Climate Debate Should Stick to Facts

[EagleSmack]

And the greener we get the more expensive it becomes. People are starting to realize that. Going Green doesn't mean it will be free and cheap. You should have heard the uproar from Cape Cod when they found out how much more they would have to pay for the Off-Shore Wind Farm. All that "Free and Clean Wind" is going to cost them a fortune.

And Gore? He's a joke. He sacrificed nothing. His carbon footprint is bigger than all of ours put together and he says he's neutral because of carbon credits. But in actuality he invests in a company that sells carbon credits to suckers.

 

[mentalfloss]

The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting.[3] The Review points to the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more. The Review proposes that one percent of global GDP per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be.

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.

Stern Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, by all means... be a Environmental Hero and lead the way. Grind your economy to a halt. Canada is actually doing fairly well compared to many countries but if you feel the need to cripple your country economically on the off chance that you'll be loved by others knock yourself out.

I would have taken crippling my economy for this over crippling my economy to search for 1 guy.

But, hey.. priorities.

 

[Tonington]

The reason for the climate scam is clear.

You can call it a scam all you want, that doesn't negate the very clear fact I already presented. The atmosphere is becoming more opaque every year, to outgoing longwave radiation.

And the greener we get the more expensive it becomes. People are starting to realize that.

Actually, the reverse is true. Prices per unit of green energy production have come down. Has your energy bill, probably largely a mix of fossil fuel energy, gone down as well? The gains in efficiency alone save money.

Renewables are on a decreasing cost curve. Fossil fuels are on an increasing cost curve.

I think it's clear who needs to stick to facts...

 

[ironsides]

The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting.[3] The Review points to the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more. The Review proposes that one percent of global GDP per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be.

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.

Stern Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No doubt they are right, but without China, India, Brazil and Russia anything we do will be a waste and not decrease the coming of climate change one bit. Just start moving to higher ground. I'm only 8 feet above sea level.

 

[mentalfloss]

No doubt they are right, but without China, India, Brazil and Russia anything we do will be a waste and not decrease the coming of climate change one bit. Just start moving to higher ground. I'm only 8 feet above sea level.

When we do our bit, we can go after those parties that should have put in their share.

There's no doubt that the U.N. would back us up.

 

[Tonington]

anything we do will be a waste

That's only true if you think there are no benefits to cleaner air and water. There's mountains of evidence indicating otherwise, from healthcare costs to economic productivity.

 

[EagleSmack]

When we do our bit, we can go after those parties that should have put in their share.

There's no doubt that the U.N. would back us up.

Floss, you're bright... but seriously?

You're a Crusader, and I mean that in a respectful, non-religious sense. A liberal King Arthur.

They won't care one bit what we sacrifice and the UN has no will or strength. The UN could not stand up even if it wanted to.

 

[ansutherland]

Well, for those who think this is all a scam and a money grab, there are independent fields converging on the same conclusion. According to some, this must mean that the majority of scientists from around the world representing various fields must all be working in concert to fabricate a story. Not likely.

Though there is a heavy financial burdon in doing something about this mess, there is likely to be a much higher cost in doing nothing.
Developing countries and global warming: A bad climate for development | The Economist
I can't recall where I read it, but I do recall an article by a German economist who made the argument that the spending required to build a green economy would actually do more good than harm in that it would provide a huge stimulus to new and developing technological industries.

 

[darkbeaver]

Start with this fact first and see where it gets you. At the top of our atmosphere, the energy flux is downward...there is more energy coming into the atmosphere than there is energy leaving. The planet must warm. The upper atmosphere is cooling as well, while the lower atmosphere warms. Its clear that something is blocking the transmission of energy back to the upper atmosphere, and back to space. There is only one clear cause for this.

Esplain what holds a fifty ton cloud up in the sky for us would you

please.

 

[EagleSmack]

I can't recall where I read it, but I do recall an article by a German economist who made the argument that the spending required to build a green economy would actually do more good than harm in that it would provide a huge stimulus to new and developing technological industries.

Well, here in Massachusetts we are finding green technology very expensive, less effective, and an absolute drain. Our governor gave a solar development company a $600K tax break. They closed shop and moved to China.

It's a Cash Cow to some, to us a burden. No different than oil except we'll pay more.

