Doesn't the same argument apply to the rising temperature? How do you know its caused by Anthropomorphic climate change and not just solar variation, increase in evaporation (water is a much more potent climate change gas than Co2) or a 100 other factors which affect the climate?
But then it's useless to try and debate with an AC.
NYC is the third world underbelly of the US. I grew up in a third world country but even I went Ewwwww when I visited NYC. Definitely needs a pressure wash. Cant wait for the sea level rise as far as NYC is concerned. But wont happen. New Yorkers are too well connected. They will get first dibs on the Sea Wall construction budget.
CO2 is like insulation. Just because you have the same amount of insulation doesnt mean you have the same temperature in a house. You still need to turn on the heater. We have turned on the heater. Give it a 1000 years and you can have nice beachfront property in Antarctica.
My point is not that it wont be bad for Europe. My point is why should the rest of the world care as it will be better for them? if Europe wants to hold on to the current climate then they had better pay countries to not use fossil fuels instead of trying to scare them into not using fossil fuels.
The 15-20 m scenarios are as likely to happen as an asteroid wiping us off in the next 100 years. They are outliers in the model. The most likely scenarios are 2-3 meter sea level rise which can be handled with Netherland style dykes. Plus the earth has many stabilizing loops built in. As temperatures go up plant growth goes up which pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. Till now almost all the alarmist models have failed and the earth has warmed much less than predicted as these models did not account for negative feedback loops.
So I am not underestimating, you are overestimating. (Vastly)
Netherlands is an entire country below sea level. Given enough money (which fossil fueled development can generate) nations can build similar defenses. That gives enough time to move to higher areas. The building of flood defenses is just as good a way of pumping money and jobs into an economy than building a military bigger than the next 20 militaries.
First time in my life I have been called a right-winger LOL.
I do like poking people's assumptions whther on the right or the left and the climate change industry has become a gravy train for too many and their bubble needs to be poked.
Its not like flyover country is away from water. 80% of the households in flyover country are within driving distance of a river or a lake. In fact the coastal idiots are rich enough to afford the sea walls. Not sure if they will be willing to fund levees in flyover country.
Thats an Engineering problem. One California has solved. We get all our rain in 2 months and still manage to irrigate the Central Valley which is technically a desert. Other nations can do the same too.
The solution is to move towards a border free world not to try and assuage our collective guilt by forcing poorer nations to take more inefficient development routes.
As it is most of the impact is going to be on North Am and Europe - areas best able to take on the costs while the benefits are mostly going to the global South.
Except for a few small island nations (we can just give them refugee status and US residency. The number is too small to matter)
I provide facts which contradict what you have been brainwashed into believing and you respond with insults. Thats religion not science. The Anti CO2 movement has taken on all the trappings of a Jihad and its difficult to reason with the faithful but still here goes- the SAHARA IS TURNING GREENER
Why? Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. First do no harm. If we are not even sure that Global Warming is a net negative why are we adding additional costs on developing economies to counter global warming. We KNOW that these additional costs are slowing down development leading to excess deaths from simple things like Cholera and Malaria.
Most of the world manages to farm just fine without an annual frost. Wake up and smell the Tea. North Am is not the breadbasket of the world. The Ganges Delta and the Yangtze Delta produce most of the human food in the world. Losing North Am would mean no more Beef or Pork but humans would be just fine (Humans dont eat the shit North Am farmers grow. They grow animal feed not food)
You claim the benefits will be dwarfed by the losses. I claim otherwise and while your benefits are in the future mine are here and now - more rain in Africa== more crops== less people starving to death.
Please read the detailed literature and not the popular science articles which cherry pick doomsday scenarios out of those articles. Everything I said is based on research done by climate change scientists, NASA and NOAA
Satellite pictures clearly show a greener Sahara. The Monsoon works much more efficiently when the temperature in the interior goes up higher. Heavier rains can be handled via dams and water storage. California already does it to irrigate the Central Valley - a place which is technically a desert as it gets less than 10 cm of rain. Where the greener solution is more efficient sure use it but the criteria has to be whats best for development not whats best for assuaging SJW egos. The damage ( if any) from Global Warming will not hit for another 100 years but the benefits of fossil fuels are here now and using fossil fuels to quickly develop makes countries better suited to ameliorate any effects than sitting around solar panels and singing Kumbaya.
Yeah right. The Indians got their Mars mission to work on the first go. Lets not talk about how many times NASA screwed up before getting it right. Attention to the important details is what Indians excel at as well as knowing which details are the important ones.
I dont deny the world is warming. I question why is that a bad thing? Use of fossil fuels lets developing countries develop much faster so that by the time say Bangladesh needs flood defenses of the type Netherlands has , it can afford them. Not to mention a warmer world means more rains, a greener Sahara, less drought prone India and a greened Australian desert. Increased food security- as the world has warmed since the 70s the incidence of famine in Africa has gone down.
Yes there are some losers - Florida gets worse hurricanes, California Drought-Flood cycle gets more extreme, UK freezes as the Gulf stream shuts down but on net balance more countries benefit than lose from Global Warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't the same argument apply to the rising temperature? How do you know its caused by Anthropomorphic climate change and not just solar variation, increase in evaporation (water is a much more potent climate change gas than Co2) or a 100 other factors which affect the climate?
But then it's useless to try and debate with an AC.
NYC is the third world underbelly of the US. I grew up in a third world country but even I went Ewwwww when I visited NYC. Definitely needs a pressure wash. Cant wait for the sea level rise as far as NYC is concerned. But wont happen.
