More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

Expediting the conversion from a fossil fuel based economy to one that uses sustainable energy sources. Public policy should be formed around the idea of incentivizing people to make the transition faster and it should create a fund that will be used to mitigate and/or adapt to the warming that is/will occur.

 

Pickles. They might be of some assistance. So why wouldn't I want it to happen? Have I indicated that I wouldn't want fusion? No? Ok, cool., then.

 

Ok, so you'd deeply transform the economy of the world then, right? Ok, to what? Burning fossil fuels isn't man's only input is it? Seems, well, insufficient to meet your concerns. Then what?

 

I was talking about reduceing the use of fossil fuels. But you don't think that is a good idea, do you?

 

Yes. We don't really have a choice. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. And remember the depressive effect on the economy doesn't start when a resource run outs. It starts when the production peak occurs. If production follows a normal distribution this would be when the resource is ~50% depleted.

I'm not sure I fully understood the intent of your question, but I believe the answer is that you can expect a severe worldwide economic depression if we can't find an alternate energy source make up for the energy shortfall once we crest the top of the fossil fuel production curve and long before fossil fuels are depleted.

The nice thing about transforming the economy to a sustainable energy source is that it substantially lowers the risk of economic collapse, lays a foundation for continued economic expansion, and mitigates the damage we are causing to the environment.

One of my own personal wish list items is for the United States get filthy stinky rich off of this transformation. I realize that statement won't be popular among the forums foreign participants, but I wouldn't begrudge them if they felt the same way so I think it's an okay statement.

 

"may have been" is not evidence. Its a theory nothing more from an open source website. Laughable at best.

 

That is 100% BS and I challenge you to provide the question that was asked of Republicans where they deny climate changes when everyone on the planet knows climate changes all the time.

Making up facts doesn't help you.

 

The evidence is the record of volcanic activity, the conclusion can only be a theory; I don't want to be snotty, but to get to a theory from a hypothesis you need evidence. One might have a hypothesis that volcanos had something to do with it, then they find more volcanic activity, so the theory becomes volcanos may have done it.

 

Where will the fund money go? No other source can compete with fossil fuels price wise so how will you make that happen?
What is it that you expect us to do?

 

The wildlife groups keeping tabs on polar bears appear to disagree with you.

 

You "checked the summary"
Yes that explains everything

 

Want to make a bet on that?

 

You mean like who would administer it? I don't know, but it's a good question.

Maybe we could approach that problem from two directions. Artificially increase the price of fossil fuels to make them less competitive and invest in technologies that make alternatives more competitive.

We already have a system in place for the former. For example, gas taxes artificially increase the price of fossil fuels. This money is diverted (at least in my state) to fund road maintenance. It's a pretty cool arrangement (or at least it was) because it forced those who do the most damage to pay for most of the repair. Other examples include policies that penalize corporations for environmental harm. It's a way of forcing entities to cleanup their own mess and to incentivize them to not make a mess in the first place. Still yet we have precedent with CFCs and sulfur dioxide and the way those were regulated to prevent ozone depletion and acid rain.

And moving on to the second point we could increase funding for alternative energy sources like nuclear fusion or whatever. I mean we're going to move away from fossil fuels regardless of the global warming issue so why not do it sooner rather than later?

Also, where I live both wind, solar, and nuclear are cheaper than coal. But I realize that's not universal. That's why we need public policies in place that help drive these costs down lower.

My only request is that you understand the consequences of human behavior as it relates to CO2 emissions. If at the end of the day you understand that the Earth will continue warm under a regime of CO2 emissions and you still decide to take no action then I'm okay with that. I just don't want your rationalization to be that global warming and science are a big hoax.

 

Yay seals!

 

This above is misleading as it does not account for the equilibrium equation.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

I am ok with seals making it. Nothing wrong with seals having a great life.

 

That only proves propaganda and disinformation are effective.

The mission of the IPCC is only to investigate anthropogenic global warming. It has no mission to investigate any other causes of warming, and so it does not.

You need only go to the NCOA web-site to see current CO2 levels are 408 ppm CO2.

EPICA Ice Core Data show CO2 levels peaked at 287.1 ppm CO2 128,371 years before present.

The average global temperatures for seven of the previous eight Inter-Glacial Periods were 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than the present 58.4°F, and for the one that wasn't, it abruptly ended after only 8,000 years, so it is a statistical outlier, given that since the Mid-Pleistocene Event Inter-Glacial Periods have lasted 15,000 to 30,000 years.

The previous Inter-Glacial was 26,000 years and reached average global temperatures of 15.3°F.

If there was any substance to global warming, temperatures should be much higher than they are, but they aren't.

You need only look at peer-reviewed science:

Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.

https://people.ucsc.edu/~acr/migrate...0al 2008.pdf

9°C - 14.5°C is 16.2°F - 26.1°F

12.5°C is 22.5°F

The reason temperatures were that high is because the average global temperature was 15.3°F higher than the present 58.4°F.

Here's another article you won't like because it doesn't fit your narrative:

From applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5 °C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island, which was warmer than any interval within the Holocene. On these grounds, we ascribe the lower lacustrine unit in these lakes to the climatic optimum of the last interglacial.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Arctic_Canada

It was 7.2°F to 9°F warmer on Baffin Island during the last Inter-Glacial, because average global temperatures were 15.3°F warmer than now.

Apparently, you don't understand or refuse to admit that the climate models used by the IPCC are wrong.

Temperatures have risen by 0.85 °C since 1880, with more expected, according to the most recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report | New Scientist

What is the IPCC saying now?

Oh, it was only 0.7°C, not 8.5°C.

Any claims that this 0.7°C rise is unusual, abnormal, extraordinary, excessive or anything else are nothing but lies.

As your own government proves:

Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades.

[emphasis mine]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

Temperature fluctuations of 15°F to 22°F within a few years or several decades are the norm, not the exception.


Why don't you explain to us why this Inter-Glacial Period is colder than normal?

Don't you want to know why?

 

The climate has always been changing. Mars has been getting warmer, is that our fault?

 

They earn their living by promoting the man-made-global-warming-doomsday hoax

Tree huggers gotta eat and pay bills too you know

 

Noooo, not the liberal rolling eyes, not that.

Dude says population and you tell him to get the facts with a link that is missing population, and roll eyes at any confrontation, that must explain everything about why it is taking so long, liberal eye rolling is like deep ocean heat, stubborn; it's so easy a caveman can do it.

 

Who told you Mars was warmer, an earthling?

 

Do you honestly need help understanding why that question is irrelevant?

 

Maybe you could chime in and tell us what you think.

What do you think causes the glacial/interglacial cycles?

Why were many of the interglacial periods warmer than the holocene?

How do you solve the faint young Sun paradox?

How do you think the Earth is going to respond to increasing CO2?

 

Thank you Captain Obvious. We all know that. Well, all of us except Mac-7 above who thinks it's a hoax.

Huh? How is the climate on Mars relevant to the climate on Earth?

 

Mars show:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/mars/

Every episode has something about climate change on earth. Cool show, watch it!

Nothing to worry about, but Mars loss of oceans and this may be slightly related:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/earth-magnetic-field-flip-north-south-poles-science/