"Most Caribbean coral reefs may disappear in the next 20 years"

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Drake

This is the argument from proponents: Climate change will cause such unbelievably huge costs to the environment that ANY money spent now is a good investment.

No. Not true.

The proposed solution is.....wait for it .... CAP AND TRADE.

No. Cap and trade is one proposal market-based solution, and in economic theory it's no more unrealistic than hedge funds, or CDAs or CDOs or whatever other financial abstraction was batted about like a shuttlecock just prior to the last financial meltdown.

We have the reverse problem right now. The consumption of fossil fuel is actively promoted right now, through industry subsidies and unrealistically low pricing, that does not cover the real life-cycle costs of producing and consuming it. Many economies are currently reliant on absurdly low energy prices to keep their economies sputtering along, so there's not much that can be changed here, but it's a situation that cannot go on indefinitely.

The models are....just models. They are not reality. The models vary by 10X on what the future outcome of climate change.

All of this belies the fact that a scant 40 years from now, the planet will hit 9 BILLION in population. The issues associated with that will dwarf those of climate change. The UN's own population model falls off the chart at 9 billion.

Surely you get that the only way the planet will carry 9+ billion people is if we transition to sustainable methods of existence? AGW or not.

Anyway, you believe AGW -> C&T, which you don't care for. I get it. See, I'm not the only one potentially hung up on a dogma.

[John Drake]

Lake - I am sorry to say, your reading comprehension is very poor and you really do not know what you don't know. Sorry.

Quickly:

The main argument of the climate change advocates is exactly as I have stated. You are not reading enough, and just posting your uninformed opinion as if it were fact is just wrong.

C&T IS the ONLY solution ANY group has proposed to date. Period. And it is flatly unworkable.

Here is some information on the other semi-proposal: The 2009 UN proposal to convert the worlds energy to....something....by 2030 had a cost estimate of...37 TRILLION. Does anyone have that kind of cash lying around?

And again....you are not asking the right questions because you are mentally stuck. The only solution for the planet to sustain 9 billion is not what you think it is. It is true that it must be sustainable...but you are thinking in narrow terms.

This is getting tiresome, so I will jump to the conclusion. The solution is not century old, "green" energy. It is to leap ahead and create a new source of energy.

You are scratching your head, because you simply have no idea. Here is a clue, just this year, finally, a highly significant breakthrough occurred in this field.

I posit that this technology could be developed in 15 years at a fraction of the cost of the UN estimate. The ROI would be 100-1000x in real monetary terms.

Now, instead of continuing to promote a lack of comprehension and this eco-economic babble...ask yourself questions. You might be surprised.

[Lake-Effect]

Soylent Green

[crazyoldboatguy]

Breeder reactors. Known technology. Residue reduced to manageable radiation levels thru reprocessing the fuel repeatedly. Use proven designs to reduce risk to a vanishing point for each generating station. Avoid seismically sensitive areas. Harden to shield from terror attacks. Sufficient fuel for millennia. No CO2 emissions.

What's not to like?

Cap & trade is a fraud (see Australia & Al Gore). Wind power - good on sailboats - not so good on land. Distance between areas of greater wind to areas of greatest demand require massive investment in hardware infrastructure. Turbines require far more maintenance than is practicable. Solar power - again, good on sailboats - not so good on land. Efficiencies of the best solar panels still lag to a degree that the power generated would be magnitudes higher than what it costs now. Imagine the economic devastation that would be visited upon the poor if their electricity costs were to skyrocket to pay for these alternative energies.

But, if there were a true emergency, perhaps we would have to bear the costs, right? However, the science is not there yet. Not even close. All the postings above reveal the typical devolvement in these streams that I have seen on other forums. Dueling science references, the resultant belittling of each others' sources. The condescension. feh. No wonder the AGW protagonists have lost out. The arch of the debate is past the "sell by" date.

[SailOar]

An awful lot of "YOU" statements...

Originally Posted by John Drake

you should...
puts you...
Are you...
You really...

Originally Posted by John Drake

you are stuck...
urge you...
If you...
you have...
If you read...
you will find...

Originally Posted by John Drake

can blind you...
if you ask...

Originally Posted by John Drake

clearer for you...
If you do...
You still cannot...
I provided you...
You, yourself are ...
point where you ...
flaws in your argument...
This causes you...
please do yourself a favor...

Originally Posted by John Drake

your reading comprehension...
you really do not...
you don't know. ..
You are not...
you are not...
because you are...
not what you think...
you are thinking...
You are scratching...
you simply have...
ask yourself questions...
You might be surprised...

[John Drake]

:O))) I always wondered if Stephen Young made so much money off of his role in that film, that he never had to work again. :O)))

Crazyoldboatguy....not so crazy...you basically nailed it. Close...not exact...but close.