 

[Tonington]

Esplain what holds a fifty ton cloud up in the sky for us would you

please.

...you've asked this before, multiple times. Here's a response of mine to a particularly bizarre claim by you.

Nothing that complicated is needed to explain how clouds form, and travel. Moist convection. Warm air carries moisture up into the atmosphere. As it rises and cools with the pressure drop, the vapour condenses into drops of water which coalesce into larger drops. This drag slows the ascent, and limits the height a cloud can reach. It's an adiabatic process and is determined specifically by the saturated adiabatic lapse rate.

How can you explain the vertical extent of the cloud layer if there is an anti-gravity effect induced by the polarity of the water droplets?

More to the point, it's certainly not quantified how this is causing climate change.

 

[CDNBear]

Well, for those who think this is all a scam and a money grab, there are independent fields converging on the same conclusion. According to some, this must mean that the majority of scientists from around the world representing various fields must all be working in concert to fabricate a story. Not likely.

I would agree. I for one have no doubts our climate is in flux. I do believe that man has had an impact on it. How much, is a theory. What to do about it, is a SWAG.

One thing is certain though, schemes, make some people richer. At the expense of others.

 

[Tonington]

Here's another response to your cloud questions beaver:

You've uncritically swallowed junk science, that's how.

Radiation from the sun hits the earth, and warms the surface. The warmed surface heats the parcel of air above it. Warmed air rises because it is less dense than the cold air. The atmosphere is largely a fluid after all. The condensing water molecules are kept aloft by other updrafts, formed when warm parcels of air meet cold parcels of air, or by high/low pressure regions in the atmosphere. The water droplets will want to fall as they get heavier, and they do. They rise and fall, rise and fall, as they continue to encounter updrafts. As the warm updrafts rise, they bring more moisture to the cloud, as the rising air cools, water condenses out of the vapour, and is available to precipitation. This is clearly evident when large hail-stones are cut in half. The hail stone is layered like an onion.

Eventually the precipitation is too heavy and falls. Updrafts have been recorded up to 300 km/hour. That's enough to keep even the rocks in your head airborn.

 

[ironsides]

That's only true if you think there are no benefits to cleaner air and water. There's mountains of evidence indicating otherwise, from healthcare costs to economic productivity.

As I have said there are a multitude of benefits to cleaner air and pure water, but can we do this alone, were sure not going to fight or force any large country to change. We all made money on our resources, now they are developing and want a piece of the pie. People from these so called developing countries want what we have.

 

[Tonington]

As I have said there are a multitude of benefits to cleaner air and pure water, but can we do this alone, were sure not going to fight or force any large country to change. We all made money on our resources, now they are developing and want a piece of the pie. People from these so called developing countries want what we have.

Their growth will be constrained by escalating commodity prices just as we are. We can afford to develop next generation technologies, and in so doing improve our quality of life, and many other tangible benefits. Economies of scale will bring prices down, and the nations without the same wealth will have new options, options that don't involve brown clouds over cities.

 

[ansutherland]

With regards to escalating commodity prices, we should be thankful of their ascension. As long as oil stays cheap, no one will change a thing. People are generally concerned with their own comfort and their concern for the environment is inversely proportional to their personal comfort.....I am referring to most, not all people. This is clear to see if anyone looks. When oil prices are high and it's expensive to drive, people want more fuel efficiency. When gas is cheap, screw the environment!

We saw an influx in fuel efficient cars and trucks in the 70's and early 80's when oil prices were high, thus leading to the growth of Japanese brands. We saw this again around 2007 when oil hit a new peak. With any luck, oil will stay high. Not so high that we will not be able to change our habits fast enough, but high enough that it will make people uncomfortable to keep the status quo.

I find is annoying when people justify their huge vehicles by saying the have no choice because they have children or the live in the country or they have a farm etc, etc, etc. People around the world have children, farms and remote living conditions too. I'm not talking about third world Asia or Africa either. I have been to Western Europe and seen it. People putting their two children into a SEDAN!! People pulling a trailer with a small truck or even a car. The need for massive trucks and huge SUV's is grossly exaggerated. In addition, they use a lot more diesel in other parts of the world. Diesel is a great substitute for gas in that it creates more power, better fuel efficiency, can come in a variety of forms (cooking oil, peanut oil, etc,) and with todays technology, produces far few emissions and almost no soot. VW's new BluTech (or is it Daimler's) is a great example of a high tech low polluting diesel engine.

