Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

The MIT research is linked in the text.
For the rest, I'm afraid you're in denial.

 

That is what Virginia is taking considerable pains to prevent.

 

Today and well into the future, clean energy is not going to dominate to the extent that would require any impact for customers.

For example, Iowa has wind as the fuel type providing the most electricity production - yet you can't show any of the kind of cost you want to show.

Europe is far from having wind as it's leading source of electricity. And, that's true in the USA, too.


Besides, clean energy IS CHEAPER. So, if there is a cost, the question would be whether that cost is more than the benefit of cheaper energy.

For example, your article points to the high cost of gas in Europe. Clean energy helps avoid that - providing energy to customers at a lower price. You can't just ignore that when you finally come up with some actual cost that a customer might have to pay at some point in the distant future.

 

We disagree.

 

All you have to do is show some evidence.

 

Already done. Your denial is not a rebuttal.

 

No, the "settled science" phrase along with "science denier" were used as a hammer to shut people up. Scientists used it as well.

And no, it is absolutely not "settled science" that anthropogenic global warming is true. If the Kyoto protocol was fully implemented by the USA the change in the atmosphere was within the uncertainty of the measurement, then mankind doesn't have nearly the impact AGW people claim.

<>

You have a major credibility issue. For the past 22 years we have been force fed AGW. We were told we had to change the way we live or humanity was doomed. This total upheaval of human society was based on these climate models. Turns out the models were not so good, in fact were pretty bad.

Year after year we have been told the science was settled, you even say it. And year after year the predictions are wrong.

People showed charts like the one you posted. Time passes, the charts were wrong.

Now its another year, and we get the same claims from climate scientists - "this time our models are right". BS. Too late. Too many lies, too much harassment, too much bullying.

It doesn't matter what "climate scientists" claim. They have no credibility or trust. I don't believe anything they claim.

 

1/3 of Pakistan is underwater. That’s what climate change models predicted. Hmmmm……..

 

That isn't what is settled. How much the Kyoto protocol would change within a specified period of time is a complex question that is not settled. The reason is that there is no possibility of implementing the protocol immediately and there are questions concerning how fast existing extra CO2 would dissipate, how much of current heating is guaranteeing further warming, etc. For example, the melting that has happened has caused Earth to be less reflective of solar radiation, the thawing of tundra is not going to immediately refreeze, and the current state is allowing for natural production of methane - a compound even worse than CO2, there is no agreement on how the ocean will re-cool, etc., etc.

I just gave you a LIST of sources that point out that what you are saying here is wrong.

And, you respond over and over again with NOTHING!

 

The "1/3" claim is untrue, and it climate change has nothing to do with it.

 

Phew, thanks for clarifying. I bet all those people in Pakistan feel better now.Someone should let the Greenland ice sheet know that it can stop melting now. Jack says none of this is happening.

 

Greenland is another case of alarmist tub-thumping. As for Pakistan, concern for their suffering should not be exploited for climate propaganda purposes.

 

You are correct that I do not post links although many are easy to find, just search on failed AGW predictions or something similar.

I was taught in the early 1970s that the threat was global cooling, that was standard teaching in public high school at the time (and I attended a top high school in Virginia).

I was alive when Future Shock was first published and when Paul Ehrlich started making his global famine predictions, those were headline people back then. Experts ran around in a panic saying “we have to do something!” And all were totally wrong.

And it’s been that way ever since. I used to follow the science, I studied a real climate scientist who doesn’t believe AGW and was ridiculed for it. Read his bio, you probably have heard of him and all negative, but read his official NASA bio and then decide if the media are correct in canceling him
https://aqua.nasa.gov/content/roy-spencer-us-amsr-e-science-team-leader

So after over 50 years of the same crowd claiming the planet is about to collapse due to humanity, and their claims are backed by science so we have to just believe them, and none come true, I just write off the entire crowd. Not worth the time.

 

Tub-thumping?

 

Definition of 'tub-thumping'

1. (of a speech or speaker) noisy, violent, or ranting. noun. 2. noisy, violent, or ranting public speaking.

Tub-thumping definition and meaning - Collins Dictionary
https://www.collinsdictionary.com › dictionary › english

 

Who is doing that?

 

AGW advocates.

 

Such as?

 

Every weather event is given a climate change spin. In the case of Greenland ice, an alarming story was created by ignoring the massive size of the ice sheet and the consequently quite minor changes that are in fact under way.
Climate Action Network – Home

 

And:
The Climate Propaganda Cabal
2021 › 05 › 04 › the-climate-propaganda-cabal
item after news item regarding the Climate Crisis or the Climate Emergency. Story after story, covering ... to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom

Home — Covering Climate Now
https://coveringclimatenow.org

Tom Fawls Organized by journalists for journalists, Covering Climate Now is the world's largest media collaborative. JOIN US We help newsrooms tell the ...

 

Is it the amount of melt in relation to the size of the ice sheet that matters?

 

Out of context, the numbers look scary. In context, they're nothing much.

 

Are you sure it’s not you who have taken the numbers out of context?

Scientists are concerned with volume of water entering the ocean due to how much it displaces the current volume of water causing sea levels to rise and due to the diluted salinity of the water.

So the concern is a) the volume of water that will enter the ocean over time and b) the amount of dilution of salt content this will cause.

The size of the ice sheet is relevant too but more in the sense that it gives an idea of how much water will eventually melt into the ocean if present global temperatures remain the same or increase and also how much time in those two contexts.

Currently the amount of run off is a chunk the size of Denmark I believe, which is relatively small compared to Greenland but I don’t think that warrants acting as though there is not a problem.

 

I'd consider President Obama's purchase of very expensive ocean front property on Martha's Vineyard to be a much better approximation of real risk.

 

Explained in detail:

No, Washington Post, Greenland Ice Melt Won’t Raise Sea Level 1 Foot
SEA LEVEL AUGUST 29, 2022