New Yorkers are too well connected. They will get first dibs on the Sea Wall construction budget.
CO2 is like insulation. Just because you have the same amount of insulation doesnt mean you have the same temperature in a house. You still need to turn on the heater. We have turned on the heater. Give it a 1000 years and you can have nice beachfront property in Antarctica.
Its obvious you still havnt learnt to speak English. Never confuse American with English.
My point is not that it wont be bad for Europe. My point is why should the rest of the world care as it will be better for them? if Europe wants to hold on to the current climate then they had better pay countries to not use fossil fuels instead of trying to scare them into not using fossil fuels.
The 15-20 m scenarios are as likely to happen as an asteroid wiping us off in the next 100 years. They are outliers in the model.
The most likely scenarios are 2-3 meter sea level rise which can be handled with Netherland style dykes.
Plus the earth has many stabilizing loops built in. As temperatures go up plant growth goes up which pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Till now almost all the alarmist models have failed and the earth has warmed much less than predicted as these models did not account for negative feedback loops.
So I am not underestimating, you are overestimating. (Vastly)
Okay NASA than. Dont call them Climate Change Deniers
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
Netherlands is an entire country below sea level. Given enough money (which fossil fueled development can generate) nations can build similar defenses. That gives enough time to move to higher areas.
The building of flood defenses is just as good a way of pumping money and jobs into an economy than building a military bigger than the next 20 militaries.
First time in my life I have been called a right-winger LOL.
I do like poking people's assumptions whther on the right or the left and the climate change industry has become a gravy train for too many and their bubble needs to be poked.
Its not like flyover country is away from water. 80% of the households in flyover country are within driving distance of a river or a lake. In fact the coastal idiots are rich enough to afford the sea walls. Not sure if they will be willing to fund levees in flyover country.
Thats an Engineering problem. One California has solved. We get all our rain in 2 months and still manage to irrigate the Central Valley which is technically a desert.
Other nations can do the same too.
The solution is to move towards a border free world not to try and assuage our collective guilt by forcing poorer nations to take more inefficient development routes.
As it is most of the impact is going to be on North Am and Europe - areas best able to take on the costs while the benefits are mostly going to the global South.
Except for a few small island nations (we can just give them refugee status and US residency. The number is too small to matter)
Why are you so angry?
I provide facts which contradict what you have been brainwashed into believing and you respond with insults. Thats religion not science.
The Anti CO2 movement has taken on all the trappings of a Jihad and its difficult to reason with the faithful but still here goes- the SAHARA IS TURNING GREENER
https://www.climatecentral.org...
Why? Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. First do no harm. If we are not even sure that Global Warming is a net negative why are we adding additional costs on developing economies to counter global warming. We KNOW that these additional costs are slowing down development leading to excess deaths from simple things like Cholera and Malaria.
Most of the world manages to farm just fine without an annual frost. Wake up and smell the Tea. North Am is not the breadbasket of the world. The Ganges Delta and the Yangtze Delta produce most of the human food in the world. Losing North Am would mean no more Beef or Pork but humans would be just fine (Humans dont eat the shit North Am farmers grow. They grow animal feed not food)
You claim the benefits will be dwarfed by the losses. I claim otherwise and while your benefits are in the future mine are here and now - more rain in Africa== more crops== less people starving to death.
Please read the detailed literature and not the popular science articles which cherry pick doomsday scenarios out of those articles. Everything I said is based on research done by climate change scientists, NASA and NOAA
Satellite pictures clearly show a greener Sahara.
The Monsoon works much more efficiently when the temperature in the interior goes up higher.
Heavier rains can be handled via dams and water storage. California already does it to irrigate the Central Valley - a place which is technically a desert as it gets less than 10 cm of rain.
Where the greener solution is more efficient sure use it but the criteria has to be whats best for development not whats best for assuaging SJW egos.
The damage ( if any) from Global Warming will not hit for another 100 years but the benefits of fossil fuels are here now and using fossil fuels to quickly develop makes countries better suited to ameliorate any effects than sitting around solar panels and singing Kumbaya.
A warmer world means more rain and the Sahara and Australian desert turning green. What makes you think hotter means dryer?
I have only seen Human shit on the street in San Jose and San Francisco. Never in India. Cow shit - yes. Human shit no.
Yeah right. The Indians got their Mars mission to work on the first go. Lets not talk about how many times NASA screwed up before getting it right. Attention to the important details is what Indians excel at as well as knowing which details are the important ones.
What do you have against dogs?
Don't forget all the folks running NASA, Google , Microsoft , Apple and Citibank.
Join the SPACE FORCE, travel to an EXOTIC LOCATION, pick up trash!!!!
I can just see the recruitment poster.
More like its a Superfund site due to all the leftover shells and you are cribbing about someone doing some artillery practice on the old range.
I dont deny the world is warming.
I question why is that a bad thing?
Use of fossil fuels lets developing countries develop much faster so that by the time say Bangladesh needs flood defenses of the type Netherlands has , it can afford them.
Not to mention a warmer world means more rains, a greener Sahara, less drought prone India and a greened Australian desert.
Increased food security- as the world has warmed since the 70s the incidence of famine in Africa has gone down.
Yes there are some losers - Florida gets worse hurricanes, California Drought-Flood cycle gets more extreme, UK freezes as the Gulf stream shuts down but on net balance more countries benefit than lose from Global Warming.