[Sivad]

CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2.

[Sivad]

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
by Bill Gray
Professor Emeritus
Colorado State University
(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)


"We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society."

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/ ... y_2011.pdf

[Sivad]

[color=#0000BF]I wrote:
. . . You say you hate the idea of a carbon tax, so you hate getting a direct payment into your bank account of $X a month that will offset some or *more* than what you will have to pay extra for gasoline, etc.

Obviously you either don't understand the proposed carbon tax or you don't trust the Gov. in 3rd World nations to carry it out ethically.

As I understand the proposed carbon tax, everyone in every nation would get money to off set what the average person in that nation would pay for that tax. Therefore, those living in poverty in a 3rd World nation would get cash to lift them out of poverty.

Even if it didn't raise the cost of living on working people, it's still just flushing money down the toilet. Billions of dollars spent on inefficient renewables is billions of dollars that could have been spent on shit that would actually help people. It's like spending billions of dollars to build the world's largest and most elaborate Rube Goldberg contraption. It doesn't really do anything or help anything, it's just a retarded way for liberals to appease their climate god. It's really no different than throwing virgins into volcanoes or cutting the hearts out of captured enemies.



So congratulations all you Science cultists, you've regressed backed to literal fucking savagery.

[jimjam]

Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal.[29] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.

Oh Boy!

[Hindsite]

Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal.[29] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.

Do you really care? I don't.
I simply praise the Lord.
HalleluYah

[Sivad]

Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal.[29] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.

Oh Boy!

Coal is dirty, but even as dirty as it is, it's preferable to the misery that would be inflicted on billions of people if we were to shut down coal production. It might not matter to you, you could still do your slum tourism and take snapshots of all the smiling faces trapped in poverty and squalor, but those smiling faces would be the ones that paid the most for your glib liberalism.

[Sivad]

Sir David John Cameron MacKay was a British physicist, mathematician, and academic. He was the Regius Professor of Engineering in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge and from 2009 to 2014 was Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). MacKay was the author of the book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air.

[Rugoz]

If we run out of land, we can cover the oceans with wind turbines and solar panels. If that isn't enough, we can launch them into space (the solar panels, not the wind turbines ). The economics of space-based solar power aren't as terrible as they have been in the past.

[Sivad]

I don't know, the Germans are leading the way on solar and they pay more than double what Americans pay per kWh.

[Crantag]

CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2.

You are a math illiterate if that's your argument against climate change.

You are using this to support your position that CO2 is not increasing temperature (or not as much as expected?)

This is evidence of exactly the opposite.

A doubling = a 100% increase. If we assume a lineal (constant) relationship between CO2 and temperature (which is probably not realistic--it would probably be some sort of curve. For example, it's plausible that the rate of temperature increase would increase with more carbon, perhaps. But, that's not the point--a 30% rise in CO2 should lead to a 30% rise in temperature (in terms of the expectation relative a 100% increase--i.e. doubling--of CO2 emissions.

You say a 30% has lead to a 75% rise in temperature (on these same terms).

Maybe you should have thought that one through a little more before posting, so as not to look the fool.

[Sivad]

You are a math illiterate if that's your argument against climate change.



You say a 30% has lead to a 75% rise in temperature (on these same terms).

That's not even close to what it says. It says temperature has only risen 75% of what was expected.

Who's the illiterate now, smart guy?

Maybe you should have thought that one through a little more before posting, so as not to look the fool.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

[jimjam]

Coal is dirty, but even as dirty as it is, it's preferable to the misery that would be inflicted on billions of people if we were to shut down coal production. It might not matter to you, you could still do your slum tourism and take snapshots of all the smiling faces trapped in poverty and squalor, but those smiling faces would be the ones that paid the most for your glib liberalism.

I love you .

[Sivad]

I love you .

I'm not allowed to say what I think of you.

[jimjam]

Global investors managing $32tn issued a stark warning to governments at the UN climate summit on Monday, demanding urgent cuts in carbon emissions and the phasing out of all coal burning. Without these, the world faces a financial crash several times worse than the 2008 crisis, they said.

“The long-term nature of the challenge has, in our view, met a zombie-like response by many,” said Chris Newton, of IFM Investors which manages $80bn and is one of the 415 groups that has signed the Global Investor Statement. “This is a recipe for disaster as the impacts of climate change can be sudden, severe and catastrophic.”

Investment firm Schroders said there could be $23tn of global economic losses a year in the long term without rapid action. This permanent economic damage would be almost four times the scale of the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis. Standard and Poor’s rating agency also warned leaders: “Climate change has already started to alter the functioning of our world.”

