Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So prior to the industrial revolution, warming was caused by processes that ceased as soon as man figured out how to make gasoline.

Moronic.

Is your ignorance feigned or genuine?

Edwin Drake dug the first oil well in Pennsylvania in 1859 and distilled the oil to produce kerosene for lighting. Although other petroleum products, including gasoline, were also produced in the distillation process, Drake had no use for the gasoline and other products, so he discarded them. It wasn't until 1892 with the invention of the automobile that gasoline was recognized as a valuable fuel.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...soline_history

Natural cycles did not cease to exist; they were gradually overwhelmed by human activities.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Natural cycles did not cease to exist; they were gradually overwhelmed by human activities.

Then "Where's the beef?" 'Cause "You ain't seen nothing yet."

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You have zero concept of what is going to be done to mitigate AGW. Much less the ability to know the price tag. And a complete ignorance of the costs of the negative outcomes.

More ignorance. Bloomberg News calculates the cost to the U.S. of the Paris Accords at $12 trillions over the next 25 years. Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years - Bloomberg. Add that rate of spending over then subsequent 50 years and you have 30+ trillions spent to reduce temperatures by 1/5th of a degree, if the IPCC model "MAGICC" is to be trusted, which I assume you do. Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release) | Bjorn Lomborg

The fact that you know nothing about this subject doesn't change reality. It just demonstrates that you are clueless.

Regarding the alleged negative impacts of increasing temperatures, so far all the negative impacts have proven to be either non existent, or positive. There has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical storms. Islands in the Pacific are increasing in land area, not decreasing. The Sahel is greening not becoming more of a desert. Sea levels aren't rising. In fact, the only impact of increased warming is longer crop seasons and reduced poverty - a beneficial outcome you seem intent on fighting.

If you wish to be taken seriously, seriously address the failure of the current AGW meme to describe reality and take ownership of the consequences of the policies you support - which are the further impoverishment of the least among us.

Want me to back up that your lunatic belief system is killing people? Well that is easy.

Winter deaths soar as elderly suffer in cold weather - Telegraph

Energy bills rise by 37% in three years | Money | The Guardian

Pull quote: "The uncomfortable truth is that, as a country, we not very good at coping with winter and some of these deaths are preventable. This isn’t just a story about cold weather; it’s a story of cold, damp and poorly insulated homes and pensioners who can’t afford to pay heating bills."

That's your legacy LE. Killing old people. Nice job, and perhaps you can begin to understand why some people have nothing but contempt for warmists and their pathetic attempts at posing as serious people, when the consequences of their posturing is human suffering.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Is your ignorance feigned or genuine?



https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...soline_history

Natural cycles did not cease to exist; they were gradually overwhelmed by human activities.

Overwhelmed to produce less warming than natural forces caused during the Middle Ages, during Leif Erickson's day or during Roman Times?

Is your cluelessness on this subject feigned or a case of narcissism associated with a personality disorder?

[robert sailor]

Name calling in a debate usually suggests that you are loosing

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I do that plus I tend to look further out into the pacific for the later part of the time frame. On passageweather
There appears to be a good high moving our way from around Hawaii that will begin to build here for us around mid day on the tenth and should hold for two to three days after that. Just hope I'm correct . Time will tell should be more apparent by weeks end

Have you had a chance to listen to any presentation by Lee Chesneau.

Lee Chesneau's Marine Weather

Well worth it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Have you had a chance to listen to any presentation by Lee Chesneau.

Lee Chesneau's Marine Weather

Well worth it.

No I haven't made the time yet but I should
I learned how to misread all the charts and gribs from several shipmates in my navy days.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Actually, your posted graphs confirm that there is something very fishy going on as there is no way those temperature series values correspond to the logarithmic (or is that exponential?) relationship of atmospheric CO2 accumulation over the same period...

This temperature graph was posted as a response to Delfin's assertion that temperatures are flattening.

A pure logarithmic curve between CO2 concentrations and temperatures would occur if CO2 were the only factor. However, there are many other factors as well, such as El Nino events, aerosols from volcanic eruptions, changes in albedo of clouds, ice, or sea, methane released from melting clathrates and permafrost, etc.

So who are you going to believe: Delfin or your lying eyes?

[SailOar]

Global warming risks trillions: Study | CNBC.com

A new study has found that an average of $2.5 trillion of global financial assets could be "at risk" from the effects of climate change.

