Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Sadly, you appear to be reaching that inevitable, yet regrettable, time in life when new information enters one ear, bounces around for a few moments, then exits the other ear, leaving little effect. About a week ago you posted this graph (and shown below) showing that the added forcing effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic, and that there is very little change above 1000ppm.



Yet here you are trotting out another graph showing atmospheric levels of CO2 going as high as 7000ppm hundreds of millions of years ago, and sneering that it shows no correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Of course not! According to your own graph, one would expect very little change in effect above 1000ppm!

(Of course, having CO2 levels as high as 7000ppm would have a profound effect on other aspects of the Earth, for instance, the pH level of the oceans.)

A more useful chart would be this one, showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 400,000 years. During this time frame the CO2 levels have varied within a range where changes in CO2 concentration do make a substantial difference.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Afraid you've missed the point again, SO.

Yes, I did post the graph showing that the forcing effect of adding more CO2 to the levels we already have would be very minor. I did so to debunk your misunderstanding of what a logarithmic function was, how it applies to the climate question, and why an increase in CO2 with a 50% decrease in the warming trend over the last century is the opposite of what warmist loons keep saying should happen. Glad to see you have figured it out.

So, if we are agreed that 1,000 molecules of CO2 per million atmospheric gas molecules has pretty much the maximum impact on forcing, then the question is, what impact would 1,000 ppm of CO2 have? Would it extinguish life on the planet as warmists keep suggesting? Would it be like the great ice age from 800 to 600 million years ago when CO2 levels were 5000 ppm+, or would it be like the late Cretaceous when sea levels were 600 feet higher today and CO2 was 1,000 ppm? Beats me. All I know is that CO2 and global temperatures don't seem to correlate very well.

So, while we all appreciate your colorful graphs, cartoons and related regurgitations of ill understood clutter, here are a few facts we should be able to agree upon.

You are hot and bothered by 12 parts per million of CO2, which if mankind disappeared would be the sum total of what the total load of CO2 could be reduced by.

Over the next 85 years, the brilliant minds behind climate politics have agreed in Paris to reduce that 12 ppm by 1%. That would be a reduction in CO2 concentration by 1 molecule per 100,000,000.

According to the IPCC's Magicc model, this will have under the most optimistic scenario, an impact on temperatures of 1/5th of a degree.

The cost of getting that 1/5th of a degree reduction (which will disappear 30 months into the next century) will be some trillions of dollars - what you call "investments" and what others call taxes.

So when you wipe away the pretty graphs, smoke screens, ad hominem attacks, etc., this is pretty much what the AGW scam comes down to. A completely pointless yet marvelously expensive circle jerk by people who don't understand data very well, yet are always ready to pontificate on the subject.

And on another subject, weren't the one assuring us that coal plants in China we being phased out and the idea of China, India, etc. selling energy to keep the lights on in places like western Europe because they are pursuing very expensive and inefficient green energy was wrong? Ummm, not so much...

"According to figures from Platts Energy, China is planning 150GW of new coal plants by 2020, down from 270GW in the last five years. India, although it has declared ambitious plans for solar power, is increasing its share of coal by 125GW. Indonesia is planning to build twice as many new coal plants, or about 25GW." That's 300 GW of new coal based energy, which new productionexceeds the current annual production of the US by 30%. I guess that 1/5th of a degree of avoided warming isn't going to happen. What will we ever do? Probably just have to make do with a greener, more productive planet.

Plans for coal-fired power in Asia are 'disaster for planet' warns World Bank | Environment | The Guardian

[chala]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

back.

Never left.

Simply I have no appetite for uncivilized discussions, mostly from the ones who claim degrees and are unable to display the education that comes with these degrees.

[SV THIRD DAY]

How does that saying about wrestling with a pig go....?

[Exile]

Delfin -- many thanks to you & others for, once again, taking the time to present your understandable, articulate, and well-sourced views on the science. If the science you are relying on is really as off-base as your detractors allege, then we should be able to anticipate equally specific, well-reasoned, science-based arguments in reply.

