Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Does anyone else see the Irony of a person calling someone else names and mean-spirited while going after that person...funny.

That is why I love this thread...it is a total physiology experiment to watch how people deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with their point of view. Some handle it well...other get nasty and call names, make charges of bigotry, Climate racism and send nasty emails through PMs threatening to post bad reviews of my products online (YES...I have actually had a PM like that one from one of the enlightened better than us MMGW Cultists)

To me...this is the funniest thing in the world watching people benefiting from the Man Made CO2, saying it is evil, but STILL benefiting from it. None of the folks here have cut themselves off from the power grid, stopped buying fuel oil for home heating, or traded in their petrol cars for electric. Forget about White Privileged...how about CO2 Privileged!

What is also interesting is who gets mad and nasty in this thread?
Is is the MMGW Denier Neanderthal that have the audacity to question the party line on MMGW or the MMGW Cultists who are intolerant to opposing views?

[Kenomac]

Ok.... Let's get this thread back on track and go back to post #1

How will man adapt to global warming or cooling in order to survive the rising ocean levels as we are slowly submerged at the alarming rate of 8 inches per century?

A local coastal town here in Massachusetts is looking at spending millions now to study the problem.... even though the water hasn't yet risen so much as an inch.

What should be done?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Ok.... Let's get this thread back on track and go back to post #1

It might just be spring (or boat launch), but lately I've been feeling a little more optimistic. So I might be closer to you in thinking that the problem will get handled, somehow. Of course the difference between us will remain; you are saying "chill out, it will get done" (paraphrasing post #1), and I insist that we must actually do it.

Here's one thing I will predict with 100% certainty. If, 20 years' hence, most of humanity has altered resource consumption and/or moved onto less polluting energy sources, Exile will proudly say to his grandkids that it's yet another victory of the free market.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Ok.... Let's get this thread back on track and go back to post #1

How will man adapt to global warming or cooling in order to survive the rising ocean levels as we are slowly submerged at the alarming rate of 8 inches per century?

A local coastal town here in Massachusetts is looking at spending millions now to study the problem.... even though the water hasn't yet risen so much as an inch.

What should be done?

Probably nothing. According to the gold standard organization who measures sea levels - The "Permanent Service For Mean Sea Level", they have altered the way in which they interpret sea level data, resulting in what they say is a dataset that doesn't relate to much of anything. In their words: "Please note that we changed the method of calculating relative sea level trends in 2015. The trends displayed here are not directly comparable with any calculated before that date. For a description of how the trends are now calculated, please see the methods page" Relative Sea Level Trends

Just taking the raw data from tidal stations over the last 70 years, the average sea level rise during a time when atmospheric CO2 has significantly increased is .08 mm per year. Over a century, that is enough to get the bottom of your feet wet. I suppose we could spend $ to avoid this catastrophe by building a dike 1/3 of an inch high around sensitive areas. Or not.

A summary of the data as well as links to the base data can be found here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...build-the-ark/

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Probably nothing. According to the gold standard organization who measures sea levels - The "Permanent Service For Mean Sea Level", they have altered the way in which they interpret sea level data, resulting in what they say is a dataset that doesn't relate to much of anything. In their words: "Please note that we changed the method of calculating relative sea level trends in 2015. The trends displayed here are not directly comparable with any calculated before that date. For a description of how the trends are now calculated, please see the methods page" Relative Sea Level Trends

Just taking the raw data from tidal stations over the last 70 years, the average sea level rise during a time when atmospheric CO2 has significantly increased is .08 mm per year. Over a century, that is enough to get the bottom of your feet wet. I suppose we could spend $ to avoid this catastrophe by building a dike 1/3 of an inch high around sensitive areas. Or not.

A summary of the data as well as links to the base data can be found here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...build-the-ark/

It's interesting how WattsUpWithThat consistently comes up with different interpretations compared to what the researchers themselves come up with.

From the website of the "Permanent Service For Mean Sea Level" we read:

Products

PSMSL data have many applications within

• oceanography
• climate change studies
• geology
• geodesy
• surveying

The most familiar application is global and regional sea level rise and variability. The PSMSL data set is the main source of information on long term changes in global sea level during the last two centuries. The data have been employed intensively in studies such as those of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The latest IPCC report, published in 2013, finds that "It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010, 2.0 [1.7 to 2.3] mm/yr between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period" (IPCC Working Group I).

This section provides only a brief overview of PSMSL data coverage and applications. For more detailed information, consult a textbook such as one of those listed in the Training and Information web page.

