Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Your comments suggest a lot of insight into the scientific process, the manner into which funding is obtained, and some of the research methodology itself. You also don't hesitate to indict the scientists who happen to be conducting research on the other side, even though you vehemently object to these same sorts of attacks on scientists who are part of the "consensus" community. Given the specificity and intensity of your comments, I think you should disclose your relationship to the scientific community, and whether you yourself have a scientific background or training.

After all, you are boldly stating that some scientists "are paid to find anything that will counter the findings of CC. If their research ends up validating AGW, they won't utter a peep, and some files will be burnt in a midnight fire." Care to share how you know this? That's quite an indictment to these experts' professional reputations L-E, and I have yet to read any such accusations of unprofessional ethics directed towards scientists on the "consensus" side of the issue. Even the controversy and protracted litigation involving Michael Mann don't seem to involve claims of libel or slander.

Please inform us.

I could respond in detail, particularly to some inaccuracies in describing my position, or I could just reply that... again... if your position requires that we accept that the majority of climate change scientists are bent or have done inferior work in reaching their finding of AGW, then you need to get on with proving it.

Without this, denial or serious doubt in the quality of the finding of AGW remains... irrational.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Our local light rail transit system uses wind power for its electricity.

And what happens when the wind isn't blowing? I suppose everyone walks to work? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

Why in the world would Canada switch to solar or wind when it's sitting on massive oil reserves? Hydro certainly makes sense, provided the greenies don't get their panties twisted up over it, but a country with massive oil and hydro potential, it doesn't make any sense to make the switch and then sell all your natural resources to overseas buyers.

What's the plan? Sell your oil to the Chinese in order to buy solar panels and wind turbines from them?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I could respond in detail, particularly to some inaccuracies in describing my position, or I could just reply that... again... if your position requires that we accept that the majority of climate change scientists are bent or have done inferior work in reaching their finding of AGW, then you need to get on with proving it.

Without this, denial or serious doubt in the quality of the finding of AGW remains... irrational.

I don't think anywhere near the majority of labelled "deniers" dispute the fact that CO2 levels are rising and that there is a causative link between increased CO2 and warming.

However (and there is always a however)....
There is much doubt on exactly how much warming is influenced by anthropogenic sources and what increased warming means to the inhabitants of this planet. The typical alarmist spin goes along the lines something like "but humans/pine beetles/Antarctic plankton etc, etc have never experienced such high levels that are increasing so quickly therefore they'll, or the things they depend upon, will be thrown into chaos". These fears are fortified when paper after paper in general eschews the positive aspects of a warmer world and focuses on the negatives.

To some people, it may come across as a case of "bad news sells" rather than balanced research which could quite possibly explain the "irrationality" you are confused by.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

And what happens when the wind isn't blowing? I suppose everyone walks to work? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

Typical greenie propaganda, distortions and lies.

Calgary's light rail transit system does not "use wind power for its electricity"!

In 2001, Calgary city council voted to purchase 21,000 megawatt-hours of wind power a year for 10 years. That’s the amount of electricity that the LRT uses in a year. Now, the LRT does not run on electrons delivered straight from wind turbines — instead, it’s connected to the standard electricity grid. But while that grid is still dominated by natural gas and coal, Calgary’s 2001 investment meant 12 wind turbines were erected."


It would be just as true to claim that any public utility or mix of utilities in Calgary that use 21,000 mWh p.a. "runs on wind power".

That statement would only be true if they shut down the system everytime those 12 turbines were producing less than the current light rail demand.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't think anywhere near the majority of labelled "deniers" dispute the fact that CO2 levels are rising and that there is a causative link between increased CO2 and warming.

However (and there is always a however)....
There is much doubt on exactly how much warming is influenced by anthropogenic sources and what increased warming means to the inhabitants of this planet. The typical alarmist spin goes along the lines something like "but humans/pine beetles/Antarctic plankton etc, etc have never experienced such high levels that are increasing so quickly therefore they'll, or the things they depend upon, will be thrown into chaos". These fears are fortified when paper after paper in general eschews the positive aspects of a warmer world and focuses on the negatives.

To some people, it may come across as a case of "bad news sells" rather than balanced research which could quite possibly explain the "irrationality" you are confused by.

If you're put off by the hype from some AGW advocates... I don't blame you.

The fact remains that the experts tell us that our present course is adding CO2 at a greater rate than the planet has previously experienced, and that current projections suggest that it could have significant negative effects if this rate of emission is not reduced.

Do we go on saying "no it won't" "yes it will" "no it won't" "yes it will" "no it won't" "yes it will" "no it won't" "yes it will" "no it won't" "yes it will" "no it won't" "yes it will" "no it won't" "yes it will" "no it won't" "yes it will"...
or do we study harder and start to kick around some possibilities for achieving some reductions?

[senormechanico]

Or said another way, If you can't deliver 21, 000 megawatt hours of wind power a year, what else have you got?

Nothing?

Oh, well we'll buy it from coal, nuclear or whatever else is available, but it sounds GOOD to the, "I'm Better Than You Because I Care", doesn't it?

