The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

This has not affected my life so why should I worry

The temp feels the same as it always has

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

It's hard to follow that article when it's full of arcane and undefined terminology.
I gather that its bottom line is that things aren't quite as bad as some have led us to believe.

It's hard to follow that article when it's full of arcane and undefined terminology.
I gather that its bottom line is that things aren't quite as bad as some have led us to believe.

Yeah, I've followed this pretty closely over the years.  I used to get Nature and Science across my desk weekly.  Talk about arcane.

Yes, the bottom line is worst case estimates look not as dire as folks said earlier.  The other bottom line is "we" are not really going to do much of anything to limit climate change.  The recent US spending might, at best, reduce T increase by less than a tenth of a degree C, at best, not measurable.

The best thing we could actually DO, IMHO, is replace coal with nuclear on the grid.  Get a single design nuclear plant and replicate it across the country.  Allow spent fuel reprocessing.  This would replace dirty baseline power with clean baseline power.

Sure, it's not at all practicable here.  This is one reason I lose patience with the extremists who are all up in arms about CC, they have no practicable solutions, and won't accept nuclear.  They are whiners.

I whine a lot about whiners.

The best thing we could actually DO, IMHO, is replace coal with nuclear on the grid.  Get a single design nuclear plant and replicate it across the country.  Allow spent fuel reprocessing.  This would replace dirty baseline power with clean baseline power.

I'm with you on this.
The rebuttal is something along this line: nuclear power produces long-term hazards, so it's just kicking the can down the road.
The rebuttal to that is that if we in imminent danger, then delaying the onset of that danger until we better figure out how to cope with it makes a lot of sense.

The big advantage of nuclear is that all your waste product is largely contained on site in a local container. Coal combustion launches stuff into the atmosphere that's hard to get back.

Climate change is tough because, while I firmly believe the evidence demonstrates the human race's hand in exacerbating it, the effect can be hard to differentiate from background noise over the period of time we're studying (and can study due to investigative limitations). That is, we just haven't been keeping records long enough to correlate data to a firm degree of confidence.

Engineers like "damped systems". Put a weight on a spring, and let it boing. It oscillates up and down. If it didn't have any "real world" effects like air drag or thermal metallic fatigues, it'd boing forever in a predictable, sinusoidal (the operative word) pattern - up and down. In the "real world", those effects we know will eventually cause it to stop boinging and come to rest at a constant position - it's steady state resting place where the upward pull of the spring exactly counteracts the downward pull of gravity. Those "real world" forces "damp" the system so the oscillations decay and arrive at that final point.

Steering a cruise ship is analogous. When you want a cruise ship to go a different direction, you have to start making the turn in small movements well ahead of the turn. It'll take a while to see any change in the ship's course. You have to stop turning well in advance of the intended course and let the ship's momentum carry it to that point. If you use large inputs, typically too late, the ship is just going to flounder around.

Climate change and economic systems follow these time delayed inputs. You have to make changes well in advance of your intended effect, which requires some imperfect measure of prognostication.