Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,176
#2,176
orangeslice13 said:
Solar and wind farms will never be the answer. What do you do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? You still have to back everything with hydro and nuke. So why do farms at all. It's a waste of time and money. Individual basis is the answer but how will the libs get their friends rich if they can't give them billions to run companies?

Just like everything else in climate change, it's about politics and not about the climate
Click to expand...

Solar and wind farms are still profitable or they wouldn't exist. Startup costs are relatively high but in the long run it's limitless renewable cheap energy. Hydro and nuke will probably remain the largest alternative energy sources but you can't build those plants anywhere.

Your implied conspiracy theory is false, but even if it weren't, what difference does it make to the manufacturer if a PV cell or wind turbine goes to individuals vs. farms?

orangeslice13 said:
Here's the solar bank I built for a farm in Cleveland Tn.
Click to expand...

Cool beans. Why did you build a solar bank if it's a waste of time and money? What's your profession?
 
#2,182
#2,182
McDad said:
Hey Bart, how much of my personal money, conveniences, and lifestyle do I have to voluntarily relinquish before my fear of global catastrophe abates?
Click to expand...

You'll have to hold in all your farts. Forever!

Serious answer: very little. It depends on what approach we take to combating climate change. Public policy is a worthy debate but the science is settled.

If I were to guess the one effect it will have on you personally is higher gas prices. So maybe you will want to travel by public transportation, carpool, bicycle, etc. more often. I imagine the blow to your hubris will hurt more, recognizing that Al Gore in his infinite wisdom was right and the far-right loony science denialists feeding you faux facts via faux newz were wrong, as usual
 
#2,183
#2,183
BartW said:
You'll have to hold in all your farts. Forever!

Serious answer: very little. It depends on what approach we take to combating climate change. Public policy is a worthy debate but the science is settled.

If I were to guess the one effect it will have on you personally is higher gas prices. So maybe you will want to travel by public transportation, carpool, bicycle, etc. more often. I imagine the blow to your hubris will hurt more, recognizing that Al Gore in his infinite wisdom was right and the far-right loony science denialists feeding you faux facts via faux newz were wrong, as usual
Click to expand...

I live in a rural location. No public transportation is offered. More costly fuel means more costly goods like groceries. My family will starve.

Can't we just mandate no personal transportation or conveniences in major metropolitan areas? That way those whose options are most numerous can give the most and those who have a greater need can be given more? Sounds like a perfect solution.
 
#2,184
#2,184
McDad said:
I live in a rural location. No public transportation is offered. More costly fuel means more costly goods like groceries. My family will starve.

Can't we just mandate no personal transportation or conveniences in major metropolitan areas? That way those whose options are most numerous can give the most and those who have a greater need can be given more? Sounds like a perfect solution.
Click to expand...

Maybe Obozo will give you some of that sweet welfare or a hybrid :p I don't think your idea as written would gel with citydwellers but I agree with the sentiment
 
#2,185
#2,185
BartW said:
Maybe Obozo will give you some of that sweet welfare or a hybrid :p I don't think your idea as written would gel with citydwellers but I agree with the sentiment
Click to expand...

You think my urban area mandate has merit? Or is it the sentiment that people who have more should give more and people who need more should be given more?
 
#2,186
#2,186
McDad said:
You think my urban area mandate has merit? Or is it the sentiment that people who have more should give more and people who need more should be given more?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the mandate or your generalization to socialism. Just that people living in cities should take advantage of public transportation, carpooling, cycling, etc.
 
#2,187
#2,187
What do yall think of the lack of AGW "skeptics" in the reinsurance industry? Here is President of the Reinsurance Association of America Frank Nutter's testimony before Congress:

Climate Change: It's Happening Now

"Property casualty insurers are more dependent on the vagaries of climate and weather than any other financial services sector. Within the insurance sector, reinsurers have the greatest financial stake in appropriate risk assessment. The industry is at great financial peril if it does not understand global and regional climate impacts, variability and developing scientific assessment of a changing climate. Integrating this information into the insurance system is an essential function.

Insurance is a critical component for economic and social recovery from the effects of extreme weather and climate driven events. Through its pricing structure it is also a mechanism for conveying the consequences of decisions about where and how we build and where people chose to live. In this regard, it must be proactive and forward-looking in a changing climate/weather environment.

Our industry is science based. Blending the actuarial sciences with the natural sciences is critical in order to provide the public with resources to recover from natural events. As the scientific community’s knowledge of changes in our climate and the resulting weather continue to develop, it is important for our communities to incorporate that information into the exposure and risk assessment process, and that it be conveyed to stakeholders, policyholders, the public and public officials that can, or should, address adaptation and mitigation alternatives. Developing an understanding about climate and its impact on droughts, heat waves, the frequency and intensity of tropical hurricanes, thunderstorms and convective events, rising sea levels and storm surge, more extreme precipitation events and flooding is critical to our role in translating the interdependencies of weather, climate risk assessment and pricing."
 
