Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yeah like this one from 1981.



His forecast was low.

BTW - the New York flooding one was predicated on a doubling of CO2.

James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. He did not predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years.

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the description in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

No, like the from 2015 discussed by Judith Curry in her blog

http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Hey, I KNEW we could eventually find agreement on something because I would vote for that same pol, and I might even make a campaign donation to him if he said he'd put a nuke generation plant ON your house!

As long as they let me move in with you.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The problem is that the CO2 balance that existed for 100 of thousands of years has been disrupted. The burning of carbon that was sequestered over millions of years has overwhelmed the natural sinks

The Carbon Cycle: Sources and Sinks

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Now where did all that original carbon come from again?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

No, like the from 2015 discussed by Judith Curry in her blog

Hansen’s backfire | Climate Etc.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I read the first draft and took part in some of the discussions. I have not read the second draft.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

Now where did all that original carbon come from again?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

From the atmosphere that produced flora and fauna that are not appropriate for a human diet.

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).
- The Arctic was ice free.
- Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
- Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

“The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

As long as they let me move in with you.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well that might be interesting.....LOL

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some more homework

Good article on the feasibility of small scale renewable energy and other solutions.



What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum

It is highly germane to the OP.

A long homework assignment but, yes, highly relevant to the OP's article & worth reading. Talks about Google's failed attempt to prove a scenario where renewable energy could realistically & economically supplant fossil fuels in 40-50 years, why carbon extraction technologies will also be necessary, and why solutions will ultimately come out of the private sector. Found it interesting that Tim Allen directed the project personally, and was not "married to one approach," but rather "intent on solving the problem."

And contrary to so much of today's conventional & conformist thinking, I found it refreshing that the project researchers concluded that

[a]cross the board, we need solutions that don’t require subsidies or government regulations that penalize fossil fuel usage. Of course, anything that makes fossil fuels more expensive, whether it’s pollution limits or an outright tax on carbon emissions, helps competing energy technologies locally. But industry can simply move manufacturing (and emissions) somewhere else. So rather than depend on politicians’ high ideals to drive change, it’s a safer bet to rely on businesses’ self interest: in other words, the bottom line.

[Lake-Effect]

I think nuclear is doable and safe enough. Chernobyl was operator error, and Fukushima was cooling failure due to the standby generators getting flooded out. Newer designs can factor those in. But it's a big, longterm commitment, especially the waste, and requires government oversight... and if you don't trust government... you probably won't like the necessary government overhead required to manage nuclear power.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

If solar is such a good idea for the environment, and will save YOU money.... Why Mr. LakeEffect, haven't you installed it yourself?

When I point out your hypocrisy, you consider it crowing. So what do you consider yourself to be doing? Switching to solar electric would seem to be a logical solution for reducing YOUR carbon footprint. If you and Jack are soooo worried about an apocalyptic end to mankind, why haven't you bought into making a difference, but instead you insist others do the heavy lifting while you sit back an complain and preach?

Some hints:

1. Let the govt take care of it; I pay my taxes after all.

2. The solution has to be systemic; there's nothing I can do personally to make any sort of difference, so why try?

3. I already live in an area where green energy supplements the power grid, and has great recycling. Isn't that enough?

4. At least I'm not part of the CC problem, which really all boils down to those capitalistic-oriented skeptics who are conspiring with the oil cos. to discredit all the establishment scientists who support the consensus.

Did I miss anything? Of course, the honest answer is that it's unaffordable, even with subsidies, except maybe as part of a new home construction in areas of the country like Phoenix where there's lots of sun and also big seasonal utility bills. Not sure why this reality needs to be ignored for the sake of talking the party line. We can all hope that renewables will become more efficient, and I'm sure they will. But it's unrealistic to think they are economically efficient, or will become so in the near future.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

And contrary to so much of today's conventional & conformist thinking, I found it refreshing that the project researchers concluded that

[a]cross the board, we need solutions that don’t require subsidies or government regulations that penalize fossil fuel usage. Of course, anything that makes fossil fuels more expensive, whether it’s pollution limits or an outright tax on carbon emissions, helps competing energy technologies locally. But industry can simply move manufacturing (and emissions) somewhere else. So rather than depend on politicians’ high ideals to drive change, it’s a safer bet to rely on businesses’ self interest: in other words, the bottom line.

What if we just stopped providing tax breaks and other subsidies for the production and consumption of fossil fuels?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Interesting, but how did you determine what your exposure has been in order to determine that you have about half of the limit? As an airline pilot for over 30 years and a resident of Maine where radon is very prevalent in the granite, I suspect that I might have even higher levels than you and I'd sort of like to find out. How do I determine my level of exposure?

The exposure levels I am referring to are from working around and on nuclear power plants. During my military service I carried a 4956 NEC welding certification. I fixed reactors. My radiation exposure was recorded on a thermal luminescent dosimiter. I was required to carry as a part of my work safety equipment. It doesn't count the day to day natural exposures.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From the atmosphere that produced flora and fauna that are not appropriate for a human diet.

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).
- The Arctic was ice free.
- Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
- Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

“The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”

A lot of that sounds like assumption being presented as assertion. For example "because humans didn't exist" is a bit of a stretch as the reason for not existing was simply because we hadn't evolved from the ooze as yet however our not-to-distant ancestors did and obviously thrived in the environment.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Well that might be interesting.....LOL

Yep and I'll be no bother. I've only got a single box of stuff to bring with me...

http://militantlibertarian.org/wp-co...tarter-Kit.jpg

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So rather than depend on politicians’ high ideals to drive change, it’s a safer bet to rely on businesses’ self interest: in other words, the bottom line.[/COLOR]

Go back and read the post on Garret Hardin and Milton Friedman.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

A lot of that sounds like assumption being presented as assertion. For example "because humans didn't exist" is a bit of a stretch as the reason for not existing was simply because we hadn't evolved from the ooze as yet however our not-to-distant ancestors did and obviously thrived in the environment.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Australopithecus afarensis mother and child. Not a mere evolutionary step towards humanity, but a species perfectly adapted to the woodlands of Pliocene Africa