75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming

[danielpalos]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?

Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.

And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.

1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.

Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.

I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.

PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.

You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?

What evidenced result do you believe I am ignoring?

A need for new Cities in more optimal locations.

I see. By optimal, all you mean is at greater elevation. Please don't waste my time with such bullshit.

A greater elevation would be more optimal in this case. And, you can't ignore the effects of global sea rising. Do you believe no other civilizations had similar problems?

 

[jc456]

s caused by the combustion of fossil fuels or even by vulcanism

Mr. Spock thanks you

 

[Crick]

These stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know anymore about Climate Science than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

You might want to clarify which moon bats you're talking about.

I think we all know who these Moon Bats are.

They are the uneducated woke disturbed morons that would like to see the US turn into a Socialist shithole.

They voted for this Biden clown, ignored the fact he stole the election and believe all this horseshit about man made global warming.

Oh, those moon bats.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Vostock ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature both on the increase and decrease.

Is modern CO2 different?

No, it doesn't.

It is right there in front of you!

There are a number of published science papers showing that CO2 LAGS temperature changes over time, it has been over 20 years ago when Petit et all posted an early paper showing this.

Here is the article with a number of published papers included showing the time lag between CO2 and Temperature:

Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures

Ice cores reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperatures change

LINK

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

How much of an increase in temperature do the climate models predict over the next few decades?

I thought you were familiar with this topic.

See How hot will Earth get by 2100?

I just need for you to type in a number, bro. I don't need your origin story. So? 8 C in 30 years?

You got the link. Use it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

How much of an increase in temperature do the climate models predict over the next few decades?

I thought you were familiar with this topic.

See How hot will Earth get by 2100?

I just need for you to type in a number, bro. I don't need your origin story. So? 8 C in 30 years?

You got the link. Use it.

Yep. And there are lots of different forecasts. Most are based upon unrealistic projections of CO2 emissions.

The reality is that the twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say the claim that our current rate of temperature rise is unprecedented is false. And you know it.

How much do they say the temperature has risen in the last 100 years? 8C?

 

[Crick]

Vostock ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature both on the increase and decrease.

Is modern CO2 different?

No, it doesn't.

It is right there in front of you!

There are a number of published science papers showing that CO2 LAGS temperature changes over time, it has been over 20 years ago when Petit et all posted an early paper showing this.

Here is the article with a number of published papers included showing the time lag between CO2 and Temperature:

Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures

Ice cores reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperatures change

LINK

Increasing temperatures increase CO2 in the atmosphere by decreasing its solubility (and that of all other gases) in the oceans. That is a known fact and I have never disputed it. It does NOT refute AGW because, simultaneously, increasing CO2 increases temperatures via the greenhouse effect. Don't follow jc or Frank down these numbskull arguments - neither has the faintest fuck of an idea what they're talking about.

 

[ding]

These stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know anymore about Climate Science than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

You might want to clarify which moon bats you're talking about.

I think we all know who these Moon Bats are.

They are the uneducated woke disturbed morons that would like to see the US turn into a Socialist shithole.

They voted for this Biden clown, ignored the fact he stole the election and believe all this horseshit about man made global warming.

Oh, those moon bats.

Moon bats would be people who believe our present temperature - which is still well below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles - means that man is responsible for the temperature rise. We are in an interglacial cycle, dummy.

Why do you want the planet to be colder during an ice age?

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

 

[Crick]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

How much of an increase in temperature do the climate models predict over the next few decades?

I thought you were familiar with this topic.

See How hot will Earth get by 2100?

I just need for you to type in a number, bro. I don't need your origin story. So? 8 C in 30 years?

You got the link. Use it.

Yep. And there are lots of different forecasts. Most are based upon unrealistic projections of CO2 emissions.

The reality is that the twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say the claim that our current rate of temperature rise is unprecedented is false. And you know it.

How much do they say the temperature has risen in the last 100 years? 8C?

That would tend to argue that your D-O events are NOT responsible for this warming. There hasn't been enough of it.

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.

He claims to be an engineer, but over and over shows he can't read charts, thus not surprising that he can't understand the charts you post.

