So uhm what about the maximum temps where you are?
There is nothing interesting about them. If it is too hot outside, I simply stay at home. It is very green around here, which is something I care about.
What are you comparing?
AGW is going to last for a few hundred years at least, barring the deployment of some way to remove the CO2 we are currently pumping into the atmosphere. The costs of adjustment to its effects will be continual during that time.
That's the point. If we take, say, 50 years for the lifetime of infrastructure, all the additional costs of climate change are only about adjusting new-build infrastructure to the change which happened during the last 50 years. Moreover, even this adjustment is almost for free, given that the infrastructure would have to build new anyway, and anyway the new build infrastructure would be improved in comparison with the old one. So that a really costly adjustment would be something which requires to build something new much earlier than those 50 years. This is nothing to be expected.
That's all borrowed. The US will have to raise taxes on the rich to pay off that debt also.
The US simply prints dollar as much as necessary to pay. This is the very point of having the world reserve currency. Of course, even for the US this will end in some future in hyperinflation, but this will happen only after the world has said good buy to the dollar as the reserve currency. This needs some time. Up to this time, US can create dollars out of nothing without punishment. Those punished are foreigners holding dollars.
No namecalling visible. And no argument - nobody's arguing with you.
Means you don't even understand when you violate the rules of a civilized discussion? Then you have a serious problem.
But, ok, in modern Western society you are not at all alone with this problem, so it may not matter much for you.
You propose emergency global cooling via particulates and aerosols from open air nuclear explosions (nuclear winter), in response to bad effects from temperature spikes (local consequences of AGW).
Again, nuclear winter is the name for the consequences of a global nuclear war, and the cause of the particles in the air are large scale firestorms, and it is the heat of the firestorm which moves the particles up. What I propose is something very different, it is the use of very few but strong nuclear explosions in a desert or so, no fires involved, it is the nuclear explosion itself which throws the particles up. Then, I propose to use it if the global temperature is far above the optimal one (far above means a larger absolute difference than now), thus, not in response to some local events. I don't use phrases like "temperature spikes", except maybe in replies to QQ who likes to talk about them. So, read the sources before writing nonsense about them.
Permafrost melting with its many side effects (pollution, disease, fire, methane release, building and road damage, etc) is a big problem for Russia. So is drought, the spread of agricultural and boreal forest diseases and pests, and refugee incursion.
And so forth. It's a long list, and Russia is a poor country already - with inadequate societal resources or existing infrastructure.
Russia is today much richer than during communist time, and will become even richer in future. The societal resources are quite adequate to handle this type of country. Permafrost melting has, as everything, positive as well as negative side effects, you list, of course, only the negative ones, as usual for alarmists. The area where this possibly happens is quite large, so that the process will take a long time. So, when this starts, the Russians will find ways how to handle such problems. They will build new buildings in a way that a melting will be either completely unproblematic or that handling it will be sufficiently cheap.
That's quite silly (consider the threats to agriculture alone, the basis of industrial civilization - - - ).
And it is - overtly and explicitly - denial of AGW. Remember when you claimed you did not do that?
AGW is
Anthropogenic global warming is a theory explaining today's long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture.
I do not argue against this theory, in no way. So, I cannot be a denier of that theory. I disagree only about the seriousness of the consequences. Of course, nobody cares about this in modern Orwellian time about the meaning of word, everybody who disagrees with the official government position is a conspiracy theorist (even if his theories do not contain any conspiracy at all), everybody who thinks that people have differences and that some of these differences have a genetic base are named racist, and everybody who disagrees with the climate alarmists becomes an AGW denier. Very practical, you have to fight with arguments only against those who deny AGW, and to argue with other critics is not even necessary (as you said, "nobody's arguing with you"). It is sufficient to classify me as an AGW denier and against AGW deniers there are already sufficient arguments.
As a rough approximation, that's terminally foolish. One could say "ignorant", but posting on such obviously complex topics from that level of ignorance is foolish anyway - may as well cut to the chase.
Again only bad words, no arguments. But I have to acknowledge that presenting arguments from your side would be, in fact, foolish because it is obvious that you have none. If one knows that the own arguments are inferior, it is reasonable not to present arguments. Your "too foolish to present arguments against it" is a quite simple and well-known excuse for the failure to present them.
btw, in the continuing matter of the real cost of nuclear power:
Recently in the local media we have been informed that the three reactors currently in use along the upper reaches of the Mississippi River need 1.4 billion in upgrade and maintenance.
That is on top of the hundreds of millions in extra or unpredicted maintenance costs already spent over the last decade on these reactors, and charged to the customer ever since
Now to note, specifically: nobody - at least, nobody in the local media visible to me - is talking about replacing these things with a safer, better design of nuke. That's not the choice we face with nuclear power here, or generally in the US.
Of course, in the highly corrupt corporatist society of the USA this is what you have to expect if big corporations and the government are involved. This has nothing to do with the technological problems. It is a problem of corporatism. The military has the same problem of completely exaggerated prices, as well as the medicine.
