View Single Post
Old 06-20-2017, 03:20 PM   #157 (permalink)
Xist
Not Doug
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,186

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 35.35 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 34.2 mpg (US)

Gramps - '04 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 35.39 mpg (US)

Don't hit me bro - '05 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 30.18 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7,225
Thanked 2,217 Times in 1,708 Posts
The other global warming poster child, Al Gore, cited this study back in 2007: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

Citing the worst-case scenario did not help his credibility, or that of simulations.

Is anyone denying the climate changes? I believe the first argument in this thread was that there were far larger problems.

How much is the Paris Accord supposed to cost? Is anyone disputing $100 trillion?

Pick your favorite version of the GWP:

Quote:
The gross world product (GWP) is the combined gross national product of all the countries in the world. Because imports and exports balance exactly when considering the whole world, this also equals the total global gross domestic product (GDP). In 2014, according to the CIA's World Factbook, the GWP totalled approximately US$107.5 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), and around US$78.28 trillion in nominal terms. The per capita PPP GWP in 2014 was approximately US$16,100 according to the World Factbook. According to the World Bank, the 2013 nominal GWP was approximately US$75.59 trillion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

Regardless of the number you choose, you want us to spend roughly 1-2% of all of the money made in the entire world for the rest of the century.

What does the Paris agreement promise? Has anyone actually read it? One of the sources I shared earlier said the goal is to reduce carbon emissions a certain percent by 2030. For what? To reduce global temperatures 2° C?

No. Once we reach that goal, we keep setting lower and lower goals, which eventually could reduce global temperatures 2° C.

If we only maintain 2030 levels while the population explodes (which sounds like a major feat in and of itself), we would only reduce global temperatures by 0.3° C.

$100 trillion for 0.54° F.

How much would the whole plan cost? $700 trillion? Quadrillions?

For two degrees centigrade, or Celsius, if you insist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist View Post
I still think we could fabricate a partial sun shade over Phoenix to keep our summers civilized, slashing AC usage.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post512917

Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck View Post
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post512920

Immature name-calling has started, but I have not repeated any of the nonsense that a certain president of a certain United States with atrocious hair has said.

Frank Lee reminded us to focus on energy conservation: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post541836

I remember someone saying newer technology should be increasingly efficient, but I cannot find the post, just this by Oil Pan: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post541843

How much would $100 trillion in R&D to make products more efficient decrease global emissions?

That sounds like Bill Gate's plan.

I created that thread about "environmentally-friendly" foods. At the same time, CNN had this one: 5 things you can do about climate change - CNN.com

"Take a look around your home: What are the five most common lights you use? If you change those bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs, they'll use less energy and help reduce your impact on the environment."

Lies! Lies lies lies!

I changed our most-commonly-used lights to LED a while ago.

Anyway, I need to get to work, I need to drive my black Civic forty-five minutes each way in 120° F weather.

I think I will roll down my window.
 
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Xist For This Useful Post:
freebeard (06-20-2017), redneck (06-20-2017), RustyLugNut (06-20-2017)