Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In and of itself. There's no online confirmation or transcript of the original Calgary Herald conversation that contains this quote; in fact this quote comes secondhand from a Fin Post opinion piece which claims it was part of that conversation.

Given the way it's been distorted and disseminated, I guess that a little thing like verification hasn't concerned anyone.

If people will do that with quotes, imagine what they'd do with data...

Again, if Christine Stewart's comments were a one-off remark, outside the typical discourse of those supporting the AGW myth, the you would be perfectly correct in dismissing it. But her remarks were not an isolated perspective, but one that has been reiterated by many leftist politicians in many different contexts. Only idiots, to reference back to the unfortunate Jack Dale's ad hominem, would deny the reality of "Climate Justice" where groups as diverse as the NAACP argue that climate change justifies wealth distribution to their particular constituency. Honestly, the ideological fanaticism demonstrated by true believers like JD simply make the entire debate over human impacts on climate a joke, where those who genuinely are concerned about climate impacts are made to look like complete fools through association with his particular type of clueless intellectual narcissism.

More productive would be a serious conversation about what can actually be done to mitigate those impacts, at what cost, and with what effect. IMO, only then can warmists stop looking like politically motivated loons and make an actual contribution to human welfare.

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by Delfin

More productive would be a serious conversation about what can actually be done to mitigate those impacts, at what cost, and with what effect. IMO, only then can warmists stop looking like politically motivated loons and make an actual contribution to human welfare.

That is not what the MMGW advocates want....

They want YOU to change YOUR lifestyle... while they continue to do exactly what they are saying you should not do.

Al Gore uses more fossil fuel per year than some small towns... COMBINED.

Every protester in a kayak trying to interfere with an oil tanker... is in a PLASTIC kayak.... made from petroleum products.

They EACH waste hundreds of gallons of gasoline (or thousands of pounds of jet fuel) to attend a protest in Washington DC...

They complain about fracking while the metals to make the batteries in their hybrid cars requires STRIP MINING.

To avoid using fur they wear synthetics (made from petroleum products....)

To "save the animals" they send them to PETA and ASPCA shelters, which have an average of over 90% kill ratio.

[undercutter]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That could also scaled to work on a boat.

I like this, maybe we could buy up the rights in Canada!!! Damn, probably to late as all the subsidies in Ontario are over.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by avb3

Interesting article about a bladeless wind energy system inspired by sailing, invented by a young engineer in Tunisia.

Wind energy converter inspired by ancient boats | Reuters

Been around for a few years and discussed here previously. And it looks like it's still vaporware.

See
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ight=Saphonian

And for an analysis of their numbers:
https://sketchypowerdevices.wordpres...bogus-numbers/

[SailOar]

World Bank goes big on fighting climate change | CNBC

The World Bank has announced plans to fight climate change through a new Climate Change Action Plan that it hopes will see investment in environmental projects reach $29 billion a year by 2020.

In a statement on Thursday, the Bank said that, in the next five years, it planned to help countries in the developing world add 30 gigawatts of renewable energy to global energy capacity; provide "early warning systems" to 100 million people; and develop "climate-smart agriculture investment plans for at least 40 countries."

The news comes in the wake of the historic COP21 agreement reached in Paris at the end of 2015. There, 195 countries agreed to make sure global warming stayed "well below" 2 degrees Celsius and to "pursue efforts" to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. [...]

[transmitterdan]

One other thing really bothers me about the climate goals. The linkage between CO2 and global temperature rise is certain according to the consensus of science. However, the goals of the climate accords are not to reduce CO2 and other GHG in the atmosphere to specific concentrations. Instead they say they will limit temperature rise to 1.5 or 2C. But the level of atmospheric CO2 and other gasses are easily measured and so seem like a much more logical target. Plus these gasses are present before we see the effect on temperature. Why is it that the goals are set so the results can't be measured until long after the remedial actions have been taken? Especially when there are indisputable measurements that would provide feedback in near real time.

[GordMay]

How many “warmists” does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They can’t change anything.

How many “deniers” does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They won’t change anything.

[Simonsays]

damn, Gordon, don't make it to obvious that this thread is just another joke thread.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

One other thing really bothers me about the climate goals. The linkage between CO2 and global temperature rise is certain according to the consensus of science. However, the goals of the climate accords are not to reduce CO2 and other GHG in the atmosphere to specific concentrations. Instead they say they will limit temperature rise to 1.5 or 2C. But the level of atmospheric CO2 and other gasses are easily measured and so seem like a much more logical target. Plus these gasses are present before we see the effect on temperature. Why is it that the goals are set so the results can't be measured until long after the remedial actions have been taken? Especially when there are indisputable measurements that would provide feedback in near real time.