[SailOar]

To help curb climate change, stop wasting food | Reuters

Reducing food waste around the world would help curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.

Up to 14 percent of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

"Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20 percent of overall global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010," said co-author Prajal Pradhan.

"Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and help mitigate climate change."

climate food science page

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

To help curb climate change, stop wasting food | Reuters


climate food science page

Is that a fancy way of saying eat your vegetables?
Sounds like an ad for feed the children

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It's interesting how WattsUpWithThat consistently comes up with different interpretations compared to what the researchers themselves come up with.

From the website of the "Permanent Service For Mean Sea Level" we read:

Not sure that WUWT is doing any interpretation. Averaging a set of observations made over 70 years in over 150 locations by countless individuals is a math function, not an analytic one. Based on all these physical measurements sea level isn't rising much.

The author of the WUWT piece merely noted that the PSMSL has adopted a method of calculation of sea level rise that now agrees with the IPCC but doesn't relate to any of the physical measurements made over decades.

Which you elect to believe depends on which source you trust I suppose. Actual data measurements spread out across the globe or the method being used by the PSMSL that produces a completely different result.

Since I have a hard time coming up with the reason all those people over all those years would fudge their measurements in a coordinated fashion to produce the data they did I have to go with the actual data, even if it disagrees with the IPCC. Worth noting this wouldn't be the first time the data has disagreed with a conclusion of the IPCC...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SailOar

To help curb climate change, stop wasting food | Reuters

climate food science page

A nice side benefit is that the same amount of food will feed more people.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Is that a fancy way of saying eat your vegetables?

Perhaps that and personal methane reclamation systems that capture the additional flatulence that comes from eating many veggies. I tried one of these on my grand daughter, but since if weighs 50 pounds she had trouble standing up, never mind adding her book bag when she went to school so it proved impractical. Perhaps the technology is still a couple of years off.



Maybe a practical improvement to this novel system would be the addition of an inflatable balloon clearly labeled "Stand Back! Inflammable Gas!!!" that as it fills would provide lift to lower the overall weight of the unit. Of course, you might have particularly gassy small children floating off on you, but that might be a price worth paying to save the planet.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Is that a fancy way of saying eat your vegetables?
Sounds like an ad for feed the children

No, it's just a graphic off the cover page of a website. Means nothing.

The "solutions" link on the web page reads like the result of a sixth grade science class assignment. No practical solutions are offered, just pie in the sky, and of course, this paragraph...

​Another remedy for both emissions and food availability is changing from meat based to plant based diet. Sadly the western unhealthy meat heavy diet is taking hold of the new industrialized nations, as a sign of affluence. Modern industrial food production is a large source of all the three main GHGs. CO2 is emitted from deforestation for farm land particularly new pasture for cattle as well transportation. The big source of nitrous oxide is chemical nitrogen fertilizer. Another source is livestock. The big source of methane is livestock. The single most effective and readily available fast acting part of the solution is changing to the healthy plant diet. This we have known for a long time, is the healthiest diet for people and our planet.

...which laments the "meat based" diet and suggests a "plant based" diet, and suggests that this undefined "plant based diet" is the healthiest diet.

Codswallop...

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

...other[s] get nasty and call names, make charges of bigotry, Climate racism and send nasty emails through PMs threatening to post bad reviews of my products online (YES...I have actually had a PM like that one from one of the enlightened better than us MMGW Cultists)...

Not surprising, is it? Typical...

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It might just be spring (or boat launch), but lately I've been feeling a little more optimistic. So I might be closer to you in thinking that the problem will get handled, somehow. Of course the difference between us will remain; you are saying "chill out, it will get done" (paraphrasing post #1), and I insist that we must actually do it.

Here's one thing I will predict with 100% certainty. If, 20 years' hence, most of humanity has altered resource consumption and/or moved onto less polluting energy sources, Exile will proudly say to his grandkids that it's yet another victory of the free market.

While everyone should be in favor of pollution reduction and better use of resources (I am), if the paper published by Bjorn Lomborg in this peer reviewed journal is correct (Impact of Current Climate Proposals - Lomborg - 2015 - Global Policy - Wiley Online Library), even assuming that all nations do everything they say they will do in the Paris Accords, the impact on a reduction in warming by 2100 will be somewhere between 1/20th and 1/5th of a degree.