So, first things first, if you have what appears to be a conundrum, begin with a zero based review. If I have nothing, what do I need?

Assume 50 years from now, how much energy will humankind need? I think the most conservative (hope you do not mind the word) estimate would be 2x what we produce now.

What would be the attributes of my desired energy source?

- similar footprint to existing
- basically same or higher energy production density.
- no greenhouse gases
- sustainable

Could solar and wind achieve that? Not all 4

So, what technologies, off the top of your head, are being researched today that fit those requirements?

There are several perhaps, but the one that pops to mind: Nuclear Fusion (no, not cold fusion...keep up, please).

Here is why:

1. The sun does it, hydrogen bombs do it, so we know it can be done.
2. The amount of energy produced is almost unlimited
3. No environmentally harmful products at all. Super clean.

But...the problem is that no fusion experiment to date has ever been successful in producing more energy than was put into the system.

Until 2014.

There are probably others, the above is a quick, back of the cocktail napkin idea.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, you have been a wonderful audience. I am out of here. Got to go have fun.

Best

[John Drake]

SailOar - because it was a conversation with Lake.

[crazyoldboatguy]

I love the idea of fusion (yes, not cold). Nowhere near fruition yet. The world can handle the CO2 load being produced until then, IMO. We have plenty of carbon based fuel to last, at current increasing rates, well into the next century, at least. Will fusion be ready by then? It very well could be. However, with all the hysteria, some folks gotta have a solution RIGHT NOW. Hence, breeder reactors. It's a fall back position if the monomaniacs push their position to their end point.

Despite the fact that the US is increasing in population and use of energy consuming products, there have been few, or no, oil refineries and electrical generating plants built in the USA for years. A lot of NIMBY going on but that, in a way, has been a good thing. Oil end electric companies have been able to increase output with existing plants and gadget manufactures have increased efficiency/reduced emissions so as to offset. The USA's carbon footprint is stable when compared to the greatest producer. If there is insistence on countries reducing their carbon footprint, the USA is holding her own. Time for China to step up.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SailOar

An awful lot of "YOU" statements...

Yes; the (2nd) personal pronoun can be a problematic word, especially when used in vigorous debate.

The word “You”, followed by a negative comment, might be considered a personal affront (attack); which would not (if it were so deemed) be permitted on this forum.

We debate and argue issues, ideas, facts and opinions.
We do not characterize their proponents.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I haven't seen this topic for a while. Update me - are we still pretending that AGW isn't a thing and/or it's a lefty plot, or have we mostly moved over to just shrugging and making warm jokes?

17yrs without "warming" according to NASA....yet the myth continues....

[avb3]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

17yrs without "warming" according to NASA....yet the myth continues....

That's not quiet correct.

There has been a Slow Down in the growth of warming, but it still is warming.

That's like saying just because your slowing down from 60 mph to 40 mph means your no longer advancing towards a destination. You slowed down, you did not go into reverse.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

17yrs without "warming" according to NASA....yet the myth continues....

Always be wary when people pull "facts" out of their backsides without providing references.

NOAA Climatic Data Center

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest for this month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2014 tied with 2010 as the highest on record for the month, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was the fourth highest for March on record, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41°C (0.74°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January was the warmest since 2007 and the fourth warmest on record at 12.7°C (54.8°F), or 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is ± 0.08°C (± 0.14°F).

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for December 2013 was the third highest for December since records began in 1880, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 12.2°C (54.0°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2013 was the seventh highest for October on record, at 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth highest for September on record, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2013 tied with 2005 as the fourth highest in the 1880–2013 record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

17yrs without "warming" according to NASA....yet the myth continues....

Hi Rich.

Sorry i missed you.

John was here to fight the good fight anyway.

Fair winds,

L-E

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by avb3

That's not quiet correct.

There has been a Slow Down in the growth of warming, but it still is warming.

That's like saying just because your slowing down from 60 mph to 40 mph means your no longer advancing towards a destination. You slowed down, you did not go into reverse.

ha ah ha....too bad the MMGW Cult models don't call for, explain, or account for this little pause According to the fake models we should be dead by now...try again...maybe the alarmists can move onto Ebola or something else for their grant money.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

John was here to fight the good fight anyway.

If manipulated data is now the "good fight" by the MMGW Cultists, we have won the day my friend. Game over...time to worry about Ebola and try to get some Government dollars for that becuase thise gig is up.

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Always be wary when people pull "facts" out of their backsides without providing references.

NOAA Climatic Data Center

Maybe we should change Imaginary's Quote to read:

"Always be wary when people quote manipulated data to help make their case and get their Millions in Tax Research Dollars"

Thanks for playing the NASA manipulated data Card...but I just played 4 Aces Amigo...Checkmate.

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.

As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:

In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.