Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Not quite an acronym, more like code words.
Here's mine to you:

"Have a Magical Day".

Disney staff reveal what it's REALLY like to work at Disney World on Whisper | Daily Mail Online

Now THIS was funny! But then it requires taking oneself much less seriously than some around here.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Worth watching, especially for the historical perspective.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Don't know about record highs but we have been below normal by 5° f. Here for almost a week even heard we had a record low in this same timeframe. But then thats called WEATHER. Last Months record high for one day is due to climate change.

The same phenom in Taxachusetts last month, but most here already drink the same Kool-Aid

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thanks Newhaul. I did a little poking around and found out who the local (regional) distributor is, but then I thought about it and believe Keno is correct about the very limited practicality of being choosy where you buy your fuel (unless you're set up for biodiesel maybe). I often avoid Citgo whenever possible, but only because I read it was owned by the govt. of Venezuela. But hey, are the sheiks any better? Oil is a worldwide commodity and little is accomplished being choosy except a bit of personal but fleeting personal gratification. Unless one is into the virtue signaling meme that is.

Actually, in the USA most of the oil is domestic these days, very little if any from the Middle East. It would be very nice if they'd finally run the pipeline down from Canada, then we could basically give the Middle East the one finger salute.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Worth watching, especially for the historical perspective.

More history of the early "scientific" understanding of Climate Change.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Actually, in the USA most of the oil is domestic these days, very little if any from the Middle East. It would be very nice if they'd finally run the pipeline down from Canada, then we could basically give the Middle East the one finger salute.

From the US Energy Information Agency (EIA)

In 2015, the United States consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day.

In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 82 countries...

In 2015, the United States exported about 4.8 MMb/d of petroleum to 136 countries...

The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 4.6 MMb/d.

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2015 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

From the US Energy Information Agency (EIA)

In 2015, the United States consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day.

In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 82 countries...

In 2015, the United States exported about 4.8 MMb/d of petroleum to 136 countries...

The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 4.6 MMb/d.

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2015 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.

Which means that the USA gets the vast majority of its oil from the Americas. I wonder about the oil imports from Venezuela considering the curent political situation

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SailOar

From the US Energy Information Agency (EIA)

In 2015, the United States consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day.

In 2015, the United States imported approximately 9.4 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 82 countries...

In 2015, the United States exported about 4.8 MMb/d of petroleum to 136 countries...

The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 4.6 MMb/d.

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2015 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.

Thanks for looking up what I already know. Like I wrote.... build the pipeline to Canada, then wave goodbye to the Middle east with one finger.... not the thumb.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

When I make an error I am happy to acknowledge it.

...

the fight to reduce warming by 1/5th of a degree in 85 years.

Assertion, and then error. So... better put on your happy face and start acknowledging.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Assertion, and then error. So... better put on your happy face and start acknowledging.

Perchance are you referring to the modeled impact of the Paris Accords based on IPCC models to be 1/5th of a degree, and that optimistically? You think this is erroneous?

[Delfin]

Now this is quite interesting:



When you have an R2 value >.99 you have a pretty strong correlation. The discussion on what this means is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/...nd-global-co2/

I think there are multiple things one can conclude from this relationship. First, when people like me say that short of killing off a few billion people there isn't going to be much of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 however many trillions are wasted in the effort is supported by the data. Second, we're not likely to see the doubling of CO2 anytime soon that gets warmists' undies in such a bunch.

As the author says, whether when we reach 10 billion people in the next few decades and CO2 concentration is now around 500 ppm we all spontaneously catch on fire or enjoy a marvelously more productive planet remains to be seen, but based on what I know of horticulture, I'm going with the latter.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Now this is quite interesting:



When you have an R2 value >.99 you have a pretty strong correlation. The discussion on what this means is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/...nd-global-co2/

I think there are multiple things one can conclude from this relationship. First, when people like me say that short of killing off a few billion people there isn't going to be much of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 however many trillions are wasted in the effort is supported by the data. Second, we're not likely to see the doubling of CO2 anytime soon that gets warmists' undies in such a bunch.

As the author says, whether when we reach 10 billion people in the next few decades and CO2 concentration is now around 500 ppm we all spontaneously catch on fire or enjoy a marvelously more productive planet remains to be seen, but based on what I know of horticulture, I'm going with the latter.

So all we need to do is reduce the population to solve the problem just like the euginic MMGW croud want to do . Not a good solution if I do say so myself.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

B

Maybe you or someone who knows how to transpose the data can show the UAH & GISS data directly compared to each other on a single graph, with reasonable start & end point years that don't unduly bias the trend line in either direction so as to distort the results. The we could more clearly see the actual disparities. I would imagine it would be particularly useful to see recent comparisons in light of all the chatter in the media lately about recent temps being the "warmest on record, etc."

Using the IMO time frame of 30 years for climate data.



Happy?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Perchance are you referring to the modeled impact of the Paris Accords based on IPCC models to be 1/5th of a degree, and that optimistically? You think this is erroneous?

The difference between acting and not acting to limit or reduce human CO2 emissions is projected to be a global temperature rise by 2100 that's over an order of magnitude greater than your 1/5 of a degree.

So, yeah, you're in error.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Using the IMO time frame of 30 years for climate data.



Happy?

Almost. But see how easy this was so far? All we need now is a punch line, namely a numerical comparison btwn. the two temperature trends and the significance of the disparity according to the science. I think I'm seeing about 0.6 degs. over 30 yrs. for GISS (surface data), and maybe 0.4/5 for UAH (sat data) over the same time period? Gotta be a more reliable way to measure than relying on my eyes.