#2,188
#2,188
BartW said:
I don't agree with the mandate or your generalization to socialism. Just that people living in cities should take advantage of public transportation, carpooling, cycling, etc.
Click to expand...

Risking a global catastrophe on the whims of masses doesn't sound like a good plan. We're talking about a catastrophe. We must force people to comply. Waiting for them to voluntarily change their habits, takes way too long (if they do it at all).

Cities have more people, more pollution and use a tremendous amount natural resources. We must act now, Bart!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,189
#2,189
McDad said:
Risking a global catastrophe on the whims of masses doesn't sound like a good plan. We're talking about a catastrophe. We must force people to comply. Waiting for them to voluntarily change their habits, takes way too long (if they do it at all).

Cities have more people, more pollution and use a tremendous amount natural resources. We must act now, Bart!
Click to expand...

Harhar. People won't (and don't need to) voluntarily change their habits. IMO top-down solutions will be more effective than bottom up. For example, the carbon tax, which most big oil companies support.

Yes, big oil companies along with 98% of climate scientists and 100% of the world's national scientific organizations acknowledge AGW. What do you think of the reinsurance industry?
 
#2,190
#2,190
BartW said:
Harhar. People won't (and don't need to) voluntarily change their habits. IMO top-down solutions will be more effective than bottom up. For example, the carbon tax, which most big oil companies support.

Yes, big oil companies along with 98% of climate scientists and 100% of the world's national scientific organizations acknowledge AGW. What do you think of the reinsurance industry?
Click to expand...

Why are you making fun of me? You said this is a global catastrophe if not prevented. Analogous to a comet on course to strike our planet.

How can we avoid global calamity with 7 billion people not altering their daily habits?
 
#2,191
#2,191
BartW said:
What do yall think of the lack of AGW "skeptics" in the reinsurance industry? Here is President of the Reinsurance Association of America Frank Nutter's testimony before Congress:

Climate Change: It's Happening Now

"Property casualty insurers are more dependent on the vagaries of climate and weather than any other financial services sector. Within the insurance sector, reinsurers have the greatest financial stake in appropriate risk assessment. The industry is at great financial peril if it does not understand global and regional climate impacts, variability and developing scientific assessment of a changing climate. Integrating this information into the insurance system is an essential function.

Insurance is a critical component for economic and social recovery from the effects of extreme weather and climate driven events. Through its pricing structure it is also a mechanism for conveying the consequences of decisions about where and how we build and where people chose to live. In this regard, it must be proactive and forward-looking in a changing climate/weather environment.

Our industry is science based. Blending the actuarial sciences with the natural sciences is critical in order to provide the public with resources to recover from natural events. As the scientific community’s knowledge of changes in our climate and the resulting weather continue to develop, it is important for our communities to incorporate that information into the exposure and risk assessment process, and that it be conveyed to stakeholders, policyholders, the public and public officials that can, or should, address adaptation and mitigation alternatives. Developing an understanding about climate and its impact on droughts, heat waves, the frequency and intensity of tropical hurricanes, thunderstorms and convective events, rising sea levels and storm surge, more extreme precipitation events and flooding is critical to our role in translating the interdependencies of weather, climate risk assessment and pricing."
Click to expand...

Well the guy who pays his salary thinks the opposite

Warren Buffett: Supposed Increase in Extreme Weather 'Hasn't Been True So Far' | Media Research Center

Buffett told CNBC March 3, that extreme weather events haven’t increased due to climate change, saying that weather events are consistent with how they were 30-50 years ago. Buffett, who is heavily invested in various insurance markets, said that climate change alarmism has simply made hurricane insurance more profitable, driving up premiums without increasing risk.
Click to expand...

Buffett said the supposed increase in extreme weather “hasn’t been true so far, Joe. We always think it’s cold. We always it’s cold in Omaha. It was cold in Omaha 50 years ago.”

CNBC’s Becky Quick asked Buffett on March 3’s “Squawk Box” if extreme weather events have increased, affecting insurance markets. Buffett responded that “the effects of climate change, if any, have not affected our – they have not affected the insurance market.”
Click to expand...
 
#2,192
#2,192
I need to post some more quotes from this interview today. Pure Gold

Specifically, Buffett rejected claims that hurricanes have increased due to climate change, citing his experience in hurricane insurance. He said “we’ve been remarkably free of hurricanes in the United States in the last five years.” He added “If you are writing hurricane insurance, it has been all profit.”