 

[damngrumpy]

At present the only benefit for going green will be seen by shareholders. If we really
wanted to do the right thing is make the transition cheaper by charging the one time
polluters with the responsibility of cleaning it up without making a profit, doing it at
cost. That won't happen.
I myself farm, and I use what ever I can that is the best for the environment, in fact if
they work just as well I use organic pesticides and sprays. Some of the new and improved
technology is more expensive looking at it from a product standpoint but it is actually cheaper.
The new stuff for pest control is more of a target pest control in an integrated pest management
system. The target pest gets killed but not the beneficials in the orchard.
I think we have to pay more attention to the environment that is true, at the same time we have
to control some of the price gougers and the claims they make that are emotional and less
than truthful. For example we cannot feed all the people in the world if we used organic
production only, we are going to pay more for wind power and per unit of energy it will be far
more expensive that fossil fuels. There will also be demand shortages if we attempt to go
with alternatives to the present.
I think we have to be truthful and let the public make up its mind, if people say no, then we have
to find cheaper sources. People are willing to change as long as they are not inconvenienced.
For example it will be a cold day in hell before before I drive one of those little trucks. My wife
likes her small car I hate it won't drive it, it is not comfortable as my Silverado.
I don't care if people ride buses and bikes and carpool, as long as they don't ask me to give up
my truck. I have an old tractor, not because I am condemned to an old tractor, I like my old
tractor and I see no need to replace it. The Green world insists that we all embrace the new
tomorrow and there are too many snake oil salesmen out there trying to hurry it along.

 

[petros]

We can invest in alleged green power generation by sequestering not just CO2 but H2S allowing us to tap into the sour gas reserves that out number the sweet gas 3:1 then using those gases to extract even more oil from the ground.

No scam involved there.

 

[Omicron]

http://tunes.digitalock.com/reolittlequeenie.mp3 <-- click to play

Would it screw up anything Harperwise about northern archipelago oil exploration if we were to analyze the climate change software prediction computer algorithms and dive into parts of the oceans which are going to die, transplanting organisms to the parts up north which are going to become more right for those species, such that we save types of fish and coral, and pain the profits for the oil extractors to have to drill clean and not kill the last surviving populations of coral and fish?

Let me guess... the fat stupid bastards still being amazed that they're allowed to get powerful in north America when their ancestors in Europe would not have had a chance will say something dumb and evil like, "Those species did not evolve there naturally, therefore it's okay for us to drill oil in a contaminating way."

You watch... those pigs will even say, "We are preserving the world's natural order by polluting the waters to destroy those species not natural to that area", while paying mega-bucks to keep it quiet that they were the ones to make those waters warm enough to drill in the first place.

I think what those guys can't stand is that they know they're not smart, or they'd be doing it the Norwegian way without it giving them a vapor-locked headache trying to figure out how to have the porcine status they enjoy while actually earning and deserving it via talent rather than media and thumbs-down suppression.

Either that or they are legal slaves to a mysterious and ephemeral class called shareholders.

In any case, let's do some guerrilla species preservation. We dive into waters we know are going to die, pick up samples, and transplant them to waters we know are going to be okay.

We made climate change go faster than has ever happened before, so let's use our smarts to move the coral to new latitudes faster than has ever happened before.

In that case we're just doing the part the fat pigs count on, which is them being constantly saved by the good-hearted smart people always inventing ways to bail out their abuses while they still end up "owning" everything.

 

[ironsides]

Global Warming or Little Ice Age: Which Will It Be?

Our sun may be on the verge of a relatively long snooze, as researchers have found solar energy output could decrease in the coming decades. Though the dip in solar activity isn't expected to reverse climate change and plunge Earth into a cold snap, similar phenomenon have happened in our planet's history, scientists say.

Some researchers say that changes in sun activity caused the "Little Ice Age" from 1500 to 1800 — during the chilliest part of this cooling trend beginning in 1645, the sun reached its 75-year Maunder Minimum, when astronomers found almost no sunspots. But the connection between solar activity and Earth's climate remains largely mysterious — scientists are not sure how much of a role the Maunder Minimum played in fueling the little ice age.

Global Warming or Little Ice Age: Which Will It Be? - Yahoo! News