More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

I can only guess that you are referencing nuclear power and no, leftists have not abandoned nuclear power as a potential method of energy production.

 

What do you mean? The alarmists are actively and successfully convincing billion dollar companies and trillion dollar governments to alter their current practices.

 

Is that really the plan? What sort of penalties and possibly unshared technologies do they have in mind? Does anyone believe that technology can remain a secret?

 

Wonderful. And have these trillions of dollars cooled mother earth? I hope they don't cool it too much.

 

It takes a special kind of stupid to look at people with decades of formal education on a subject and think that they are the morons.

 

Your questions suggest that you are not remotely interested in having a debate or learning about this subject.

 

This is pretty much what I was talking about. I mentioned other more tangible and manageable problems, and you ignored them to focus on CO2 and anxieties about the future. What about right now? There are things that are hurting people today that we could address today.

Your statement about fossil fuels seems flippant. If you want to move away from them then someone has to create or discover a better alternative. I am not paying $10 a gallon because you are concerned about someone's beachfront property a century from now. You need realistic solutions for things like that. I think a lot of places in the world are open to something better if you have any ideas.

 

learning about the subject? How can anyone avoid learning about the subject? There have been doomsday scenarios since Al Gore first emerged from his man cave with predictions that the world could end in a decade or so.

I've 'learned' about these scare theories by reading of other scare theories through the centuries and they always fall flat. Follow the money applies even more now then it did for any of those previous warnings of the heavens collapsing.

 

Your link doesn't explain your argument. I did not see an explanation of how we know global GDP will decline for example.

 

Yes they have. With the closures of San Onofre and Diablo Canyon as proof. I work in the industry and they are looking to close 20% of U.S. Nuclear power sites within the next 20 years. You are talking out of your ass on a subject you don't know **** about.

 

That would be you then. I have worked in the nuclear power field and written papers as requested by the NRC. I have helped shaped the metrics for INPO for years.

So when you are talking about a, "special kind of stupid" you may want to check the mirror first.

 

The best way to re-negotiate a deal that currently has America getting screwed might just be to trash it and start over.

This deal was a loser for America, and every day it existed America lost ground.

Trump's biggest mistake was not killing it sooner.

 

Eiffel tower is closing. For the riots.

 

Pipe dream. Got to attack and take that money by force to get it.

War with China with 4 million coal miners on the front lines.

 

I don't think we can draw conclusions with any level of confidence at this point. If we could, then we could "predict" the climate of the Earth in the past just as we can "predict" the location of Jupiter 2000 or 2M years ago. If the climate models fail miserably running backwards, why should we trust them to predict the future? But that is not my only objection to the debate. Would a slight warming be bad for people on Earth? What evidence do we have that that would be a catastrophe? It is simply assumed, Liebnitz fashion, that this is the most perfect of all possible worlds and any change would be bad. Why?

But if we accept the Liebnitz assumption that any change is bad, then that badness must be weighed against the badness of the cure. If a billion people must starve to preserve the most perfect of all possible worlds and prevent the farming of pineapples in Texas is that worth it? Welcome to economics and ethics.

 

I'm not an engineer, but I have confidence that if we make it a national priority to develop new, cheaper, non-polluting energy sources, we'd get some remarkable results in short order. Your nightmare about $10 per gallon gasoline is already a reality in Europe, where they pay over double that. And, I'm not particularly worried about someone's beachfront property being submerged. I'm concerned about Paris, London, Washington, DC, and most of the world's largest and most successful maritime cities around the world being flooded out of existence. Most activists concerned about reversing global warming say we could start replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar energy sources. I know it's not enough, but it's a beginning. I think fossil fuel corporations should be investing into research toward developing new energy resources that could & would someday replace them. Then they would continue making their profits from the energy market in spite of its focus changing.

 

Trump's biggest mistake is that he's good at killing things that others have struggled to build, but lacks what it takes to build something of substance himself. His goal as President is to undo Obama's accomplishments, but he lacks the will or interest to build something that will improve the country and seal his place in history as a President who accomplishes something good. Trump is a fighter, and like most fighters, his focus isn't on building something better, but destroying what already exists. And, destruction is easy. Anyone can do it. Destruction requires no special skills, and deserves no special recognition. Greatness comes from what one builds that improves life, country or world. Trump is a destroyer, not a builder. No greatness there.

 

The surrender continues.

 

And yet he's built up American's economy.

Luck?

 

Word....

 

Does that include raising the national debt to the highest levels in history? I've not had a single dollar more money in MY pocket since Trump became President. Have you? Trump set off a bullish stock market gain, and authored a hefty tax cut for the ultra-rich, but that benefits no one in America unless they are already rich. The tax cut aggravated the nation debt problem. How has Trump built up the American economy. Even the reported success of Trump in creating new jobs for working Americans during his first 21 months of office turns out to be a false claim. Obama created more jobs during his last 21 months in office than Trump created with all his fanfare, during his first 21 months. Trump improved on NOTHING since becoming President.

 

Are you acknowledging that CO2 was a big component of the warming climate 65 million years, but arguing that CO2 molecules emitted by man behave differently than molecules emitted by nature and thus can't be the cause of the warming today?

Or are you arguing that because vegetation thrives with higher CO2 concentration all other being equal that CO2 can't cause the geosphere to warm?

Which direction are you going here?

 

The IPCC's range on the likely warming is at 4.5C of warming per doubling of CO2. They actually don't know what the worst case scenario is because they generally ignore tipping points that might activate that would cause more warming. If tipping points are included the worst case could be as high as 8C.

 

This information is contained in the AR5 subreport Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

You'll find the PDF at that link. It's huge, but you can download the chapters individually to make it easier to work with.

This subreport goes into great depth on the impacts that can be expected.

 

So are these "distortions" the size of the wavelength? Does h nu still work for the energy? hc/lambda seems like a hell of a wallop for something barely detectable. Something like 2E-25/ E-18? So 2 E -7 J. But a UV photon is more than 10 orders of magnitude smaller.