Buffett compared the climate to previous decades, dismissing claims that weather events have been more unusual. He said “I think that the public has the impression that because there has been so much talk about climate, that events of the last 10 years, from an insured standpoint on climate, have been unusual. The answer is, they haven’t.”

He argued “You read about these events, but you read about events 30, or 40, or 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

The richest and one of the smartest person in the world, someone who makes a living betting on the weather, just said GW is bunk. Let that sink in for a moment. Betcha you wont see this on NBC evening news tonight
 
#2,193
#2,193
You know I tend to believe a groundhog more than global warming scientists when it comes to the weather.

My troll post for the week.
 
#2,195
#2,195
Interesting to hear Buffet speak out, he usually refuses to discuss climate change. In 2007 he said

"I believe the odds are good that global warming is serious. There’s enough evidence that it would be foolish to say there’s a 99% chance it isn’t a problem. In this case, you have to build the ark before the rains come. If you have to make a mistake, err on the side of the planet. Build a margin of safety to take care of the only planet we have."

Mixed bag for sure. He's an investor and doesn't actively participate in most of the businesses he owns. He also has much more money tied up in fossil fuels than reinsurance or green industries. The data is what it is (see the link) and the reinsurance companies themselves are impacted by climate change. If they weren't they wouldn't hire climate scientists.

Swiss Re has been a leader in addressing climate change for many years. "Today, global warming is a fact. Since the beginning of industrialization and the rapid growth of world population, man’s activities – along with natural variability – have contributed to a change of climate manifesting itself as a considerable increase in global temperature. Climate change has the potential to develop into our planet’s greatest environmental challenge of the 21st century. As an enabler of change, the financial services industry can help guide society towards an effective response. However, the industry can only be effective in this role if the regulatory and legislative framework establishes
the right incentives for emissions reduction and adaptation on a global scale."

Munich Re shares this view. Anthropogenic climate change is believed to contribute to this trend (a jump in catastrophe losses) though it influences various perils in different ways. In order to realize a sustainable model of insurance, it is crucially important for us as risk managers to learn about this risk of change and find improved solutions for adaptation and mitigation. Globally, climate change alone will increase worldwide losses by 100% by the end of the 21st century. The overall increase in losses in the United States due to
climate change alone will be more than 70% by the end of the century according to a wind-based model."

The Geneva Association (International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics) states the need for action as follows, "The economic and social impacts of climate change could be immense; there is therefore a need for urgent and concerted mitigation action to reduce GHG emissions, supported by strong incentives from policy makers. But regardless of the action taken to mitigate climate change, we can expect many decades of changing climate risks due to inertia within the climate system. We therefore also need concerted adaptation to avoid the predicted impacts of climate change and especially to protect the most vulnerable populations."
 
Last edited:
#2,196
#2,196
TL:DR

The richest man in the world and the smartest investor this planet has ever seen says that you are wasting your time.

Love it
 
#2,197
#2,197
PimpVol said:
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes
Click to expand...

Interesting read. It is impossible to attribute any single weather event to global warming and the last few hurricane seasons have been relatively light. However the correlation between sea surface temperature and hurricane PDI is undeniable. I think the greatest hurricane-related costs won't be a significant increase in the frequency or power, but rather more damage from storm surge as sea levels continue to rise. JMO
 
#2,198
#2,198
BartW said:
Interesting read. It is impossible to attribute any single weather event to global warming and the last few hurricane seasons have been relatively light. However the correlation between sea surface temperature and hurricane PDI is undeniable. I think the greatest hurricane-related costs won't be a significant increase in the frequency or power, but rather more damage from storm surge as sea levels continue to rise. JMO
Click to expand...

WeatherBELL Models | Premium Weather Maps

Accumulated cyclone energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#2,199
#2,199
VolsNSkinsFan said:
TL:DR

The richest man in the world and the smartest investor this planet has ever seen says that you are wasting your time.

Love it
Click to expand...

Actually the richest man in the world is Bill Gates and he fully embraces the scientific consensus (Seattle, Microsoft, represent!)

Climate change: what Warren Buffett could learn from Bill Gates

You also missed the part where Buffet said, "I believe the odds are good that global warming is serious. There’s enough evidence that it would be foolish to say there’s a 99% chance it isn’t a problem. In this case, you have to build the ark before the rains come. If you have to make a mistake, err on the side of the planet. Build a margin of safety to take care of the only planet we have."

If that was tldr worthy I don't know how you make it through the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,200
#2,200
McDad said:
Why are you making fun of me? You said this is a global catastrophe if not prevented. Analogous to a comet on course to strike our planet.

How can we avoid global calamity with 7 billion people not altering their daily habits?
Click to expand...

Bart, I think you missed my post. You didn't reply.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top