Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Is my question invisible to you? LOL

 

No, I've provided the information in link form. If curious you might also look at the work of Dr. Richard Tol:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/289812

And we still have crickets and not one analysis showing how the Obama Clean Energy Plan will reduce the rate of global warming. It's obvious which question you find invisible.

 

The link is a CV of Professor Tol. How does that possibly answer my question? Is my question really invisible?

- - - Updated - - -

Now I see the link. I love this one
https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits

- - - Updated - - -

or this one

http://www.epi.org/publication/employment-analysis-epa-clean-power-plan/

 

Net effects include both positive and negative. There are always winners and losers when public policy is implemented. In this case there are more winners for the next 200 years using a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1 deg C (which is what the real world data indicates).

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.23.2.29

 

The effects do not take into account the reductions in negative impacts of AGW.

 

And what would be the non existent temperature reductions of the Obama Clean Power Plan. Or any other plan. China and India (and the rest of the developing countries) are busy growing their economies whilst Obama and western Europe are intent on reducing the growth rate of their economies. The Obama economy will be the first to never achieve a 3% gdp annual growth rate. The Chinese are laughing at us.

 

Here is a fact sheet that explains the positive effects on the Obama Clean Eneregy and includes two studies of gains of up to 300,000 jobs from it. Wow....that's a lot of jobs.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/08/03/clean-power-plan-myths-and-facts

 

Oh, please, 300,000 jobs by 2040 ?? That's approximately one month job gains under the Reagan economy which once had a month in which 1 million jobs were created. And of course this is all based on a computer model.

http://www.inforum.umd.edu/papers/otherstudies/2015/iec_inforum_report_041415.pdf

 

You understand that this is a positive effect instead of the negative effect you claim. We did not suggest this would be the TOTAL jobs gained in that time.

 

I understand that the net effect will be fewer jobs. More jobs lost than gained.

 

Nope. Sorry

 

You are supporting a public policy which will reduce economic growth, result in fewer jobs, and have no effect on the global average temperature. Amazing ??

 

You are supporting a policy that result in the death of millions of people. Now THAT is amazing!

 

What policy is that and when will these millions of people start dying ??

 

A policy of denying appropriate action to slow AGW and they will die at higher rates in the coming decades.

 

Millions will die in the next few decades due to global warming ?? What is the rate of global warming now (it is ~ 1 deg C per century) ?? How much does global warming have to be slowed to prevent these millions from dying ?? And what is the global warming reduction that will occur if the Obama Clean Power Plan is implemented ??

 

Let me answer each of your questions. Very likely. Between 2 and 6 degrees C. We can't prevent all the deaths but we can reduce them. Enough to make a difference.

 

By the way this is called the fallacy of impossible expectations. It never applies in other areas of science. Imagine if a doctor told you to quit smoking for your health. Would you say no if he could not tell you exactly how many more years you will live by not smoking. Exactly when you will get cancer? If he gives you an exercise plan will you say exactly how how many years will this add to my life. If he is a good doctor he will say "well we can't tell you exact figures. In fact you might still get cancer tomorrow. BUT THIS IS YOUR BEST CHANCE AT A HEALTHY LIFE."

This is why many people still quit smoking.

 

The climate sensitivity to CO2 based on actual observations is ~ 1 deg C. The A1B scenario for CO2 concentration shows that the CO2 concentration will double (from ~ 350 to 700 ppm in the 21st century). The global average temperature will therefore be ~ 1 deg C higher in 2100 than it was in 2000. Mortality rates decrease with warming. Therefore fewer people will die due to climate effects. That's the truth based on facts. Your answer is meaningless - it is based on the worst case limits of computer models which cannot predict the past.

 

It is the latest alarmist push. Not even the IPCC buys into it and of coarse observe science doesn't show it.

 

Smoking is bad for you. Global warming is a net benefit (for increased of 2 deg C) for the human race.

 

Smoking is bad for you??? Exactly how bad is it for you? Why can some people smoke their whole lives and not get cancer? Exactly how many cigarettes do I need to smoke to get cancer? These are the type of expectations AGW denialists set.

AGW is net bad for life on this planet according to the scientific community.

- - - Updated - - -

The scientific community disagrees with your conclusions.

 

You mean the alarmist media. Show us all the papers that says warming is a catastrophe for the planet.

 

I have shown them to you many times. Many many times in fact.

 

Nope, wrong again, you have not pointed to one scientific paper that claims warming is catastrophic.