Argh.

[Kenomac]

What's wrong with allowing the average global temperature to rise.... assuming it is? In Canada for example, the annual growing season would increase and produce more food.... Not less. In the upper mid western US, the same would happen. The same in Northern Europe. France would become more like the California Central Valley for food production.

Personally, I can't see any negatives for rising temperatures. We just experienced a wonderful December here in New England with record high temps and record low heating bills. What's not to like about it?

I don't buy into the being chased around by dinosaurs in our lifetime and massive flooding arguments. A warmer world is a world I'd enjoy even more.

Bring it on!

Maybe the future, 100 years from now we'll see more swimming pools, more food (fatter Americans), a booming economy resulting from increased production as a result of less fuel being used/wasted to heat homes and businesses. The sea might warm in such a way as to increase the reef acreage. Reefs will develope in areas previously too cool and nutrient deficient to support a healthy reef. Heck, the entire state of Florida might become a reef.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Typical greenie propaganda, distortions and lies.

Calgary's light rail transit system does not "use wind power for its electricity"!

In 2001, Calgary city council voted to purchase 21,000 megawatt-hours of wind power a year for 10 years. That’s the amount of electricity that the LRT uses in a year. Now, the LRT does not run on electrons delivered straight from wind turbines — instead, it’s connected to the standard electricity grid. But while that grid is still dominated by natural gas and coal, Calgary’s 2001 investment meant 12 wind turbines were erected."


It would be just as true to claim that any public utility or mix of utilities in Calgary that use 21,000 mWh p.a. "runs on wind power".

That statement would only be true if they shut down the system everytime those 12 turbines were producing less than the current light rail demand.

Why did you not bother to post the rest of the web page? Nor post a link.

Then in 2012, Calgary went all-in on renewable energy, purchasing 100 per cent renewable power for all of the city’s operations. This investment meant two wind farms got built, totaling 144 megawatts of installed wind capacity.

While the CTrain is still 100 per cent powered by wind, the city’s other operations use a mix of renewable energies: wind, hydro, biomass and solar power. The power purchase agreement totals 450,000 megawatt-hours a year or the equivalent power demand of over 65,000 Calgary homes.

This is one of the killer apps of electrified rail transport: the ability to choose cleaner, greener options. By purchasing wind power, Calgary Transit reports they are saving 56,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

115. Calgary’s wind-powered LRT an incredibly successful system: Nenshi | Green Energy Futures

Apology accepted.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

What's wrong with allowing the average global temperature to rise.... assuming it is?

It's not natural, it's not responsible use of remaining fossil-fuel resources, CO2 rise is happening at a higher rate than any known previous natural increase, it's uncharted territory, there's a chance it could disturb, destabilize or overwhelm the natural cycles...

Oh, and it's something we need to do anyway, since fossil fuels are finite. A stitch in time... For the capitalists in the audience, it IS the next big growth area; I can't understand why we're sitting around bitching while Asia eats our lunches in these areas.

Other than that... no reason. We just like ordering people around. You WILL be assimilated.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Or said another way, If you can't deliver 21, 000 megawatt hours of wind power a year, what else have you got?

Nothing?

Oh, well we'll buy it from coal, nuclear or whatever else is available, but it sounds GOOD to the, "I'm Better Than You Because I Care", doesn't it?

Argh.

How about 450,000 megawatt-hours a year? 20 times your number.

While the CTrain is still 100 per cent powered by wind, the city’s other operations use a mix of renewable energies: wind, hydro, biomass and solar power. The power purchase agreement totals 450,000 megawatt-hours a year or the equivalent power demand of over 65,000 Calgary homes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

What's wrong with allowing the average global temperature to rise.... assuming it is?

Some science for you.

Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production

Marshall Burke, Solomon M. Hsiang & Edward Miguel


Nature 527, 235–239 (12 November 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15725

Received 03 April 2015 Accepted 15 September 2015 Published online 21 October 2015



Growing evidence demonstrates that climatic conditions can have a profound impact on the functioning of modern human societies1, 2, but effects on economic activity appear inconsistent. Fundamental productive elements of modern economies, such as workers and crops, exhibit highly non-linear responses to local temperature even in wealthy countries3, 4. In contrast, aggregate macroeconomic productivity of entire wealthy countries is reported not to respond to temperature5, while poor countries respond only linearly5, 6. Resolving this conflict between micro and macro observations is critical to understanding the role of wealth in coupled human–natural systems7, 8 and to anticipating the global impact of climate change9, 10. Here we unify these seemingly contradictory results by accounting for non-linearity at the macro scale. We show that overall economic productivity is non-linear in temperature for all countries, with productivity peaking at an annual average temperature of 13 °C and declining strongly at higher temperatures. The relationship is globally generalizable, unchanged since 1960, and apparent for agricultural and non-agricultural activity in both rich and poor countries. These results provide the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled to the global climate and establish a new empirical foundation for modelling economic loss in response to climate change11, 12, with important implications. If future adaptation mimics past adaptation, unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality, relative to scenarios without climate change. In contrast to prior estimates, expected global losses are approximately linear in global mean temperature, with median losses many times larger than leading models indicate.