Can any of the warmists tell us exactly what maximum concentration of CO2 we need to in order to stay within 1.5 and 2°C above pre-industrial temperature?

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

Can any of the warmists tell us exactly what maximum concentration of CO2 we need to in order to stay within 1.5 and 2°C above pre-industrial temperature?

What Most People Don't Understand About Climate Change | The Atlantic

[...] Yet actually achieving 1.5 degrees [maximum temperature change from pre-industrial times] will be extraordinarily difficult. Speaking to The Atlantic Monday morning from Paris, President Obama’s top science advisor said that it will be an near impossible target to meet.

“The basic answer is the lower the better, but it will be a big challenge to stay under two [degrees]. And 1.5, I would say most technical experts would dispute that 1.5 is attainable,” said John Holdren, the assistant to the president for science and technology. Holdren, a plasma physicist and aerospace engineer by training, also directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.[...]

A May study in Nature Climate Change agreed that carbon emissions would have to go negative sometime this century to stay below 1.5 degrees of warming by 2100. Global carbon emissions would have to peak in the next few years, then decline rapidly, and the world would have to essentially stop emitting greenhouse gases between 2045 and 2060.

That may seem like a long time, but it will also take a very long time to replace coal and natural-gas power plants with solar, wind, and other carbon-neutral options. (Bill Gates has also emphasized this point in this magazine.)

The “global energy system represents something over $20 trillion in capital investment, which ordinarily would turn over on a timescale of 30 or 40 years. There is no way to rebuild the energy system overnight—it’s too big, too costly to do that,” Holdren told me.

“I think the aspect of climate change that probably most people don’t understand and need to is the long time scales involved,” said Holdren. “That is, it takes the climate a long time to adjust completely to what we add to the atmosphere. And as a result of that, we are not even today experiencing the full consequences of what we’ve already added to the atmosphere. If we stopped adding greenhouse gases today, the global temperature would continue to coast upward to close to 1.5 degrees until it stopped.”[...]

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by SailOar

What Most People Don't Understand About Climate Change | The Atlantic

So I'm interpreting your post as a "no" vote.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Again, if Christine Stewart's comments were a one-off remark, outside the typical discourse of those supporting the AGW myth, the you would be perfectly correct in dismissing it. But her remarks were not an isolated perspective, but one that has been reiterated by many leftist politicians in many different contexts. Only idiots, to reference back to the unfortunate Jack Dale's ad hominem, would deny the reality of "Climate Justice" where groups as diverse as the NAACP argue that climate change justifies wealth distribution to their particular constituency.

Yes, we all know that CC is just a front and a vehicle for bringing on a soshulist utopia. So even if she didn't actually say that, we JUST KNOW that she was thinking it... so it's ok.

More productive would be a serious conversation about what can actually be done to mitigate those impacts, at what cost, and with what effect.

Um, no ****. But it's not the pro-AGW side jamming up the works with multi-pronged attacks on the science, the climate scientists, and anyone who agrees with them.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Can any of the warmists [] tell us exactly what maximum concentration of CO2 we need to in order to stay within 1.5 and 2°C above pre-industrial temperature?

I'm certain someone could. Would it actually tell you anything useful? I imagine that if they'd stated that instead of the temperature goal, you'd be up and down them for posting some inscrutable and meaningless target.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Can any of the warmists tell us exactly what maximum concentration of CO2 we need to in order to stay within 1.5 and 2°C above pre-industrial temperature?

The ideal CO2 levels are probably within the 180 - 300 ppm that existed for the past 800,000 years prior to the industrial revolution.

That, of course, is impossible.

If we use the geological record as a precedent, we are past the the optimal level

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.
- Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
- Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).

Other anthropogenic and natural factors are also involved.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The ideal CO2 levels are probably within the 180 - 300 ppm that existed for the past 800,000 years prior to the industrial revolution.

That, of course, is impossible.

If we use the geological record as a precedent, we are past the the optimal level

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.
- Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
- Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).

Other anthropogenic and natural factors are also involved.

How about we use a potentially more instructive geological record as a precedent, namely the Medieval Warming Period? If temps were significantly higher back then than they are now, but the (pre-industrial) CO2 levels were presumably lower, then what does that say about the relationship btwn. CO2 and warming?

I know, too easy. I'm probably missing something . . . basic . . . .