Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[bush_cheney2004]

23 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

I cannot find reputeable data indicating either way the discussion trends of AGW. It is my personal observation more people are discusing the skeptical aspect of it.

 

For sure....the global warming hockey stick heyday has been over for a long time.   No more fun and games with statistics and models.  

In God We Trust....all others bring data, especially the data that was ignored.

[Guest]

Interesting article on what we actually have to do to avoid AGW.  Not gonna happen with a carbon tax.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deadly-global-warming-is-inevitable-due-to-inaction-feasible-rhetoric-climate-change-fight-paris-a7521111.html

[drummindiver]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Interesting article on what we actually have to do to avoid AGW.  Not gonna happen with a carbon tax.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deadly-global-warming-is-inevitable-due-to-inaction-feasible-rhetoric-climate-change-fight-paris-a7521111.html

Literally no data or evidence. Here's a bit.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

Literally no data or evidence. Here's a bit.

 

I just said it was interesting.  I didn't say it had data or evidence.  It doesn't matter who believes or not.  It only matters what we do about it.  To my mind, there's not much point in doing stuff if it's not going to help.

As to your video, is it the last word on the subject?  Debate over?

 

Your man can't even get his centuries right.  But that's okay.

Edited January 11, 2017 by bcsapper

[Bonam]

The public will keep "discussing" stuff (as if it matters) meanwhile real innovators will simply solve the situation through technological progress. Solar will become the cheapest and best form of energy, energy storage will become omnipresent as all kinds of battery powered devices connected through the internet of things charge and discharge to compensate for swings in energy usage and generation, and electric cars (and trucks, ships, etc) will become the cheaper and better alternative to ICEs/diesels. All of this will happen in the next 20-30 years... the most progressive green policies might hasten that transition by 5 years and the staunchest opposition might slow it down by 5 years but those +/- 5 years are unlikely to be pivotal in the end result. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Bonam

[SpankyMcFarland]

So how are you all preparing for global warming? There will be catastrophic floods and storms in coastal regions. I'm not near the coast and I'm a nice bit above sea level here so I guess I have that little part taken care of.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So how are you all preparing for global warming?

I thought now that Jane Fonda is on the case we wouldn't have to anymore?

[?Impact]

On 1/7/2017 at 9:57 PM, drummindiver said:

Natural sources of CO2 and methane are entirely mis-stated or unknown. Human activity is entirely eclipsed by natural sources.

....

Methane is measured in the parts per billion and has a half life in the atmosphere of 7 to 9 years.

Yes, natural sources are important as well but cannot be taken into account in isolation from natural carbon sinks. There is a certain degree of balance between the natural sources and natural sinks which provides a stability in the atmospheric content of carbon. That balance has been upset by the anthropogenic sources without a corresponding anthropogenic sink.

...

Yes the half life is very important, and Methane is a serious contributor to global warming as well although its volume is significantly lower so the overall effect is carbon is several times more significant. You should also look at the half-life of carbon in the atmosphere which is twice that of methane at 13 years. If there is a single one-time event that causes emissions, then after 5 half-life generations about 97% will be removed from the atmosphere. That means that a one-time methane emission will be around for about 35 years, and a one-time carbon emission will be around for about 70 years. Of course we are not talking about one-time emissions here, we are talking about continuous emissions.

[-1=e^ipi]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes the half life is very important, and Methane is a serious contributor to global warming as well although its volume is significantly lower so the overall effect is carbon is several times more significant.

Incorrect. Volume is not the reason why the overall effect of CO2 is larger than the overall effect of methane. Also, given that the change in radiative forcing due to the change in CO2 levels is not even 4 times as large as the change in radiative forcing due to the change in CH4 levels your claim of 'several times' is questionable.

 

You should also look at the half-life of carbon in the atmosphere which is twice that of methane at 13 years.

 

The mean-life time of methane is 12 years according to the EPA, and half-life is less than mean-life time. Half life is ~8 years. CO2 on the other hand has a decay time of about 100 years, so you claim here is quite a bit off.