A key demand of the Global Investor Statement is to phase out coal-fired power stations across the world. Peter Damgaard Jensen, the CEO of Danish pension fund PKA, said: “Investors, including PKA, are moving out of coal in their droves given its devastating effects on the climate and public health, compounded by its poor financial performance.”

[Sivad]

Global investors managing $32tn issued a stark warning to governments at the UN climate summit

I bet they did, there's hundreds of billions to be made in carbon trading.

Global carbon market increases by 56% in one year, says World Bank

The global value of carbon pricing schemes are now estimated to be worth $82 billion, according to a new report from the World Bank.

[blackjack21]

Global investors managing $32tn issued a stark warning to governments at the UN climate summit on Monday, demanding urgent cuts in carbon emissions and the phasing out of all coal burning. Without these, the world faces a financial crash several times worse than the 2008 crisis, they said.

Ok jimjam. Since China is the largest coal burning country now, isn't it time we use tariffs to pressure China to move away from coal fired electrical plants? Shouldn't we embrace Trump's use of tariffs now?

Investment firm Schroders said there could be $23tn of global economic losses a year in the long term without rapid action. This permanent economic damage would be almost four times the scale of the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis. Standard and Poor’s rating agency also warned leaders: “Climate change has already started to alter the functioning of our world.”

If that were the case, the entire global economy would fall to $0 GDP within three years. From advanced economies to the stone age in three years--this is their prognosis. What do you think about their claims jimjam? Will you be betting your retirement on their prognostications coming true? Would you recommend they switch to decaf? I'm going to bet against the global economy going to $0 in three years. I do think that if they want to collapse the global economy to get rid of Trump, it's time to short European markets. I already sold out of almost everything at the beginning of October due to interest rates and the election. So I'm a-okay. Now I have to figure out if we're nearing the lows of the pullback that began after I sold out at the beginning of October, or if we're in for a longer-term downward spiral.

I'm not sure it would matter if I shorted everything and ended up with all the money in the world if nobody else in the world had any money and the global economy completely collapsed.

I suppose, however, we could all do our part and embrace Trump using tariffs to punish imports from countries using coal generation. That could be a major boon for the French economy, and a big problem for China's.

[jimjam]

Ok jimjam. Since China is the largest coal burning country now, isn't it time we use tariffs to pressure China to move away from coal fired electrical plants? Shouldn't we embrace Trump's use of tariffs now?

Would that things be that simple. I suggest you consult "Tariff Man" on this.

I'm going to bet against the global economy going to $0 in three years.

You are a smart guy. Why do you lapse into simple minded nonsense whenever simeone offers an opinion that you disagree with?

I do think that if they want to collapse the global economy to get rid of Trump

Doubtless there are those who would manipulate world economics to get rid of Trump but to think this is the only game in town is again ….. simple minded.

So I'm a-okay

This is never a certainty in life but my humble wealth is as much as possible under my direct control rather than at the mercy of our mad greed driven world.

I have to figure out if we're nearing the lows of the pullback that began after I sold out at the beginning of October, or if we're in for a longer-term downward spiral.

Finally some non nonsense. I feel that we have a long way down yet to go. The only question is one of timing.

[Crantag]

That's not even close to what it says. It says temperature has only risen 75% of what was expected.

Who's the illiterate now, smart guy?



Maybe you should follow your own advice.

I went on based on what you posted.

Why don't you go re-read your post.

Also, why don't you post a link or something, so that this can be potentially meaningfully discussed.

The only source of the analysis is you, and my post was accurate, based on your wording.

You might have posted a link, but quote the relevant sections, because believe you me, I won't be going and reading through shit and parsing sections.

If it's your source, you should be well able to quote the relevant passages.

My post was completely consistent with your wording. So you are the fool. At best, you misrepresented what you wanted to say.

[Pants-of-dog]

Coal is dirty, but even as dirty as it is, it's preferable to the misery that would be inflicted on billions of people if we were to shut down coal production.

This is almost certainly not true, if we simply took the time to transition properly.

[Crantag]

Oh by the way, to me climate change discussion is way too imprecise for meaningful conversation.

I think that it is a likely extant phenomenon, but rather abstract as physical science goes, and well beyond my power to influence.

I wouldn't usually comment on the subject.

But your post of statistics, which indicated the opposite of what you intended them for as the basis of your argument, was enough to draw me to comment.

Go on and attack me. It's just a smoke screen, to try to save yourself from embarrassment.