The paper – from researchers at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science and Vivid Economics – looked at the financial impact of the planet's mean surface temperature increasing by 2.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday.

Its authors also found that because of the "uncertainties" inherent in estimating "climate Value at Risk", there was a one percent chance that warming of 2.5°C could put 16.9 percent of global assets – $24 trillion – at risk.

"Our results may surprise investors, but they will not surprise many economists working on climate change because economic models have over the past few years been generating increasingly pessimistic estimates of the impacts of global warming on future economic growth," Simon Dietz, the paper's lead author, said in a news release. [...]

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Global warming risks trillions: Study | CNBC.com

$2.5 trillion at risk, cost of mitigation to produce no effect $12.5 trillion over the next 25 years.

Yep, this pretty much sums up the argument in favor of AGW.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

More ignorance. Bloomberg News calculates the cost to the U.S. of the Paris Accords at $12 trillions over the next 25 years. Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years - Bloomberg.

You're right, it was simple ignorance on your part, again. First, the article title is misleading - it says "costs", but in the article they're "investments". Investments are often paid back, even yield profits. And one way or another, alternative energy strategies are the growth industries of the future. Billionaires are already investing to get positioned for this.

Second - The Paris accord is non-binding; what actually gets spent will depend on who's in power where, and how noisy you and your friends are.

Third - something like successful fusion or a more cost-effective fission reactor will be a game changer and last year's Paris accord numbers will be irrelevant.

So at this point spending is even harder to predict than climate change, if that will put it into perspective for you. You don't know how much will be spent, or what direct and indirect benefits will accrue from that spending.

Want me to back up that your lunatic belief system is killing people? Well that is easy.

Winter deaths soar as elderly suffer in cold weather - Telegraph

Energy bills rise by 37% in three years | Money | The Guardian

Pull quote: "The uncomfortable truth is that, as a country, we not very good at coping with winter and some of these deaths are preventable. This isn’t just a story about cold weather; it’s a story of cold, damp and poorly insulated homes and pensioners who can’t afford to pay heating bills."

That's your legacy LE. Killing old people. Nice job, and perhaps you can begin to understand why some people have nothing but contempt for warmists and their pathetic attempts at posing as serious people, when the consequences of their posturing is human suffering.

You're truly beyond help.

Rejection of responsibility towards the poor and ill, failure of social safety nets - are why poor people die, especially in a 'civilized' western country like the UK or the US.

Blaming poverty-related deaths on AGW strategies?? You're showing a complete absence of conscience, not to mention reason. You're truly without morals. You'll say anything as a denier, won't you?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Environmentalists have caused the Death of thousands of people...that is just a hard fact that the left doesn't want to have to see, admit, or deal with. After all, they say you have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelette and the greater collective good goes against the individual selfish good. The Population Bomb wanted to get rid of the Poor...so does the MMGW Cultists. It is their stated policy and then when you call them out on it...they cry and call you names...oh the irony of it all.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Environmentalists have caused the Death of thousands of people...that is just a hard fact that the left doesn't want to have to see, admit, or deal with. After all, they say you have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelette and the greater collective good goes against the individual selfish good. The Population Bomb wanted to get rid of the Poor...so does the MMGW Cultists. It is their stated policy and then when you call them out on it...they cry and call you names...oh the irony of it all.

Another inconvenient truth therefore ignored.by their side.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Another inconvenient truth therefore ignored.by their side.

Horseshit.

Just waiting for you to link science -> eugenics -> Nazi deathcamps, and then you will have truly touched bottom.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Horseshit.

Just waiting for you to link science -> eugenics -> Nazi deathcamps, and then you will have truly touched bottom.

Easy there LE...you appearing to be getting a little testy...so rather than reply in kind, lets just stick to the fact here, shall we.

1. The Environmentalists demanded smaller cars...we got them...and thousands of Americans die each year because of them. But those deaths are an acceptable sacrifice to Gia.

2. DDT Ban...oh this is a good one. The Environmentalists pushed for a DDT Ban and as a results hundreds of thousands of poor minority kids around the world have died. But as a bonus, it helped thin the "undesirables" in the words of the cultists.

I could compile a long list, but I have to go patch a damn leak in my dinghy now...but I'm sure I can find a way to either blame that leak on MMGW or HezboEnvironmentalsits.