3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 

One needs to be particularly stupid (or venal) to suggest that every single year has to be the warmest ever in order for the climate to be changing.

It's as stupid (or venal) as suggesting that the weather in any one country is representative of the entire world' climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kallend said:

One needs to be particularly stupid (or venal) to suggest that every single year has to be the warmest ever in order for the climate to be changing.

It's as stupid (or venal) as suggesting that the weather in any one country is representative of the entire world' climate.

Good job not entrenching people into their point of view, that's a very un-stupid and non-venal way of communicating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

 Nothingburger. What is the downside of a few hundredths of a degree of warming?  Certainly no cause for alarm.

Um.....you know you're talking about a formula regarding a relationship between mass and temperature right?  What holds more energy, a warm bath tub or a hot cup of coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 Nothingburger. What is the downside of a few hundredths of a degree of warming?  Certainly no cause for alarm.

So what degree is of any value, because you're still pointing at the 1998 temperature vs other values in the last 20 years for that hundredths comparison.  The recent high temps are actually tenths of C differences from the 100 year average but that's because they are an average against themselves (Each time the temp rises, the average rises).  The change from the beginning of that data set is nearly a full degree C of that full data set.

418335main_land-ocean-full.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

An iceberg 

Now we're talking.  A half degree difference in something the size of an iceberg is pretty significant.  How about something the size of the air in the atmosphere, or the water in the ocean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kallend said:

But melting ice sheets do, as does thermal expansion of the water in the oceans.

It’s a good thing all of that water that is liberated from the ice is being taken up by the biosphere.  A bit more warmth, more water and more CO2, is a recipe for life.  Deserts shrinking....food production growing.  Where is the downside? (Real downside, not in your imagination)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Just as I suspected, after a flurry of sniping from the peanut gallery....crickets 

You think you... won that last exchange? For a dude who is clearly genuinely intelligent, your most recent takes have been really, really, dumb. The *crickets* would be people no longer wasting energy engaging your bad faith arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

It’s not about winning or losing, it is about reality vs fantasy.  Yes temperatures have risen, slightly.  Is that because of CO2?  There is no historical precedent to support that notion.  Has that mild rise in temperature had a negative impact?  Thus far, no. Is there any indication that it will in the future?  No.  Is there any realistic policy prescription that would have a meaningful impact?  No. 

If this were just some esoteric discussion on radiative forcing that would be fine but when it crosses over into policy, that is where I have a problem.  We are literally wasting billions on climate change nonsense, that will have exactly ZERO impact on global climate.  It seems that few people on this forum have a grasp of the concept of opportunity cost.

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mistercwood said:

You think you... won that last exchange? For a dude who is clearly genuinely intelligent, your most recent takes have been really, really, dumb. The *crickets* would be people no longer wasting energy engaging your bad faith arguments.

Bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 6/7/2019 at 9:28 PM, brenthutch said:

Bingo?  Now that is a witty rejoinder.

Even with your face in front of the information, the actual data that refutes your posts, using the same sources that you think make your point you fail to understand the narrative.  What point is there in continuing to discuss anything with you?

A.  The positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has a negligible effect upon crop yield.  In any scale of measure our increase in food production has much more to do with the economy and modern methods.

B.  Any increase in plant life because of CO2 does not create an equal ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  Plans still only removes about 25% from the atmosphere and we're still building more and more power plants.

Edit:  These are the researchers that your sources have been pointing at for this information about greening, etc:  https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Next, are you going to again use them as sources but refute the things that you don't want to hear?  How about simultaneously saying that there's no way that scientists can predict or model this climate change research yet but come back a day later and point at the same source to validate your (extremely myopic) points?

Edited by DJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 4:48 PM, brenthutch said:

It’s not about winning or losing, it is about reality vs fantasy.  Yes temperatures have risen, slightly.  Is that because of CO2?  There is no historical precedent to support that notion.

Uh - actually yes, there is.  We have seen CO2 rises that correlate with rapid climate change in the historical record.  And we have a lot of science to demonstrate why more CO2 equals warming.

Quote

Has that mild rise in temperature had a negative impact?  Thus far, no.

Other than the fires and the droughts and the rising sea levels and the habitat loss and the increase in precipitation intensity.  You figure those will get better as it gets warmer?

Quote

Is there any indication that it will in the future?  No. 

And yet even the US military is planning for the problems that will result from climate change.

Quote

If this were just some esoteric discussion on radiative forcing that would be fine but when it crosses over into policy, that is where I have a problem.  We are literally wasting billions on climate change nonsense, that will have exactly ZERO impact on global climate.  It seems that few people on this forum have a grasp of the concept of opportunity cost.

And there are a few people here who, sadly, don't care about the future as long as they get more $$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, DJL said:

You know, that one made my head hurt so I didn't even address it.

So - I think I understand what he's claiming.  

The water is going into the atmosphere as humidity?  Maybe?

But Humidity is a greenhouse affect as well, is it not?

The water holds heat better than air holds heat - so it will intensify any actual warming that is happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-sends-great-lakes-water-levels-seesawing/?redirect=1

https://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Portals/69/docs/GreatLakesInfo/docs/WaterLevels/LTA-GLWL-Graph_2016.pdf

This spring has been extremely wet around the Great Lakes.  Scientific American wants to blame it on climate change..  The second link shows the history of water levels on the Great Lakes.  Ebb and flow...it's what the lakes do.  Seems every weather oddity is now climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Seems every weather oddity is now climate change.

Yes, I wish commentators would just stop saying that "climate changed caused....." whatever they are reporting on. All they need to say is that it is an unusual, uncommon, or unprecedented event. Unless you can prove it's cause blaming it on climate change just undermines your credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3