ability to regulate temperature is lost, runaway climate heating could make things, um, even worse, to possibly catastrophic levels.

And yes this will also f__k s#!t up for the rest of the planet's inhabitants too... but many creatures, including humans, will still survive, albeit in smaller numbers, and left alone, will probably evolve to thrive in whatever the new normal is.

I hope that's reassuring.

[kmacdonald]

Thanks L-E. I hope others take heed and make the necessary changes to prevent any unpleasant conditions. After all, I'd hate to be stuck in some pueblo on a palm lined beach without air conditioning.

[SailOar]

Ocean Heat Waves Are Threatening Marine Life

When deadly heat waves hit on land, we hear about them. But the oceans can have heat waves, too. They are now happening far more frequently than they did last century and are harming marine life, according to a new study.

The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, looked at the impact of marine heat waves on the diversity of life in the ocean. From coral reefs to kelp forests to sea grass beds, researchers found that these heat waves were destroying the framework of many ocean ecosystems.......

An earlier study by some of the same researchers found that, from 1925 to 2016, marine heat waves became, on average, 34 percent more frequent and 17 percent longer. Over all, there were 54 percent more days per year with marine heat waves globally.........

[kmacdonald]

The southern New England lobsters have moved north.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Ocean Heat Waves Are Threatening Marine Life

Paywalled, as was another article from the WaPost you linked to awhile back. Ditto for one even further back from the WaP cited by JimB, btw.

As is so often the case, the part you quoted sounds consistent with a long term warming trend, whether from natural or man-made causes. Anything in the article that credibly establishes a causal link more specifically to fossil fuel emissions?

Maybe we can move on from "it's warming, therefore," to "it's warming and here's evidence why it's not just natural forces." Not that this effort hasn't already been made, just that I keep reading talk of warming which seems to stop short of a complete analysis. Again, most of the scientist skeptics who so many of us apparently love to hate agree that gradual warming has been occurring, and that AGW is real. "Assuming" these two factors are "true," for the sake of the discussion, might be a more productive way of moving the discussion forward.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's a simpler explanation for why the preponderance of evidence continues to support AGW; it's because that's what's happening. Occam's razor...
The public (including you) are hearing distorted and conflicting information because powerful industries have a vested interest in keeping the confusion alive. And of course, the partisanship of the right in following their leaders' strategic rejection of all green initiatives, AGW being just the flagship and most prominent target.

Not outside the realm of possibilities. It'd be more convincing, however, if someone could explain how some of the temp data is cherry picked while others is not, and why the late 18th century had similar if not warmer temps than we have now.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The southern New England lobsters have moved north.

give this a read

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-didnt-happen

And before they scream faked

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by oldjags

Ah, bitter sarcasm! That's what I was looking for, thanks!.

Often times sarcasm can be useful and even humorous, but combined with the nonstop bitterness all it does is increase the chances of getting threads closed down. L-E just demonstrated his aptitude for that once again with the Intellectual Humility thread. I guess when you can't muster the skills & temperament for rational & productive debate it's just easier to suppress & silence. Pretty pathetic really.

Your last couple of posts, btw, revealed much clarity about human nature and how even well-intentioned policies damage the poor. Hard for some hardcore partisans to admit, let alone want to address, when personal tribal allegiance takes precedence over sincere altruism.

Now let's see how many 's, personal slurs, name-calling, stereotyping, etc. we get in response to this one!

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Paywalled, as was another article from the WaPost you linked to awhile back. Ditto for one even further back from the WaP cited by JimB, btw.

You can read these articles of you clear your browser cache, or if you use a different browser that you haven't used to go to those particular websites in over a month.

As is so often the case, the part you quoted sounds consistent with a long term warming trend, whether from natural or man-made causes. Anything in the article that credibly establishes a causal link more specifically to fossil fuel emissions?

Of course not!!! That connection has already been scientifically established decades ago. Most of the scientific community has moved on to filling in the gaps in our knowledge, not trying to convince the deniers that 1 + 1 = 2.

Maybe we can move on from "it's warming, therefore," to "it's warming and here's evidence why it's not just natural forces." Not that this effort hasn't already been made, just that I keep reading talk of warming which seems to stop short of a complete analysis. Again, most of the scientist skeptics who so many of us apparently love to hate agree that gradual warming has been occurring, and that AGW is real. "Assuming" these two factors are "true," for the sake of the discussion, might be a more productive way of moving the discussion forward.

Love to hear your suggestions on how to move the discussion forward. It's hugely discouraging when 60M people vote for a chronic liar and denier for president.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You can read these articles of you clear your browser cache, or if you use a different browser that you haven't used to go to those particular websites in over a month.


Of course not!!! That connection has already been scientifically established decades ago. Most of the scientific community has moved on to filling in the gaps in our knowledge, not trying to convince the deniers that 1 + 1 = 2.


Love to hear your suggestions on how to move the discussion forward. It's hugely discouraging when 60M people vote for a chronic liar and denier for president.

and yet 45 years ago most climate scientists were predicting a mini ice age in 50 to 60 years . We shall see what happens . I'm betting they were right then and wrong now.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You can read these articles of you clear your browser cache, or if you use a different browser that you haven't used to go to those particular websites in over a month.


Of course not!!! That connection has already been scientifically established decades ago. Most of the scientific community has moved on to filling in the gaps in our knowledge, not trying to convince the deniers that 1 + 1 = 2.


Love to hear your suggestions on how to move the discussion forward. It's hugely discouraging when 60M people vote for a chronic liar and denier for president.

Thanks for the tip on viewing paywalled articles.

Your response suggests you don't understand the evidence distinguishing natural vs. man-made contributions to warming either. We just heard that nobody even within the climate science community would say the science is "settled," but maybe they don't read the same articles you do.

As for moving these discussions forward, I'm not sure I have much insight to offer. It was merely a suggestion. But insight is hardly required to recognize that your last comment is NOT very effective. Good luck with all your work spreading your particular views on scientific political "truth" around the internet. I don't know about the urgency of CC, but clearly the next presidential election is not that far off. Better get busy - I think there are some folks over on the trawler forum that may not understand who they're supposed to vote for.