Challenge to Democrats/Leftists: If you believe climate change is an existential crisis, prove it

Oh, but it is a mystery:

Mystery of Ocean Heat Deepens as Climate Changes
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mystery-of-ocean-heat-deepens-as-climate-changes/​

 

Home geothermal--sure. I looked into it.

I think we need to speed up the process. One way is to guarantee childless couples and individuals that they'll be looked after in old age. I'm not suggesting coercion.

I think we know burning fossil fuels is putting upside pressure on global temperatures.

Okay.

The short version is we don't have non-nuclear energy sources sufficient to even come close to replacing fossil fuels.

Time to end the rearguard action questioning climate change and start engaging on the solutions.

 

Ending the so-called "rearguard action questioning climate change" is the worst mistake we could make. What we know is that climate "science" is corrupted by Leftists who have and will distort the data so they can force people to change their lifestyles so as to be more under control of Leftists. The only thing preventing it has been the few skeptical voices that haven't been smothered.

The right answer is to promote having skeptics question the "science".

As for the solutions, the obvious ones are the ones the Left likes least: bring the entire world to First World status because rich people take better care of the environment and have fewer kids. Then move manufacturing and other industries that can be harmful to the environment into Earth's orbit and the Moon. Finally, make fusion power a top priority.

None of those goals is recommended by the socialists promoting the Green New Deal, because socialists want to rule a world that looks more like Venezuela.

 

I think we can ban cars running in fossil fuels. Why not? You wouldn't be required to buy an electric vehicle.

 

You're wasting time nitpicking. When is someone going to challenge Sanders and Friends over their opposition to nuclear power?

Hohhh-Kayyyy....

Fission is a bird in hand.

I'd go light on the Earth orbit and Moon thing. You look like this guy...

 

Doesn't matter, because what you said has nothing to do with phase changes. The relevant question would be whether water temp increases when air temp is steady - which of course it doesn't unless it's a cloudless and windy day, or the lake bed somehow gets warmer.

The point is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

Only selfish people who live in warm climes and/or have short commutes want to get rid of gas powered cars. Ever notice that reviews of electric cars never mention how good the heaters and air conditioners are? If you live in Fargo and need to run the heater, having your range cut by a third or more or else not suffering without is the kind of thing only authoritarians shrug off as "can't make an omelet without breaking eggs".

Batteries don't have the capacities and fail too quickly to be practical, and that's why you don't force that kind of change on people. When electric cars are practical and affordable, people will stop driving fossil fuel powered cars.

 

Not sure what your problem is here. I pointed out the part of your post that I disagree with, so I guess you could call it nitpicking if you're feeling peevish. But as for Sanders's opposition to nukes, that's not what this topic's about, remember? So why should people be pointing that out when we're talking about the extinction of the human race in the next 20 to 30 years?

That's OK, we have a hundred years until the next doubling of CO2 (adding 1 more degree C) to do the obvious, so your lack of vision doesn't mean the obvious next step won't occur by then.

Absolutely, but the ideal solution is fusion, hence we should make it a priority.

Funny. Missing the point. But I never get tired of seeing Comrade take a punch.

 

Why would you be interested in something you can't measure.
The goal is to understand the system.

Not buying it.
The part of the curve we are interested in is from 280 up - not 20 and up.
Actually your chart does show it (poorly). The difference between 280 and 560 is not great.
The lowest CO2 has been in the last million years is 180.

I never said it was easy.
But I'm glad to see you agree that only measuring CO2 has no meaning when it comes to warming.

 

There are many options for colder areas including fast battery charging, battery pack exchanges--lots of ways to have a viable transportation system.

 

Maybe I used the wrong analogy for you.
Does your beer get warm the minute you take it out of the fridge?

 

If you continue to contest the idea of man-made climate change, you can hardly pivot to pushing for nuclear power as a solution.

You're understating the problem.

What happens if we can't make it work? How much should we devote to trying to get a breakthrough?

