Global Warming

[Guest]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I'm just trying to bound your fears with actual numbers...this is a common technique in business.

So best case would be 60,000,000 + 1 and worse case is unbounded according to the climate change alarmists.    With a little effort, I bet we could define the upper boundary within +/- 10%, and it would not be enough to materially put a dent in population growth at current rates.   We already know that economic growth reduces population in far greater numbers than the climate change boogie man.  

As for the cremation business model, they know where their market is, and they are not chasing 30 year old millennials afraid of climate change.

 

There are no actual numbers, as there is no crystal ball.  There is no time limit on AGW. 

And they aren't fears.  I'm not afaid.  Just stating the obvious, as I see it.  I actually think I'll not do badly, given the time I have left.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There are no actual numbers, as there is no crystal ball.  There is no time limit on AGW. 

And they aren't fears.  I'm not afaid.  Just stating the obvious, as I see it.  I actually think I'll not do badly, given the time I have left.

 

Sir, can we please rise above our own fates and think about the entire planet ?

Clearly there are more humans available to die today compared to before, so perhaps a quick hit of more mortality before reaching a new equilibrium.

Then climate change would become the new normal and actuaries would just update their Excel spreadsheets.

The main point here is that there may be no time limit, but there is also no limit on human adaptation.

We are very hard to kill on a mass scale, and not for lack of trying.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sir, can we please rise above our own fates and think about the entire planet ?

Clearly there are more humans available to die today compared to before, so perhaps a quick hit of more mortality before reaching a new equilibrium.

Then climate change would become the new normal and actuaries would just update their Excel spreadsheets.

The main point here is that there may be no time limit, but there is also no limit on human adaptation.

We are very hard to kill on a mass scale, and not for lack of trying.

I told you, the planet is in shit state.  Not just from AGW, of course, but from all manner of human selfishness, corruption and stupidity.  Not much we can do to change that normal, I'll grant you.  Adaptation is always likely, but adaptation and nastiness are not mutually exclusive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I told you, the planet is in shit state.  Not just from AGW, of course, but from all manner of human selfishness, corruption and stupidity.  Not much we can do to change that normal, I'll grant you.  Adaptation is always likely, but adaptation and nastiness are not mutually exclusive.

 

But it has always been that way...good with the bad....why would it be any different now ?

If you think it is bad now, you should have seen it way back when all the carbon was still in the ground and trees.

[-1=e^ipi]

On 4/16/2019 at 7:23 PM, Ell said:

I just learned a few weeks ago that Canada is warming up twice as fast as the rest of the world, and that the Arctic is now warmer than it was going back as far as 10000 years ago.  Wow.   This is Media reporting.  I have also heard that other countries medias are claiming them to have the fastest warming rates.  I am not a climate change denier, but really???  All of this nonsense has just got me laughing so hard.  It's like I have a bigger one than you do, or I am faster than you, or I am better than you.  Come on!  Really????  We are living in a world that seems to have come off of its mooring.  The world has seen many climate changes during the course of its history.  Politics!  Politics!  Politics!  When will it end?  The answer is Never!!!!!!

Canada warming at twice the rate as the global average isn't new. It's been known for decades. What is puzzling is the fact that all of these journalists think that this is news.

[-1=e^ipi]

Wikipedia lists the below paper as its first reference to polar amplification, and its from 1969.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/tellusa.v21i5.10109

The paper references even earlier papers.

It would be a fun exercise to try to track down the earliest reference of polar regions of the Earth warming faster than equatorial regions.

 

The underlying physical mechanisms as to why polar regions warm faster (melting snow reduces albedo and warmer air holds more water, which increases heat capacity and thus heat transport) has been known for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the earliest references go back as far as Svante Arrhenius (who first quantified the magnitude of the warming of CO2 back in 1896), or even earlier. The Clausius-Clapeyron relation goes back to the mid 1800s.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Canada warming at twice the rate as the global average isn't new. It's been known for decades. What is puzzling is the fact that all of these journalists think that this is news.

Journalism needs an update and that's kind of what we're doing on here  

[OftenWrong]

It's great that we're educating so many people on here, about the Global Warmings.

[taxme]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:51 AM, OftenWrong said:

It's great that we're educating so many people on here, about the Global Warmings.

But the world is supposed to be only warming up by two degrees in the next 50 years or so. How will two degrees cause any kind of climate problems for the earth and it's inhabitants? I am just not seeing the panic here that others seem to see and fear. If there is such an animal as global warming, then IMHO, I see it only has nature causing global warming and man doing very little harm to global warming. Maybe 1% at most. Just my opinion, of course. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by taxme

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, taxme said:

But the world is supposed to be only warming up by two degrees in the next 50 years or so. How will two degrees cause any kind of climate problems for the earth and it's inhabitants?

I know... my post to that poor liberal was 100% sarcasm. Nobody really listens to what we say on this forum anyway.

As for the timing, last time I read their theories, said these effects won't be noticeable for another 100 - 200 years. Now we're being told (by some on the left) we only have 10 years left before the planet becomes a kiln at 2000 Deg.