Logique
Investor
- Joined
- 18 April 2007
- Posts
- 4,290
- Reactions
- 768
Dear God no Timmy, it's warm enough already!
Dear God no Timmy, it's warm enough already!
And if I do it in Fahrenheit s its even worse...
My Bolds)This will be surprisingly costly. Britain's Carbon Trust estimates that the cost of expanding wind turbines to 40 gigawatts, to provide 31 per cent of electricity by 2020, could run as high as pound stg. 75 billion ($113bn). And the benefits, in terms of tackling global warming, would be measly: a reduction of just 86 megatons of CO2 a year for two decades. In terms of averted rise in temperature, this would be completely insignificant. Using a standard climate model, by 2100, Britain's huge outlay will have postponed global warming by just over 10 days.(
I've had a couple of interesting conversations that last couple days. Was whingeing about the crap summer to the bloke where I get my LPG supplies... "It's climate change, the Antarctic is melting and causing the cold and rain here in NZ" (paraphrased).
Me - "Really? The Antarctic is melting?"
Yep
The guy was genuinely depressed and worried about the 'end of civilization'.
Me - I think you should do some more research.
2/ Was at a clients place whose son was down from his PhD studies in Environmental Science... done ice core sampling in the SI glaciers the whole shebang.
Me - So what's your view on AGW?
Him - Yes humans are having an impact on the climate, but in different ways than portrayed by the IPCC.
Me - You mean impact of land use etc?
Him - Yes, CO2 does play a role, but land use considerations and non co2 air pollution are more important considerations. Also there are more important concerns with regard to general pollution. CO2 a minor concern.
Me - So do you think the preoccupation with co2 induced climate change is an unnecessary detraction from productive and necessary protection of the environment.
Him - Most definitely so.
(paraphrased)
I wanted to hug him.
Conversation moved on to projects he had worked on.
Excellent but now science has been destroyed for a generation or two how are you going to get buy in for change in the areas requiring attention?
Stop everything, we have found the problem, how could we have missed it
More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist "scientific consensus" was announced yesterday, as a new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the northern hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica........
..........A proper temperature record for Antarctica is particularly interesting, as it illuminates one of the main debates in global-warming/climate-change: namely, were the so-called Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age merely regional, or were they global events? The medieval warmup experienced by northern Europeans from say 900AD to 1250AD seems to have been at least as hot as anything seen in the industrial era. If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2 (the atmosphere is 0.04 per cent CO2 right now; this figure might climb to 0.07 per cent in the medium term).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/
Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC
citations pleaseCore sample results from Antarctica suggest otherwise.
citations please
You should read the link I have cited.... peer reviewed BTW.
Again, your citation please.
We have achieved our success in large part by the efficiency with which we breed, and are (alas) slave to our evolutonary past. Unfortunately all the Goulds, Leakeys, and Lewins will not be persuasive enough to enable the uneducated masses to rise above the imperitives of their genes. But they can try, and this book is a grand attempt.
The point is, we may have a problem and our attention should be to that.
2/Of course there is a problem. But climate alarmists divert attention to the wrong problem.
I'd say short sighted business minded dick heads that don't have the courage to look at any of the problems causing the massive problem are the problem and the ones diverting attention to the wrong thing. Not the minority climate alarmists that are ridiculed more than they are taken seriously.
GROWTH is not the answer to a globe that has reached capacity and will swing from unaffordable oil, food and resources to devastating recessions. This cycle will see-saw like a converging triangle until something greater happens - sea levels, a war or some yet to be identified consequence of environmental degradation from carbon, forestry or garbage floating in the ocean etc. In the meantime insurance will become dysfunctional and that should cause a few ruptions hopefully even a wake up call because it will burn the heart out of the business paradigm that is so clung to by the majority who can't vote beyond tomorrows salary.
The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC -- they have gotten the issue just about right, where "right" means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest -- sometimes it just takes a little while.
A few quotable quotes from the report (from Chapter 4):
"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"
"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"
The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature:
"Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?