Surprise: Actions To Solve ‘Climate Change’ May Not Show Up for 30 Years

Get this, we’re supposed to give up lots of our money, along with freedom, liberty, and choice, and won’t know if it will make any difference anytime soon

Even if we start to fix climate change, the proof may not show up for 30 years

The young climate activists clamoring today for rapid cuts to the world’s fossil fuel emissions could be well into their 30s or 40s before the impact of those changes becomes apparent, scientists said in a study published Tuesday.

As if curbing climate change wasn’t tough enough already, the new research finds that even if humans sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions now — cutting carbon dioxide, methane and other pollutants by at least 5 percent or more a year — it could still take decades before it’s clear those actions are beginning to slow the rate of the Earth’s warming.

In short, because of the massive amount of fossil fuels burned since the Industrial Revolution, and the complexity of the Earth’s climate, there’s no quick payoff from changing our fossil fuel habits, researchers found.

The results lend added perspective to the relatively minor drop in emissions that occurred due to worldwide shutdowns in response to the coronavirus pandemic — a drop that appears unlikely to have much effect on the planet’s overall temperature.

Hmm, that’s one short term reason for the study: “carbon pollution” was way down, and skeptics were asking “shouldn’t we see a reduction in global temperatures soon since Warmists say carbon dioxide is the control knob”? The other is to set the deflection terms when people start asking “why is nothing changing after taking all our money and liberty?”

Samset said the delayed benefits of climate action could complicate the push to quickly wean the world off fossil fuels, in part because politicians and policymakers might have a difficult time showing that measures to combat climate change are making a discernible difference in the short term — even if emissions cuts help stave off future warming.

“It’s one of the things that makes climate change so difficult,” he said. “You’re looking at an avoided issue in the long term. So the best thing you can hope for is to stay at the status quo.”

Climate cultists always have some sort of excuse, don’t they? Of course, the Washington Post writers failed to ask any of the “scientists” exactly what should happen, per their scientific models, if the nations implemented all their crazy policies.

There is some warming already in motion that hasn’t materialized yet, Samset observed. What’s more, the planet’s temperature is influenced significantly by natural variability, so it is hard to have an immediate impact on it. Even if greenhouse gases are reduced, this variability could temporarily introduce more warming anyway.

So, really, the temperature is mostly caused by natural variability.

Emissions declined by as much as 17 percent in early April, compared with the previous year, but then bounced back rapidly as shuttered economies around the world began to reopen. Overall, the globe’s 2020 emissions are likely to show only a single-digit drop from 2019 levels, experts project.

A comparable reduction would need to happen year after year for rising global temperatures to level off. A United Nations report in the fall found that the world’s emissions would need to shrink by 7.6 percent each year to meet the most ambitious aims of the Paris climate agreement, which has the support of nearly every nation except the United States under President Trump.

Did you enjoy your test drive of Cult of Climastrology policies? Would you enjoy doing this for up to 30 years to see if they made a change in the climate?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Surprise: Actions To Solve ‘Climate Change’ May Not Show Up for 30 Years”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    PG types: we’re supposed to give up lots of our money, along with freedom, liberty, and choice, and won’t know if it will make any difference anytime soon

    How does transitioning from fossil fuels make one “give up lots of money, freedom, liberty and choice”?

    We’re aware that connies focus on themselves and the here and now, but don’t connies advocate indoctrinating young children in chrisianity, taking money, freedom, liberty and choice, for a potential benefit 60 or 70 years later, and one where you have to die to see if it was true? Aren’t christians instructed to give 10% of their incomes to the church? That seems like “lots of money” to support an unproven outcome. There’s more evidence to support global warming.

    • Dana says:

      The esteemed Mr Dowd asked:

      How does transitioning from fossil fuels make one “give up lots of money, freedom, liberty and choice”?

      Seriously?

      The various Democratic candidates promised different global warming climate change plans, all of which cost billions upon billions of dollars. You have personally advocated raising all sorts of taxes on fossil fuel-derived energy, which would take dollars out of people’s pockets.

      Freedom? The left have championed all sorts of restrictions on where and how people could live, and how homes and buildings must be constructed.

      Liberty? The various global warming climate change proposals would restrict our ability to travel, by forcing people into electric vehicles and making travel much more inconvenient and expensive — there ain’t no such thing as an electric jet — and pushing people into ever-denser urban areas, to make them dependent upon public transportation.

      Choice? You and your fellow travelers would ban many things which people now choose: natural gas for heating and cooking — watch some of the home shows, and you’ll see that most people want gas ranges — and gasoline powered vehicles.

      We’re aware that connies focus on themselves and the here and now, but don’t connies advocate indoctrinating young children in chrisianity, taking money, freedom, liberty and choice, for a potential benefit 60 or 70 years later, and one where you have to die to see if it was true?

      Well, that’s just it: “Connies” aren’t advocating the use of government force to require people to attend church or send their children to parochial schools, as the left are doing to fight global warming climate change.

      Thing is, the benefits of Christianity don’t wait until you die to manifest themselves. Following Jewish and Christian morality is its own reward, because it is ennobling, and other people following Jewish and Christian morality is the community’s reward in safer living, a more prosperous economy, and public comity.

      So, if all of the time I’ve spent in Mass, if all of the money I’ve donated to the Church, if all of the years I’ve spent at work rather than on welfare, if all of the 40 years, 1 month and 19 days I’ve spent married to one woman, results in a zero afterlife, my reward has still been a decent, happy and productive life, loved by my wife and children.

      I’m retired now, and my wife and I spent the morning on the side porch, drinking coffee, talking, looking out over the farm fields, petting the cats and the dog. Perhaps we have less money than you, but, in the end, we have a better life than most people.

  2. Dana says:

    But, but, but, I thought it was already too late, that we had already passed whatever ‘tipping point’ there was to stop global warming climate change?

Bad Behavior has blocked 5950 access attempts in the last 7 days.