Global Warming WTF??

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So you think there is no cost from numerous flooded coastal cities, more extreme weather events, extended droughts, millions of refugees, etc?

The Pentagon has released a document outlining the risk of climate change and the negative impacts on the US military around the world. The pentagon! (here is a clue) they are not socialist!

Have you got your head in the sand?

I think you completely missed the context of your article from which I quoted. The premise being that the cost to the Canadian economy of the Carbon tax payed by Canadians would be offset by less economic damage due to climate change. I then posted a link from Stanford University predicting that Canada's economy stands to benefit massively from climate change. So by mitigating future climate change, we are actually lowering our own future economic ability to pay for said CO2 tax.

This context isn't about worldwide impacts, the article was about the effect on Canada's economy.

[furrowtickler]

What percent of the millions of refugees are a direct result of religious or resource wars and misguided governments? I don’t know exactly but my guess is by far the majority and has been that way for 2000 plus years .
Climate has played a role , always has .
One always sees the “cost” of natural disasters being more all the time . Well .... the cost of housing and property has gone up dramatically over the past 50 years so..... it is what it is

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Are Canadian snowbirds who go south every winter Considered to be climate refugees Or just smarter than the rest of us who stay behind in this cold ? Has it ever occurred to any of these people that There will be climate refugees from cooling trend as well.

[chuckChuck]

Pentagon survey details effects of climate change on military sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-survey-details-effects-of-climate-change-on-military-sites/2018/01/29/42a40438-02e1-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html?utm_term=.1b519ae3610e

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Pentagon survey details effects of climate change on military sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-survey-details-effects-of-climate-change-on-military-sites/2018/01/29/42a40438-02e1-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html?utm_term=.1b519ae3610e

Are you familiar with the computing acronym GIGO? Garbage In = Garbage Out? All of these projections are based on the same flawed and fraudulent climate models which are now so far removed from measured temperatures to be completely irrelevant. But if you input garbage temperature projections into an economic or military model, you will get equivalent garbage data out of it. This report is no more evidence of catastrophic global warming and its consequences, than the snow storm on the east coast was.

[sumdumguy]

Forget about Chuck - he is mentally dysfunctional - Big snow storm heading for Calgary and southern Alberta.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Forget about Chuck - he is mentally dysfunctional - Big snow storm heading for Calgary and southern Alberta.

Yes, but we all know that this snow storm is not only much more likely but also much more intense due to global warming.

[chuckChuck]

I think you completely missed the context of your article from which I quoted. The premise being that the cost to the Canadian economy of the Carbon tax payed by Canadians would be offset by less economic damage due to climate change. I then posted a link from Stanford University predicting that Canada's economy stands to benefit massively from climate change. So by mitigating future climate change, we are actually lowering our own future economic ability to pay for said CO2 tax.

This context isn't about worldwide impacts, the article was about the effect on Canada's economy.

Interesting graphic. So you believe human caused climate change is real? Yes or No?

Di you notice that the 2 largest economies the USA and China will see a -36% and -42% GDP loss because of climate change?

Most of the worlds population live in countries that will see a decline in GDP.

So if the Stanford model is correct and a few northern countries will see increased GDP the overall world GDP will decline by 23%. Correct. Didn't you say there would be no cost to climate change?

In 2017 dollars that 23% would amount to around 30 trillion dollar cost of climate change by 2100.

Are you in agreement with this estimate?

So if we adopt new technology, conserve and use new renewable energy resources we will still gain a significant growth in our GDP. Because the projections for the cost of a carbon tax to the Canadian economy are very low.

So why are you so worried about the transition to a low carbon world when Canada will do very well by 2100?

Q and A from the study:
1. What does your study find?
We find that over the last fifty years, temperature has influenced the economic productivity of countries. For cold countries, warming up helps them perform better, up to a point. There is an optimal temperature at around 13C (55F) where economic performance peaks. Then warming above this temperature causes economic productivity to decline, with a rate that accelerates the hotter and hotter a country gets. We have known for some time that the fundamental building blocks of our economies, such as workers and crops, show their highest level of performance at moderate temperatures. We demonstrate that our results for the performance of much larger and more complex national economies is consistent with what we already know about the performance of their building blocks (e.g. workers and crops).
Based on these findings, we calculate how global warming is expected to affect economies around the
world. We find that climate change will reshape the global economy, causing a small number of cold countries to perform better and many temperate and hot countries to perform worse. On net, we project that the global economy will do much worse because of climate change, with global average incomes 23% lower in 2100 with climate change relative to without it. In addition, because some of the cooler richer countries are expected to benefit from warming and poorer tropical countries are hurt, global inequality is projected to get much worse due to climate change.

