Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

So you agree that homo sapiens are a more environmentally diverse species. I knew you'd come around.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by 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.

But we never hear of international fossil fueled plant mishaps in the mainstream media. Another conspiracy perhaps, or maybe they're just inherently safer and ho-hum when the poo hits the fan.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Some hints:

...

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.

( heh. really bugs Mr K that I haven't dropped my drawers in his little game. . Good.)

#4 is sooooo close. Let's nudge it over the line:

Effective mitigation of current and looming ecological problems, including land, air and water pollution, plastics in the environment, and AGW, will require broad and coordinated action.

Some industries feel that such actions will negatively affect their future profitability. The most visible example is the fossil-fuel sectors who are in the spotlight when it comes to AGW. Their response has included efforts to dispute or downplay the scientific findings around AGW and its anticipated effects. The most effective strategy to date is to partner with like-minded political organizations to create the impression that there are issues with the quality of the science done or the extent of agreement with it. In this they have been quite successful, and much of the public is under the false impression that AGW is not yet a significant issue, even as their leaders start to consider action.

A bit wordy, sorry, but I know you're interested in accuracy.

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

Economics are important, and tangible benefits make any change less painful. One step is to stop subsidizing bad behaviour. If individuals and businesses are required to pay closer to the true life-cycle cost of fossil fuel use, behaviours change. Western Europe is a good example.

It's a net benefit to encourage and support the development of sustainable energy technologies, as well as more responsible use of any energy. We are already seeing improvement coming out of early support for alternatives: cost per watt of solar is dropping, wind generator technology is maturing, and new ideas are approaching feasibility.

At the moment, fuel prices are absurdly low as oil overproduction is being wielded as a political weapon, and because of economic weaknesses globally. Unless this economic weakness is a permanent feature, oil prices will eventually rebound, providing a stronger incentive for alternatives.

[barnakiel]

Those of us who think there is NO climate change may do themselves some favour by looking up NOAA right now (hyperlinked towards the bottom of this post) for sub-tropical storm Alex. I think it is a bit early for Atlantic hurricane season to start. Then again I am known to be a weather ignorant. At least on this side of the pond where we get judged by our LOA.

My clients are on a crossing and had a close shave ...

Beware, if there is any change (be it an extreme end of a multi year oscillation), you may get pasted outside of the areas considered as bad spots and outside of the periods labelled as bad seasons.

Believer of climate change or not, keep one eye on those incoming wx files, also when you think it is not happening.

National Hurricane Center

National Hurricane Center

Cheers,
b.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So you agree that homo sapiens are a more environmentally diverse species. I knew you'd come around.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Australopithecus afarensis are not homo sapiens.

Homo sa·pi·ens (sā′pē-ənz)
The modern species of humans. Homo sapiens evolved probably between 250,000 and 100,000 years ago in Africa.

homo sapiens
A pitiful race that will most likely cause it's own extinction before its technologies fully develop.
homo sapiens died out in 2110 A.D.

Urban Dictionary: homo sapiens

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Australopithecus afarensis are not homo sapiens.





Urban Dictionary: homo sapiens

I didn't say they were.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But we never hear of international fossil fueled plant mishaps in the mainstream media. Another conspiracy perhaps, or maybe they're just inherently safer and ho-hum when the poo hits the fan.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0os_bzLsQ_U

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Has Pasadena been abandoned?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[XXXIII]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Welcome to CF.

[B]A delta from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is 400/300 or about a 33% increase. Doesn't seem negligable.

Ppm is a measure of concentration. The composition of co2 has changed 100 parts per million in the atmosphere, as a whole. This compositional change of the atmosphere is an increase of 1/100th of 1%!
This is the math
100ppm = 100/1,000,000 = .0001 = .01% = 1/100th of 1%

If the concentration of co2 increased 33%, we would all be dead

You always hear about co2 in terms of ppm, maybe this is dangerous, but thinking about it in term of percent%, it seems like a neligable increase to the co2 that is already there.

Co2 has almost reached its thermal absorption maximum anyway. Ocean Acidification I have heard is a issue, I wonder if that's a complete hoax also?

Don't get me wrong, we are totally polluting the planet, I don't think co2 is the problem.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I use UAH data, I have really no issues with it.

No issues?

Not even the fact that it (along with RSS and radiosonde data sets) shows less warming than the terrestrial data sets - while all the climate models say that lower troposphere temperature should be rising faster than surface temperatures?

So where are the issues? With the terrestrial data sets or the models?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But we never hear of international fossil fueled plant mishaps in the mainstream media. Another conspiracy perhaps, or maybe they're just inherently safer and ho-hum when the poo hits the fan.

Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Amoco Cadiz, Gulf War #1...

Coal, too...

(would you like a do-over? )

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by XXXIII

Ppm is a measure of concentration. The composition of co2 has changed 100 parts per million in the atmosphere, as a whole. This compositional change of the atmosphere is an increase of 1/100th of 1%!
This is the math
100ppm = 100/1,000,000 = .0001 = .01% = 1/100th of 1%

If the concentration of co2 increased 33%, we would all be dead

You always hear about co2 in terms of ppm, maybe this is dangerous, but thinking about it in term of percent%, it seems like a neligable increase to the co2 that is already there.

Co2 has almost reached its thermal absorption maximum anyway. Ocean Acidification I have heard is a issue, I wonder if that's a complete hoax also?

Don't get me wrong, we are totally polluting the planet, I don't think co2 is the problem.

Since it is carbon dioxide and oxygen is heavier than carbon it must only be a matter of time before the drop in oxygen levels becomes the next bad thing.

<sarcasm>
I don't want to scare anyone, but atmospheric oxygen levels are at the lowest levels in over 200 million years and is decreasing at over 2/3 rds the rate that co2 is increasing. We need to find a way to tax oxygen consumers NOW before it's too late!


</sarcasm>

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Amoco Cadiz, Gulf War #1...

Coal, too...

(would you like a do-over? )

Generating plants, aye???

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by XXXIII

If the concentration of co2 increased 33%, we would all be dead.

The concentration of CO2 HAS increased 33%. (but not TO 33%). No we aren't all dead, but we're on the way to creating a big problem.

Don't get me wrong, we are totally polluting the planet, I don't think co2 is the problem.

CO2 is one of the problems. Reducing all polution, including that from burning fossil fuels, would be nice.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Generating plants, aye???

Generators require fuel. No fuel, no power.

Treating fossil-fueled generating plants in isolation, like you're doing, is not fully acknowledging the actual consequences of their use.

(Derail - because of the abundance of coal, I do believe that eventually we'll find some way to use it more cleanly and efficiently, if the carbon can be recaptured. Are you aware of any such developments?)