Unfortunately, those replies have a well-established pattern of accusing those with contrary views of political & religious bias, of "internet trolling" and environmental callousness, and of outright ignorance. Either that or they raise more questions than they answer. Needless to say, not an effective way of winning friends and influencing people towards their position. But all too predictable at this point, especially when pressed on the actual science. And all that more surprising given the nonstop banter about the overwhelming scientific "consensus," the IPCC, and other officialdom supposedly supporting their side.

I suspect Jack may have simply moved on to an audience more malleable to his bullying approach, and SailOar & L-E are busy googling more cartoons and drama-laced videos. But let's see if they or someone else can actually keep the discussion focused on the science.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Exile

But let's see if they or someone else can actually keep the discussion focused on the science.

Or, why it doesn't really matter either way in 20 years or 100 years.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by chala

Never left.

Simply I have no appetite for uncivilized discussions, mostly from the ones who claim degrees and are unable to display the education that comes with these degrees.

Jump right in and get yourself dirtied up a bit.

I agree with you about some people who feel the need to advertise their degrees and put others down. I've known quite a few egghead types (you know, the middle aged men with dirty grey ponytails) who who enjoy thinking they possess intellectual superiority... but are actually unable to tie their own shoe laces or make some of the most basic decisions.

[newhaul]

Next thing I expect to hear is that the Alberta wildfire ( which is a very serious danger) are the cause of the IPCC climate model failure

[TurninTurtle]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Call me a skeptic, but that graph appears to show CO2 lagging temperature for the most part when temperatures decrease, and one could assume that this is also the case when temperature increases. Being the chart is an illustration of Milankovitch cycles, this would also suggest temperatures were driven by forces other than GHG'S.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You are not supposed to notice that some data suggests that temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Its racist to believe in evidence that might disagree with the MMGW religion.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by TurninTurtle

You are not supposed to notice that some data suggests that temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Its racist to believe in evidence that might disagree with the MMGW religion.

Since so much of the earth's budget of carbon is tied up in the oceans, it makes sense that when they warm, atmospheric CO2 increases from outgassing. And guess what - that is what the data shows. Further, the data shows that warming precedes atmospheric carbon enrichment, not the other way around as warmists keep insisting.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2

The planet has been on a long term warming cycle for 285 years and aren't we all glad about that! If those who think we're heading for another Maunder Minimum are correct, CO2 levels will soon start slowly going down. Then warmists will have to get on the Nauga extinction issue, which in my view is far more pressing a problem for humanity than man made global warming.

[SV THIRD DAY]

I need a safe space...I've been triggered by hate speech...ha ha ah

[newhaul]

Were the nauga any relative of the ever elusive pleather beast

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Were the nauga any relative of the ever elusive pleather beast

As far as I know, the Pleather is already extinct. There is still time to save the Nauga, however, and if we were just to divert a couple trillion from carbon sequestration schemes, we would only see an increase in temps by 2100 by 1/40th of a degree but could save a noble species from destruction. Just sayin'.

[newhaul]

I suspect we will see a cooling in the next two to three years due to the current wildfires. Look at the great fire of 1910 and global temperatures for the next couple years after.

[transmitterdan]

Does anyone have a problem with the US government increasing the number of bald eagles that windmills can kill without paying a penalty? They are doing it to reduce the cost for the windmill operators. Over a 30 year span the wind turbines could kill as many as 120,000 bald eagles under new proposed rules.

New Wind Energy Permits Would Raise Kill Limit of Bald Eagles But Still Boost Conservation, Officials Say - ABC News

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Does anyone have a problem with the US government increasing the number of bald eagles that windmills can kill without paying a penalty? They are doing it to reduce the cost for the windmill operators. Over a 30 year span the wind turbines could kill as many as 120,000 bald eagles under new proposed rules.

New Wind Energy Permits Would Raise Kill Limit of Bald Eagles But Still Boost Conservation, Officials Say - ABC News

People laugh when I say the HezboEnvironmentalists have Blood on their hands...but they don't realize just how true that statement is. Kids in developing 3rd world Countries or Bald Eagles. They all need to be sacrificed on the brazen alter of Moloch.