[fjlip]

The volcanoes at the moment belching smoke and ash around the earth, cancel any CO2 reductions for years. Any result can be achieved with MADE UP #'s facts. None can be PROVEN 50-100 years into the future. Remember in the 70's we were going into an ICEAGE?

" In addition, because some of the cooler richer countries are expected to benefit from warming and poorer tropical countries are hurt, global inequality is projected to get much worse due to climate change."


Great they can MOVE Then. Worry about our backyard, 35 million people can not save 7 billion.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Interesting graphic. So you believe human caused climate change is real? Yes or No?

Yes to human caused climate change on certain irrelevant scales and timeframes, No to Catastrophic

Di you notice that the 2 largest economies the USA and China will see a -36% and -42% GDP loss because of climate change?

Most of the worlds population live in countries that will see a decline in GDP.

When reading any of these projections remember GIGO, Are you familiar with the computing acronym GIGO? Garbage In = Garbage Out? All of these projections are based on the same flawed and fraudulent climate models which are now so far removed from measured temperatures to be completely irrelevant. But if you input garbage temperature projections into an economic or military model, you will get equivalent garbage data out of it. This report is no more evidence of catastrophic global warming and its consequences, than the snow storm on the east coast was. The Stanford model is not correct since it is based on the same junk science models which cannot predict temperature with anything close to useful accuracy.

So if the Stanford model is correct and a few northern countries will see increased GDP the overall world GDP will decline by 23%. Correct. Didn't you say there would be no cost to climate change?

In 2017 dollars that 23% would amount to around 30 trillion dollar cost of climate change by 2100.

Are you in agreement with this estimate?

No, see GIGO comment above. And as I pointed out in another thread arguing with DML, the evidence of negative consequences just isn't presenting itself 30+ years into this global warming scare.

So if we adopt new technology, conserve and use new renewable energy resources we will still gain a significant growth in our GDP. Because the projections for the cost of a carbon tax to the Canadian economy are very low.

So why are you so worried about the transition to a low carbon world when Canada will do very well by 2100?

See my context comment above, paying a tax to stop warming which would otherwise have a beneficial result to our economy is penalizing ourselves doubly. Making the obvious leap of faith that there was a connection between the tax and the climate.

Q and A from the study:
1. What does your study find?
We find that over the last fifty years, temperature has influenced the economic productivity of countries. For cold countries, warming up helps them perform better, up to a point. There is an optimal temperature at around 13C (55F) where economic performance peaks. Then warming above this temperature causes economic productivity to decline, with a rate that accelerates the hotter and hotter a country gets. We have known for some time that the fundamental building blocks of our economies, such as workers and crops, show their highest level of performance at moderate temperatures. We demonstrate that our results for the performance of much larger and more complex national economies is consistent with what we already know about the performance of their building blocks (e.g. workers and crops).
Based on these findings, we calculate how global warming is expected to affect economies around the
world. We find that climate change will reshape the global economy, causing a small number of cold countries to perform better and many temperate and hot countries to perform worse. On net, we project that the global economy will do much worse because of climate change, with global average incomes 23% lower in 2100 with climate change relative to without it. In addition, because some of the cooler richer countries are expected to benefit from warming and poorer tropical countries are hurt, global inequality is projected to get much worse due to climate change.

[chuckChuck]

So the Stanford study that you posted that shows Canada will benefit from global warming and the majority of the world will see declines in GDP is not credible because the science that shows greenhouse gas emissions have risen along with global temperatures is not accurate?

Where is the credible scientific evidence that is the case?

Alberta 5 you presented the Stanford study as evidence but now you don't find it credible? Get your story straight. LOL

In any case we know many people on Agriville don't believe in the science of climate change. Most are content to look out the window at cold winter day and say it is not happening. So it is kind of pointless to discuss it when this is the level of debate.

What is important is that the decision makers in Canada and 194 countries do believe in the science. Otherwise they would not support the Paris climate agreement.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Once again, Context is important here. I chose that study because it is not by a "denier " so that you couldn't brush it off. If climate really does change as much as Claimed, Then this report will likely be very accurate. But if and when that assumption is wrong, the entire report becomes irrelevant. However, if their assumptions are correct, Canada has more to lose by fighting climate change then we do with the status quo. Yet you keep advocating that we punish ourselves with a tax on CO2 In spite of overwhelming evidence that It is not in our best interests