Climate and Weather

I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
 
watfly said:
I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
Click to expand...
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
 
Desert Hound said:
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting use of the word "optimum".

Which of the possible outcomes the IPCC talks about do you think is more likely? Or more preferable?
 
watfly said:
I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
Click to expand...
If people came to the table of climate change willing to listen to all viewpoints it would be much better for everyone. Having pre-conceived ideas or throwing around information without any knowledge of what you're posting muddies the proverbial waters.

Some are here just to "kill time"...
 
watfly said:
I realize the fear is for continued warming, but, where are we on the ideal temperature "curve" for earth right now? Or how many degrees above or below ideal are we now? When was earth last at its ideal temperature? I ask the question because warming or cooling benefits or damages parts of earth differently. If we're coming out of a little ice age, I assume the little ice age was a negative for our climate? Now that the earth is warming have we passed the ideal temperature, or do we have room still to increase? Are we just trying to stop global warming, or are we trying to reverse temperature increases?

I can't imagine Earth has been ever at status quo, its either warming or cooling and with that comes negative and positive impacts.
Click to expand...
Ideal?

We aren’t really in a spot to declare an ideal temperature curve. It’s really more about how many meters of sea level rise we get, and how quickly we get them.

Eventually, we could focus on returning CO2 to 300 ppm or some other negotiated “ideal”. It’s far too early to have that discussion. Right now, it’s more about “can we gradually replace our coal plants with something that doesn’t cause massive coastal flooding?”
 
Desert Hound said:
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
Click to expand...
Other points I was trying to make are, what is the benchmark and how do you measure the expected results of each of the proposed "green" actions. The philosophy seems to be doing something is better than nothing. However, when the doing something has significant negative socio-economic impacts, doing nothing might be the better approach, especially when we have no evidence that the "green" actions will even move the needle in fighting global warming. It seems the strategy is to hope programs like the Green New Deal combat climate change, but hope is never a good basis for making policy.

I end up back in the same place, nuclear energy as the primary solution on global warming, or we punt altogether and just work on clean air and clean water.
 
Desert Hound said:
That sums up a big part of the issue right there.

Notice how all dad talks about...and most of the press is that it is going to be bad if the earth warms. What about those cities on the coastline? (as if we cannot adapt).

The idea that a warmer earth is a bad thing is speculation. In the past when the earth was far warmer it was referred to as an optimum.

Also dad be it covid or climate always jumps to the worst possible outcomes.

With the climate theory (manmade) there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But you notice all his postings only focus on one possible outcome. The IPCC in the various reports talk about a range of outcomes. The politicians and the press push one outcome. He happily follows along.

And on the one possible bad outcome out of a range he wants the world to radically change. Radically change based on an unproven theory. A theory that also talks about nothing bad. And yet he...and the advocates push 1 and only 1 possible outcome. Rather telling.
Click to expand...
Adaptation costs money, too. Can you imagine how much it would cost to build 3m dikes for every coastal city on earth? Or move the cities uphill?

Then even after you build all your dikes or move the coastal cities, some of your cities get too hot to live. You’ll need to move the hotter inland desert cities, too.

Even after you finish moving Riyadh and Kolkata, you‘re still not done. Every time you add another 100ppm of CO2, your semi-arid cities get too hot, and you need to move them as well.

This is not sounding like the cheaper option.
 
dad4 said:
Ideal?

We aren’t really in a spot to declare an ideal temperature curve. It’s really more about how many meters of sea level rise we get, and how quickly we get them.
Click to expand...
If you cannot even talk about what is good or bad temp wise
watfly said:
I end up back in the same place, nuclear energy as the primary solution on global warming, or we punt altogether and just work on clean air and clean water.
Click to expand...
I like to say if the gov really thought this was an emergency and action needed to be taken now....they would immediately start building nuke plants.

And the doom and gloom activists and environmentalists would be demanding nukes as well.

But they don't. That is telling.

And note again dad in his response to you above again only goes with the worst possible outcome...
 
dad4 said:
Every time you add another 100ppm of CO2, your semi-arid cities get too hot, and you need to move them as well.
Click to expand...
Ah our professor now states that every 100 ppm million will make cities get to hot.

Talk about making shit up. Nothing in the IPCC says that.

Again...only talking about worst case scenarios. Worst case scenario put forth in an unproven theory.