His methodology seems pretty sound. Using the figures from the UN Climate Chief, follow through on Paris commitments will reduce carbon emissions by 33 gigatonnes. That is 1% of what the same UN Climate Chief says is needed. Feeding that reduction into the IPCC 'Magicc' model gives the result of a lowering of possible warming by around 1/5th of a degree by 2100. Since this reduction is going to cost trillions and is essentially the same as no effect at all, one has to wonder what people are thinking. Criticisms of Lomborg's model have been based on the hope of politicians of the future doing more to reduce carbon emissions, which seems like wishful thinking to me. China is building vast numbers of new coal burning plants in order to sell the energy to western Europe (https://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-645605.html), whose attempts to replace fossil fuels with green energy have all failed, or at least increased the cost of energy to the point where building transmission lines from China makes economic sense.

Lomborg discusses his results here: Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

I guess you could argue that commitments of carbon reduction 100 times greater by nations are what is needed. Unfortunately, that probably means a reduction in world population by a few billions and that may be a hard sell politically. Genocide usually is. Perhaps the best course would be to avoid spending trillions accomplishing nothing, and instead spend billions developing non polluting and safe sources of energy like small pebble bed reactors. Oddly, the same people who seem most convinced that carbon is bad for us are the ones most opposed to practical sources of alternative energy that don't stop producing when the wind blows or the sun goes down.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

While everyone should be in favor of pollution reduction and better use of resources (I am), if the paper published by Bjorn Lomborg in this peer reviewed journal is correct (Impact of Current Climate Proposals - Lomborg - 2015 - Global Policy - Wiley Online Library), even assuming that all nations do everything they say they will do in the Paris Accords, the impact on a reduction in warming by 2100 will be somewhere between 1/20th and 1/5th of a degree.

Worthy of consideration of course, but he's one guy. Let's hear from others too, maybe build a "consensus" around what the effects could be, shall we?

China is building vast numbers of new coal burning plants in order to sell the energy to western Europe (https://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-645605.html), whose attempts to replace fossil fuels with green energy have all failed, or at least increased the cost of energy to the point where building transmission lines from China makes economic sense.

I'm calling ******** on this. China has a vast internal requirement to meet, which means they won't have power to export for some time. Further, I don't see Europe getting so impoverished that they'd suddenly drop all their principles to buy Chinese energy from coal. And Russia needs to keep selling gas to Europe and we know there's a world glut on that.

That one coal-plant per week stat is a bit dated; now that China's exports aren't growing quite as fast, I don't think they will be sticking to that schedule. Also, China is now the world's biggest generator of hydro-electric power, and more are coming online.

BTW did you know that the coal plants China is building are cleaner-running than some US coal generation plants that are still permitted to operate? Glass houses and all that...

Unfortunately, that probably means a reduction in world population by a few billions and that may be a hard sell politically. Genocide usually is.

...and people call us alarmists...

Perhaps the best course would be to avoid spending trillions accomplishing nothing

(cough-alarmist!-cough)

There are other benefits to reducing reliance on fossil-fuels besides reducing AGW.

...and instead spend billions developing non polluting and safe sources of energy like small pebble bed reactors. Oddly, the same people who seem most convinced that carbon is bad for us are the ones most opposed to practical sources of alternative energy that don't stop producing when the wind blows or the sun goes down.

Italicized line is also BS, sorry. All feasible energy alternatives, including nuclear, are on the table.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Italicized line is also BS, sorry. All feasible energy alternatives, including nuclear, are on the table.

No, they are not. Europe has all but stopped nuclear power rollout and some (e.g. Germany) are being shut down.

The US has all but stopped supporting ITER although other less rich countries continue to support it. The lack of US support will delay that project by years and if it fails the proximate cause could be a lack of supporting talent and technology. The money wasted on Solyndra and other green boondoggles (look up the story on the huge solar plant in the Mojave desert) could accelerate ITER by perhaps a decade. This is especially maddening given that we have known for decades how the physics of a fusion system would work. We now need to solve some extremely complex engineering and materials problems. The US spent more on the space shuttle than fusion would require to perfect and probably take less time. Much more money and lives were wasted on the Middle East wars which the UN catalyzed through endless resolutions.

You may personally support nuclear but the vast majority of those fretting about GW don't want to discuss or spend resources on nuclear power (fission or fusion). I will believe UN members are truly worried about GW when they demand fusion power be a #1 or 2 priority. Instead they are all trying to find a way to "redistribute wealth" as a means of controlling GW. The idiocy boggles the mind.