One thing I would love to hear from climate catastrophists is what is the proper CO2 level they would like to see. Surely not the 250 to 280 prior to industrialization. Just because that was the average over the last 800,000 years does not make it the best place to be. 700,000 years of that time much of the northern hemisphere was under ice. 250 would put us square into territory of the Little Ice Age with 30% shorter growing season along with famine and wars for resources on the way to 100,000 years of continental glaciation. Man evolved during our current ice age but they did not evolve in northern latitudes equatorial regions are not really affected much in either cold or hot periods. The current interglacial is what allowed man to migrate north and allowed man to create a civilization. When the ice comes civilization is in danger. From reconstruction of temperatures in ice cores (Vinthor 2009) the earth has been in a 10000 year cooling trend toward the little ice age. My interpretation is that man caused global warming, starting toward the end of the 18th century reversed the cooling trend that had accelerated over the previous 1200 years moving rapidly into the next glacial cycle. It looks like man may have inadvertently geoengineered the climate to either delay or stop the next advance of ice. That would be a good thing because cold is bad warm is good. This is the biggest positive attribute of warming.
I 100% Agree with Alex ... but not many are listening..
I think we are dealing with religion..... so they (most people) will probably not want to be "confused with the facts" or be thought of as a heathen!!
Also, some are thinking… well…lets hedge our bets and follow along with the religion anyway, as this is perceived as a safe approach to go to Net-Zero in case it IS an emergency, rather than do nothing and regret it…
But if we convince them that it will 100% adversely effect the life force called “ prosperity” and worse it will destroy it.. then they will listen much more….
We are on the cusp of being able to declare this as people witness the vast and wasteful expenditures being thrown at the Net Zero goal.. And how it is now a huge distraction to the west getting back its industries and restoring or reversing ailing prosperity.
Industrial agriculture is basically a system for turning oil into food products. It consumes approx. 14 calories of hydrocarbons to produce a single calorie of food. If you think that a food system that runs at a staggering caloric net loss of 14:1 is "successful," you need to check your math. This is yet another example of Mr. Epstein's inability to see beyond the next few years. Devoid of context, his ethos is little more than "live fast, die young."
Both of your "climate mastery" examples make no sense.
A/C to fight heat and irrigation to fight drought only work if you can continue to supply abundant, affordable fossil fuels, which directly contradicts the reality of Peak Oil. As climate effects worsen, it will require more energy, increasing demand and therefore prices. As Peak Oil manifests, supply will be constrained, and prices will increase. Thus, you're trying to thread the "abundant, affordable energy" needle with two strong price pressures, and somehow trying to power economic growth and rising standards of living with the surplus.
Peak Oil is real and indisputable. Even the most generous estimates give us fossil fuels until 2100, but that doesn't mean fossils are cheap and accessible right up to the date of expiry. It means that this energy source gets scarcer and more expensive every year as wells become less viable. The Gulf of Mexico is set to wind down by 2025, and the Permian Basin is set to wind down by 2030. Other wells exist, but they're more expensive to exploit. That's Peak Oil.
One thing I would love to hear from climate catastrophists is what is the proper CO2 level they would like to see. Surely not the 250 to 280 prior to industrialization. Just because that was the average over the last 800,000 years does not make it the best place to be. 700,000 years of that time much of the northern hemisphere was under ice. 250 would put us square into territory of the Little Ice Age with 30% shorter growing season along with famine and wars for resources on the way to 100,000 years of continental glaciation. Man evolved during our current ice age but they did not evolve in northern latitudes equatorial regions are not really affected much in either cold or hot periods. The current interglacial is what allowed man to migrate north and allowed man to create a civilization. When the ice comes civilization is in danger. From reconstruction of temperatures in ice cores (Vinthor 2009) the earth has been in a 10000 year cooling trend toward the little ice age. My interpretation is that man caused global warming, starting toward the end of the 18th century reversed the cooling trend that had accelerated over the previous 1200 years moving rapidly into the next glacial cycle. It looks like man may have inadvertently geoengineered the climate to either delay or stop the next advance of ice. That would be a good thing because cold is bad warm is good. This is the biggest positive attribute of warming.
I 100% Agree with Alex ... but not many are listening..
I think we are dealing with religion..... so they (most people) will probably not want to be "confused with the facts" or be thought of as a heathen!!
Also, some are thinking… well…lets hedge our bets and follow along with the religion anyway, as this is perceived as a safe approach to go to Net-Zero in case it IS an emergency, rather than do nothing and regret it…
But if we convince them that it will 100% adversely effect the life force called “ prosperity” and worse it will destroy it.. then they will listen much more….
We are on the cusp of being able to declare this as people witness the vast and wasteful expenditures being thrown at the Net Zero goal.. And how it is now a huge distraction to the west getting back its industries and restoring or reversing ailing prosperity.
This is my main focus…
more at www.nigelsouthwayauthor.com
Funny that there are not dates on the IPCC Synthesis Report (linked here)
Your example about agriculture makes no sense.
Industrial agriculture is basically a system for turning oil into food products. It consumes approx. 14 calories of hydrocarbons to produce a single calorie of food. If you think that a food system that runs at a staggering caloric net loss of 14:1 is "successful," you need to check your math. This is yet another example of Mr. Epstein's inability to see beyond the next few years. Devoid of context, his ethos is little more than "live fast, die young."
Both of your "climate mastery" examples make no sense.
A/C to fight heat and irrigation to fight drought only work if you can continue to supply abundant, affordable fossil fuels, which directly contradicts the reality of Peak Oil. As climate effects worsen, it will require more energy, increasing demand and therefore prices. As Peak Oil manifests, supply will be constrained, and prices will increase. Thus, you're trying to thread the "abundant, affordable energy" needle with two strong price pressures, and somehow trying to power economic growth and rising standards of living with the surplus.
Peak Oil is real and indisputable. Even the most generous estimates give us fossil fuels until 2100, but that doesn't mean fossils are cheap and accessible right up to the date of expiry. It means that this energy source gets scarcer and more expensive every year as wells become less viable. The Gulf of Mexico is set to wind down by 2025, and the Permian Basin is set to wind down by 2030. Other wells exist, but they're more expensive to exploit. That's Peak Oil.
This entire piece is based on fantasy.