.352 C, that's how much we would affect temperatures by the year 2100 if every industrialized country in the world would reduce it's carbon emissions to zero overnight. That's according to calcualtions using the MAGICC climate model simulator developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. There is a user friendly version of the calculator available over at the CATO institute available here https://www.cato.org/carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator is it worth it ? Obviously even if we went back to 17th century standards of living we could not get to 0 % carbon emissions because we would still need heat from carbon sources in order to survive.
Climate change has become more like a religion than a science. Who made it a political issue in the first place?
the Malthusian movement. Their theory is to basically revert to a feudal system where you have a few elites, some entertainers for the elites bemusement, the academics, and serfs/slaves to provide for the other classes. The Democratic party is a good example
I'm about to stop renewing my NatGeo magazine because they won't stop preaching global warming to me. I don't need to be reading about doom and gloom so much when my time here may be limited.
Along the same lines, I cancelled my Scientific American subscription long ago because it was becoming too politically oriented. Climate change never should gotten so politicized. Most people don't even know (let alone articulate) why they agree/disagree with AGW except that their ideology necessitated it. And it's not just climate change either. The politicization is bleeding over into other areas as well.
There's always a cause to be a white knight for. And if you can't blame evil corporations and conservative politicians for ruining the planet what fun is it?
Groan. More deniers hoping that we'll end up shivering in caves when the fossil fuel runs out. They must really, really hate humanity. Now, those who possess common sense would think "hey, if those minor reduction pledges don't do enough, then more reductions should be pledged. After all, it's easily achievable in both technology and cost, and would save huge money in the long run." A fourth-grader could grasp it, yet it's over the head of almost all deniers, who have all been brainwashed by their political/religious cult to believe progress and good investment is a socialist plot.
Why do alarmists hate poor people ?? Increasing the cost of power regressively harms the poor whilst doing nothing significant to reduce global warming.
Remember back when CFCs were banned to protect the ozone layer, and all of the skeptics said we would have to give up our refrigerators and air conditioners? Last time I checked, we still have refrigerators and air conditioners. When will global warming deniers learn that reducing CO2 emissions does not mean giving up modern conveniences, and just as the CFC ban sparked a whole new industry in CFC replacements, it will benefit the most those who take the lead in solving the problem.
Everyone should know if we reduce carbon emissions to zero we will still fall off the cliff it will just happen slower. We must move the carbon from the atmosphere to someplace else. This can be done by carbon sequestration in soils and plants.
That's hilarious. But typical - insults and personal attacks are clear indicators of a lack of argument and understanding. Do you know what the MAGICC emulator is, who developed it, and what it is used for ??
Well, at least one of the major contributors to the situation was the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in England. They are the main suppliers of climate data to the U.N. The U.N. has become a political body that has long ago given up reason and truth for anti-west power. Thay pay East Anglia and East Anglia produces what they want or they don't get paid. You will notice that problems with the climate all seen to come from developed western countries, so they need to be brought under control. Strange how that works out. The big stink hit the fan when e-mails from researchers at East Anglia were released and they showed the cooking of the books to give the U.N. what they wanted - not the truth. Since then, weak minds all over the world have run with it.
Asking for CATO's review on the validity of AGW is like asking Simon Wiesenthal to review Mein Kampf. There's going to be an inherent bias involved against the very concept.
I don't click on blatantly partisan sites. Kind of like you avoid SPLC and any news site left of Breitbart and InfoWars...
So you choose to be blatantly ignorant then of computer climate modeling. The same model that is used by climate scientists. It's sad when information is not accessed based on a judgment of the website it resides on.
In an interesting turn of events, the worry of uncontrolled warming is perhaps turning to worry about long lasting cooling. Again. It's like the 70s called and said: "Don't tread on our climate prognostication"... The worry is the current that warms n Europe may be slowing down, or otherwise the oscillation is weakening. Leading to massive cooling in the N Hemisphere. Yikes... Of course, AGW alarmists are ignoring the data, and are continuing to reference data that has been messaged to produce results guaranteed to please the faithful. Talk about a truly dogmatic klan.
What do you think will happen to all of the heat that the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean currently brings to Europe? Remember the subject here is "global warming", not Northern Hemisphere warming. It was AGW alarmists who discovered the potential shutdown of thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, so how are they ignoring it?
Complete speculation ^^ unless you are claiming that the University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign researchers discovered the following in 2004.
Since the statement you quoted came from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign back in December of 2004, I would say that is a safe bet. Is it complete speculation when it is backed up by several other published papers ?