And talking about how much money to adapt cities, etc. Right now the world spends trillions a year on c02 mitigation and other green ideas without knowing they even work. How about using that money to make our infrastructure more resilient. Instead they offer up solar, etc which are unreliable on demand power sources that cost more, etc.
 
dad4 said:
Right now, it’s more about “can we gradually replace our coal plants with something that doesn’t cause massive coastal flooding?”
Click to expand...
I'm waiting to hear how we do that, particularly without nuclear (which is banned by the green new deal) and considering solar raises air temperatures.
 
watfly said:
I'm waiting to hear how we do that, particularly without nuclear (which is banned by the green new deal) and considering solar raises air temperatures.
Click to expand...
And I should also say solar relies on fossil fuels for their construction, wind energy the same as well as, needing fossil fuels for their operation.
 
watfly said:
Other points I was trying to make are, what is the benchmark and how do you measure the expected results of each of the proposed "green" actions. The philosophy seems to be doing something is better than nothing. However, when the doing something has significant negative socio-economic impacts, doing nothing might be the better approach, especially when we have no evidence that the "green" actions will even move the needle in fighting global warming. It seems the strategy is to hope programs like the Green New Deal combat climate change, but hope is never a good basis for making policy.

I end up back in the same place, nuclear energy as the primary solution on global warming, or we punt altogether and just work on clean air and clean water.
Click to expand...
Green new deal was an attempt to use “green” as a marketing gimmick for a whole Christmas tree of ideas. Don’t count me as a fan.

I’d rather just focus on power generation and personal transportation. Start building nuclear, wind, and solar installations. As you turn them on, start turning off our coal plants.
 
watfly said:
And I should also say solar relies on fossil fuels for their construction, wind energy the same as well as, needing fossil fuels for their operation.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The question is how much diesel it takes to mine the copper for the gigawatt wind farm, compared to how much coal you save by turning off a gigawatt coal plant.

My understanding is that the diesel you spend is considerably less than the coal you save. If that’s not true, then don’t build it.
 
Desert Hound said:
Ah our professor now states that every 100 ppm million will make cities get to hot.

Talk about making shit up. Nothing in the IPCC says that.

Again...only talking about worst case scenarios. Worst case scenario put forth in an unproven theory.

And talking about how much money to adapt cities, etc. Right now the world spends trillions a year on c02 mitigation and other green ideas without knowing they even work. How about using that money to make our infrastructure more resilient. Instead they offer up solar, etc which are unreliable on demand power sources that cost more, etc.
Click to expand...
If you want to discuss this meaningfully, you need to accept a certain minimum set of facts.

CO2 raises average global temperatures. Higher CO2 means higher average temperatures.

If you don’t accept that much, none of this will make sense to you.
 
dad4 said:
If you want to discuss this meaningfully, you need to accept a certain minimum set of facts.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Fact your 100ppm rise in CO2 will make cities unlivable is not based on any real data.
Manmade global warming being catastrophic is a theory and unproven
Models used by scientists today are in their infancy and have difficulty even retroactively explaining past climate

What PROOF do you have that warming will be catastrophic?
Why do you only focus on 1 potential outcome offered up by the theory.

Outside of the climate changing and getting warmer...what FACT do we know with certainly will happen in 2100?
 
watfly said:
Actually, for quite some time to come. There is no ripping the band-aid off when it comes to fossil fuels, it will be a many decades long process to transition to other energy sources and eliminate fossil fuels/petro chemicals...if even fully possible...which I doubt. It's never happening by 2050.
Click to expand...
We are basically 100% reliant on fossil fuels. It isn't just for power either. Almost every product we have has some type of petroleum byproduct in it or of course needs fossil fuels to produce/get it to market, etc.

Unlikely we really get rid of it as we are dependent on it for so much.

We can generate ALL the power we need for lights, ac and many other things by going nuclear.

Here is a list (produced by the US Dept of Energy) of just some of the products we use that are petroleum by product based. People dont realize how much the world depends on fossil fuels. Most people think just gasoline. We are far more reliant than that.

gas.png
 
Desert Hound said:
We are basically 100% reliant on fossil fuels. It isn't just for power either. Almost every product we have has some type of petroleum byproduct in it or of course needs fossil fuels to produce/get it to market, etc.

Unlikely we really get rid of it as we are dependent on it for so much.

We can generate ALL the power we need for lights, ac and many other things by going nuclear.

Here is a list (produced by the US Dept of Energy) of just some of the products we use that are petroleum by product based. People dont realize how much the world depends on fossil fuels. Most people think just gasoline. We are far more reliant than that.

View attachment 18038
Click to expand...
Considering all those fine products, it makes little sense to just burn it all up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top