[senormechanico]

show me, minus the BS.

And we're down to 19 years and counting down.

Danson: I Lied, Oceans Didn't Die

November 13, 2007 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Remember back in 1988 when this program debuted, Ted Danson predicted that we only had ten years to live because the oceans were going to be dead and, if the oceans died, then we would soon follow? He made a big deal out of this, one of the early environmental alarmists, the brilliant oceanologist, Ted Danson. Back in 1993, on my television show, I implored the Drive-By Media to ask Ted Danson where he got his information on the oceans having ten years left.
RUSH ARCHIVE: They're always making me justify my existence. I wish they'd do that to Hollywood celebrities who claim to be oceanographers and so forth. "Mr. Danson, Mr. Danson, what do you mean we've only got ten years left on earth unless we do -- what's -- what's -- what's your source?" They never do. They just -- whatever Ted Danson or Whoopi Goldberg, any of these other Hollywood celebs say, they just accept it as gospel. When I say it, "Prove it! Where did you get that information? You have no right to say that. You're just a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe pig."
RUSH: That's how the media reacts to me, "You can't say that, prove it!" Ted Danson makes these claims, "Oh, oh, he cares so much." Well, last Friday on CNBC's High Net Worth, the reporterette Jane Wells interviewed Ted Danson, and she said, "There was a time when you said the oceans are going to be dead in ten years. They're not dead?"
DANSON: No. They're not. But, I'm sure there was some hyperbole in what I said to draw attention to the issue, but you go to science journals now, 70% of the world's fisheries are at a point of collapse.
RUSH: Really? Oh, you lied, it was just hyperbole. So now after being proven to have lied, but, but, but 70% of the ocean's fisheries or the world's fisheries or whatever are at a point of collapse, 70%. So he's been proven wrong, throws another figure out there, wow, we're in trouble, oh, no, 70% of the world's fisheries are closed. So Jane Wells then said -- well, the answer she reported after -- "Danson says some people have wondered, why listen to an actor? They make fun of celebrities taking up causes. He gets that."
DANSON: Celebrities can be silly, we can take swipes at them, and what the heck, why not, we are silly. But we do raise money. You know something, this community raises more money for charity than any other community in the world. This community is so generous.
WELLS: He says over the years he's probably given $3 million of his own money to the Oceans Campaign, and just last week he flew to Geneva to urge the World Trade Organization to lift subsidies which may result in overfishing.
DANSON: I do want to be engaged in the process. I do not want to be victimized, or embarrassed, or guilty that I haven't done something during this really critical time.
RUSH: So, once again, after being proved wrong about the death of the oceans, he remains an expert, he remains a go-to guy. Why? Because he donates so much to charity to the oceans. He threw $3 million down the drain if he donated it to an ocean charity. The idea we can control the oceans is about as absurd as being able to control the climate! Anyway, I just think that just illustrates the point. Celebs are silly, he admits all this, and yet we know that you people are going to take us seriously because we're like the big clique in high school, and you all wish you were in our group.
END TRANSCRIPT
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...ns_didn_t_die2


So Nine years ago, Ted's a hero even if he was a complete idiot flushing $$$$$$$$$$down the toilet. He CARED which is the important thing. Geeze people! Can't you see this silliness ?



So it's not that I'm a Conservative, it's not that I like Rush, It's NOT that Ted Danson throws a lot of money at the wall to see what sticks whether it makes a difference in the RESULT, it's that he wants it to look like he KNOWS what's GOOD and he CARES whether or not it's actually TRUE or not.


Personally, I would love to see more than overnight freezing temps month after month.
Currently, 25 f. on my porch. There were freezing water patches on our salt water canal the last few mornings.

[Kenomac]

Sounds to me like more people will be outdoors having a good time in 19 years, rather than freezing their asses.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why did you not bother to post the rest of the web page? Nor post a link.



115. Calgary’s wind-powered LRT an incredibly successful system: Nenshi | Green Energy Futures

Apology accepted.

Stu is right. If Calgary shuts down the gas and coal fired electrical plants, all of the companies and utilities like the train service who claim to use 100% wind, would shut down and stop immediately. The greenies around here always claim the same boatload of BS. There's a local "green" radio station just down the street that's been claiming that it's 100 % solar powered for the past ten years on just the twenty panels located on its roof. Most knuckleheads actually believe the load they spew.

I know better... We had 46 solar panels installed ten years ago which produce 85 percent of our power. They produce zero at night or on rainy or snowy days. How does Calgary plan to operate at night or on calm rainy or snowy days?

Rainbows and unicorns?

My guess is that they'll keep the coal fires burning.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Stu is right.

Stu quoted-mined, which shows a definite lack of intellectual integrity.

Had he bothered to read to the end:

The bottom line is Calgary’s LRT and city operations are running on 100 per cent renewable energy, making the city a leader in Canada. Doubly cool are the phenomenal ridership numbers Calgary has achieved for its LRT — something that is reducing congestion, bringing down emissions and building the clean energy economy of the future.