I wanted to work it in.

 

Every analogy is wrong when it's employed in support of an unphysical claim like yours.

 

What's unphysical about it?

 

Global warming alarmists are racists. One in seven people in the world do not have access to electricity. And the alarmists want to deprive them of the benefits of fossil fuel electrical energy. Guess what color most of them are. Global warming alarmists policies are immoral.

Morano, Marc. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides) (pp. 305-306). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

More progress. Of course the goal is to understand the system, but we don't at this time, so I'm gratified that you think we shouldn't Green New Deal our economy based on something that can't be measured.

Aaaaaand you're still not getting it. We're interested in the entire curve from a science standpoint. If we didn't pay attention to the 20 ppm, we wouldn't understand the logarithmic trend.

If you want to argue whose graphic is prettier, I concede that yours is. Happy now?

But, being prettier doesn't change how CO2 behaves when it's at high concentration in the atmosphere. SPOILER ALERT: It doesn't do much at 280, less at 560, and even less at 1120.

Sigh.

You don't seem to have enough knowledge to assert that it's easy or hard. Especially when you say a non sequitur like this:

If you think that the 1 degree C warming from doubling CO2, just by itself, is meaningless (and you just said that very thing) then you should walk away.

 

Now, we're getting somewhere: you're asserting that I contest the idea of manmade climate change. My OP was all about explaining how CO2 impacts the climate, and even says "When humans have doubled the atmospheric concentration of CO2". Please cite a quote that backs up your claim or admit you got it wrong.

 

Oh. Yes measuring CO2 is a most important part of understanding the system - but only a part. To understand the impact we need to understand the complete system and we are getting pretty good at it. To only look at CO2 would be to ignore 50% of the problem.

Your quick to point out the logarithmic effect of CO2 but you overlook the production of it.
That's why you seem confused about what is important.

 

You're belaboring a completely obvious point. All that we know for sure is how much temps will rise as a result of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. Everything else is guesswork, and while we're learning more every year, it doesn't help that climate science has become so politicized and as a result has forced out skeptical minds, AND it doesn't help that Leftists in the science and political fields have glommed onto the little we know to try and feather their own nests. Science types who genuflect to AGW are guaranteed grant monies, and politicians who claim to fear AGW (despite owning huge homes and flying private jets) are using the supposed threat to force economies and people under the control of authoritarian Leftists.

You need to rephrase what you wrote, because it makes no sense. Maybe, oh I don't know, include a quote or two of mine to back up your claims. Crazy, I know, but give it a try.

 

You're redefining the problem as being far less urgent than climate change advocates suggest. You're functionally keeping the climate change debate on a front burner.

So, while we could be talking about solutions like use nuclear power to generate electricity, we're leaving an unchallenged Crazy Bernie to say he's opposed to nuclear power.

 

Ah, so I'm SKEPTICAL about the urgency. I have good reasons for being a skeptic, so why should that prevent me from supporting nuclear power? The benefits of nuclear far outweigh the liabilities, which is exactly the opposite benefit/liability of adopting the Green New Deal that's being supported by the climate change advocates.

Oh, it's nowhere near as clear cut as that. All the Democrat candidates want to put an end to fracking, the one thing that's made us energy independent from the terrorists in OPEC. Nuclear power doesn't have a chance if Trump doesn't get reelected, nor does the America we have today, because the Democrats want a socialist paradise (where they need never fear being out of power again) like Venezuela or the Mexico that was run for 70 years by the Institutional Revolutionary Party.

 

Why would you support nuclear power now if we have more than a century to act?

The Green New Deal is nonsense. Why would we retrofit every home when some homes aren't worth much, while other homes are very efficient now and making them slightly more efficient could be very costly?

I think we'll lose four years if Trump gets back in. He's locked in with oil and gas producers.

Propaganda Alert!

 

Political Forum Alert! Snowflakes take note.

 

Your comment in blue above is pure BS.

 

Climate change is natural it has always happened and it always will.