Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Exile

I covered all of this before. You rejected it.

Time for a second order agreement and time to move on.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Nope. I haven't rejected any of the actual science on either side, nor anything in between. Not qualified to do so, but can try and utilize reason & logic, and let the science develop. And in the meantime respond to reasonable proposals for mitigation that comport therewith. The only thing I reject is absolutism & fanaticism, as it's illogical and not credible.

[TurninTurtle]

Logic says that if the MMGW/CC people believed their propaganda... they'd quit using plastics and gasoline and jet fuel.

But the loudest advocates of MMGW/CC are some of the biggest wasters of fossil fuels.

Hard for me to believe them when they don't practice what they are telling everyone else to do.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

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

OK, so you can't answer the question. Anyone else want to try?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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.

Ok, second one who can't answer the question. Anyone else?

[StuM]

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.

OK, third one can't answer the question. Anyone else.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, third one can't answer the question. Anyone else.

I asked Jack about it, but he said it was time to move on. Since increasing levels of CO2 that don't correlate with warming seems to be a core issue, I can sympathize with him and others not wanting to answer. Might be like the deafening silence which followed the discussion about the sat data.

[SailOar]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

Logic says that if the MMGW/CC people believed their propaganda... they'd quit using plastics and gasoline and jet fuel.

But the loudest advocates of MMGW/CC are some of the biggest wasters of fossil fuels.

Hard for me to believe them when they don't practice what they are telling everyone else to do.

You mean like this guy?

Leonardo DiCaprio: World's Biggest, Most Desperate Virtue-Signaler | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

It almost sounds like the article is talking about several of our very own "virtue-signalers" expressing their "moral outrage" but doing nothing more:

"One of the benefits of virtue signaling, though, is this grand loophole: Those out to convince others of their virtue don’t actually have to do anything. They just have to make a show of caring. Or in hating the right things, such as fossil fuels and Fox News."

[SV THIRD DAY]

Can you buy Credits to Destroy the Earth?

That tells you all you need to know about the $ Scam...it's time to turn over the money changers in the Temple of the MMGW Cult.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK, third one can't answer the question. Anyone else.

Ha ha ha...

When did you stop beating your Wife StuM?

Ah...gottaCha....since you didn't answer you are guilty.

Nice try....not back to the MMGW Reeducation center with you.

[sailorchic34]

Carbon credits is sort of like power boaters paying sailboaters money to sail to offset the power boaters carbon output. Seems legit to me...


Hum..... On second though, this might be a way to supplement the cruising kitty. Any 100+ foot power boaters want to buy carbon credits from me. Boy there might be something to this AGW.

After a bazillion posts on AGW, maybe ya'll just need to outside and sail more.

EDIT: So far people talking and reading this thread have contributed over 33 pounds of co2 to the atmosphere based on my simple calculations. Well minus the part of us with solar power.

[Delfin]

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.

Pretty hilarious. So, the ideal amount of CO2 would be that range of enrichment that existed during the four glacial periods during the last 400,000 years when it was 8 degrees C colder than today, as well as four warming periods when it was 2 - 3 degrees C warmer than today?

Like I said, very funny.

[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?

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 2008: Target atmospheric CO₂: Where should humanity aim?

Happy?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Carbon credits is sort of like power boaters paying sailboaters money to sail to offset the power boaters carbon output. Seems legit to me...


Hum..... On second though, this might be a way to supplement the cruising kitty. Any 100+ foot power boaters want to buy carbon credits from me. Boy there might be something to this AGW.

After a bazillion posts on AGW, maybe ya'll just need to outside and sail more.

EDIT: So far people talking and reading this thread have contributed over 33 pounds of co2 to the atmosphere based on my simple calculations. Well minus the part of us with solar power.

And that is why I am opposed to cap and trade and the resultant carbon trading.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean like this guy?

Leonardo DiCaprio: World's Biggest, Most Desperate Virtue-Signaler | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

It almost sounds like the article is talking about several of our very own "virtue-signalers" expressing their "moral outrage" but doing nothing more:

"One of the benefits of virtue signaling, though, is this grand loophole: Those out to convince others of their virtue don’t actually have to do anything. They just have to make a show of caring. Or in hating the right things, such as fossil fuels and Fox News."

No - not this guy.

What gives with the American predilection for celebrity. Who gives a crap?

Try some science that you claim to do not dispute.