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering but I am retired now. I have no problem understanding the charts he posted. I have probably seen them here a hundred times or more. The warming in those graphs was obviously not caused by anthropogenic actions. Why the lot of you think they somehow refute AGW eludes me because they simply do not.

I think the question was what caused the cooling, dummy. What made the planet transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

I still haven't seen your answer on that. It's totally understandable though because after all it is a climate discussion, right?

 

[ding]

As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.

Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.

Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.

The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.

Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.

how did the great lakes form then?

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.

Ask IPCC if they expect an 8C increase in a few decades.

You're chasing a red herring. It again indicates you are lacking real material with which to argue.

How much of an increase in temperature do the climate models predict over the next few decades?

I thought you were familiar with this topic.

See How hot will Earth get by 2100?

I just need for you to type in a number, bro. I don't need your origin story. So? 8 C in 30 years?

You got the link. Use it.

Yep. And there are lots of different forecasts. Most are based upon unrealistic projections of CO2 emissions.

The reality is that the twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say the claim that our current rate of temperature rise is unprecedented is false. And you know it.

How much do they say the temperature has risen in the last 100 years? 8C?

That would tend to argue that your D-O events are NOT responsible for this warming. There hasn't been enough of it.

I'm not arguing that, dummy.

I am arguing the claim that the warming we are seeing is unprecedented is false. Of course, I dispute the claim for other reasons too. Such as there is no warming today that could be considered accelerated.

 

[jc456]

Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says

Dr. Google isn’t posting here you are, so what’s your version

 

[ding]

Let me just come right out and say it.

The emperor isn't wearing any clothes. The emperor is naked. There. I said it. Now you say it too, Crick .

 

[Crick]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Vostock ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature both on the increase and decrease.

Is modern CO2 different?

No, it doesn't.

It is right there in front of you!

There are a number of published science papers showing that CO2 LAGS temperature changes over time, it has been over 20 years ago when Petit et all posted an early paper showing this.

Here is the article with a number of published papers included showing the time lag between CO2 and Temperature:

Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures

Ice cores reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperatures change

LINK

Increasing temperatures increase CO2 in the atmosphere by decreasing its solubility (and that of all other gases) in the oceans. That is a known fact and I have never disputed it. It does NOT refute AGW because, simultaneously, increasing CO2 increases temperatures via the greenhouse effect. Don't follow jc or Frank down these numbskull arguments - neither has the faintest fuck of an idea what they're talking about.

Ha ha ha, you didn't address the science papers in the link that doesn't agree with you. You didn't address the chart that are based on Vostock data, you refuse to acknowledge that well supported evidence that CO2 does lag temperature changes, which indicate that it isn't a driver of climate change.

Here are the published papers you ignores:


Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.

Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years

Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.

Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years

Here is one you never read:

Science

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

1. Hubertus Fischer,
2. Martin Wahlen,
3. Jesse Smith,
4. Derek Mastroianni,
5. Bruce Deck

Abstract
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.

LINK

======

Bolding mine

It is clear YOU are the one pushing numskull arguments around here......

 

[jc456]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.

Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.

If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:

View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.

These data say you are completely incorrect:
View attachment 477245
View attachment 477246
View attachment 477247

And, hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think Al Gore had anything to do with the measurement of any of those data. Generally, people who attack Al Gore in a AGW discussion are exactly analogous to those who bring up Hitler in politics. It indicates they don't actually have anything of merit to say.

These data say you are completely incorrect:

No, the data simply indicates that you are unable to correctly interpret it's meaning and application.

I use for my interpretation of that data the interpretation of several thousand published, PhD-holding scientists who conclude it means AGW is valid and the consequences will be severe. What's your source?

so you know nothing. thanks for admitting it.

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

So you are saying the background conditions that determine the earth's climate don't matter and are irrelevant to the earth's climate?

 

[ding]

Crick why can't you tell me what caused the planet to transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, bro?

You do realize we are in the middle of an ice age, right?

Nothing you have brought up has any application to the current situation. Feel free to let me know when you have something that does.

Do you know why the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet?

Was it magic? Blind luck? A random occurrence? Do you know?