Conservatives and climate change

[mhaze]

that is actually not fully true. they only take samples from the core, and other parts are archived.

Great. DC, start at the beginning and move forward. The beginning was your not understanding the scientific method. Then some time later think about lecturing people.



Even later than that, ponder the question of what, and what not, can be ascertained from "archived cores".

 

[Furcifer]

In classical terms and in looking for a precisely determinable state at any given timeframe (with respect to say multiple planetary orbits). If you are simply looking for a reasonably accurate approximations in the relatively near future/past, however (or looking at the quantum mechanical varients of this class of problems), such isn't that difficult of a problem.

lol, yah if only we were talking about quantum climate

"infinitely?" Really? Do tell me more!
Perhaps you could even provide a good reference supporting this assertion?

I can provide you with a good University physics program, that will probably help.

"Infinitely more complex" is a reference to the numerous variables and additional physical principles all interacting in the climate dynamic that are present in the much simpler 3 body problem; which is simply the gravitational constant, distance between and mass of 3 objects.

lol, here I found this

In whose estimation? please support these proclamations of faith with some real science from a legitimate source.

Are you that unfamiliar with climate models? If you want some real science from a legitimate source grab a textbook. We're talking about regression, limited spatial resolution, approximations to grey bodies or black bodies, there's so many restrictions, you'd better just read something like this

point of clarification: "won't" or "can't"? IOW are you saying that we cannot return the planetary climate to that state, or merely that we won't return climate to that state?

Can't. It's not possible. As we've spread around the planet like cockroaches we've changed the very surface of the planet in the process, this affects the Earth's albedo. There have been what we call anthropogenic changes to the Earth's albedo which have changed the Earth's climate.

As is evident, climate is in a constant state of flux and change, regardless of whether or not there are human contributions and influences. I, and most others who find issues of concern with regards to the current climate change situation, merely seek to reduce and minimize the human footprint upon climate and the broader environment. Reduce and eliminate most of our atmospheric emissions, restore and maintain the diversity of natural biomes and their associated carbon sink mechanisms.

Then I strongly suggest tearing down your house, recycle your car and move into a nice sod cabin in the woods.

Not sure what you are saying here?

No I don't suppose you would. I suggest a good calculus textbook in addition to the physics one as they compliment one another and are virtually inseparable.

 

[Mikemcc]

short term equilibrium (immediate climate sensitivity) is in the 3-6 decade range. long-term equilibrium may take many centuries or more. At least, this seems to be what the paleoclimate indicates. Additionally, the natural reduction rate is much slower than you seem to assume. ~50Mya in the Eocene, the last time the atmospheric CO2 levels approached anything similar to what is expected over the next century or so, it took 40+M years for the levels to drop back down to the ~250ppm (+/-50ppm) that this range has fluctuated around for the last ~400,000years. The mean lifetime of the elevated CO2 concentration of the atmosphere resulting from fossil fuel combustion has been calculated to be tens of thousands of years (Archer et al. 1997).

A handy reference work -
"Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide"
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

My apologies, I was working off my rather poor memory, rather than looking up the details. Cheers for the link.

 

[mhaze]

And without a cheap source of energy we won't do anything......

Have you ever seen a study that compares the "real" business as usual model with the one where we rapidly decarbonize and the world economy comes to a crashing halt? Recession and even depression are well known and real possibilities, more real than the model predictions of climate extremes. Has that occurred to you or is that something you "deny"?

I like the way these fanatics promise us a wonderful future in green energy after we GIVE THEM OUR MONEY. I guess it hasn't occurred to them that they could use their own money and do all that wonderful stuff.

Then again, maybe they are just lying.

 

[Trakar]

So the scientists who argued that Global Warming is not a crisis were as you previously called them..."Deniers"...

As well as half the audience.

And when Deniers get the podium, more Deniers are born in the audience.

Thanks.

If that is your understanding of the validity and reliability of such unqualified non random surveys, then you are welcome to them. I know of no standard and acceptable statistical, nor well-considered rational, analysis that would support that assessment.

 

[Furcifer]

My comment was that the jobs don't 'disappear', they move on to the next project, just as they do in other major construction projects. Given the more distributed architecture of renewables, it's likely that the employment totals are likely to be more stable than those for large monolithic projects.

No. It's large part of what makes them cost effective, barely.

A citation for that rather bizarre claim?

You should read this and certainly this.

 

[Trakar]

Sure. CO2 absorbs in certain parts of the spectrum, therefore we must tax people and force little wormy style light bulbs on them. And electric cars. And windmills that only work an hour or two a day.

That is neither a citation nor a reference to compelling evidence in support of your assertions.

 

[johnny karate]

I like the way these fanatics promise us a wonderful future in green energy after we GIVE THEM OUR MONEY. I guess it hasn't occurred to them that they could use their own money and do all that wonderful stuff.

Or occurred to you, for that matter:

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.

Just like with every other so-called "fiscal conservative", it's only Big Government Spending when it's for something your myopic ideology won't allow you to accept.

 

[Furcifer]

have you quantified the amount of maintence needed over their lifetime?

3% of the purchase cost over the lifetime. The need for maintenance has decreased with successive generations, and offshore turbines will require even less (the DOE has a prize for a 10MW gearless superconducting turbine, the goal of which is to reduce maintenance by reducing the number of moving parts ie; the gearbox)

How much maintenance the needed smartgrids will need?

less

i don't say your prediction is wrong, its just rife with uncertainties.

Indeed.

 

[DC]

Great. DC, start at the beginning and move forward. The beginning was your not understanding the scientific method. Then some time later think about lecturing people.



Even later than that, ponder the question of what, and what not, can be ascertained from "archived cores".

its ok, i know your religion does not allow you to admit an error. no problem

 

[DC]

3% of the purchase cost over the lifetime. The need for maintenance has decreased with successive generations, and offshore turbines will require even less (the DOE has a prize for a 10MW gearless superconducting turbine, the goal of which is to reduce maintenance by reducing the number of moving parts ie; the gearbox)

less



Indeed.

ha i can gree , while im not sure if smartgrids really will use less maintenance compared to todays more primitive net.

 

[stokes234]

And without a cheap source of energy we won't do anything.

Sure. Nuclear.

I have to wonder if the alarmist aren't all Baby Boomers that realize they royally screwed things up and now they want to feel better about themselves while shifting the blame? Damn hippies pretty much ruined nuclear energy for everyone. The ship sailed on this when they were hugging trees and buying Camaros.

Yup, you've got me. I'm a 23 year old baby boomer. I was there at woodstock when the entire world's scientific community made a secret pact to lie about results for government funding. Granted I was quite young.

I'd probably need a combination of sources, we're talking about life expectancy, standard of living, literacy and GDP all increasing considerably in the last 200 years. That's pretty much a given: Most people today are better fed, clothed, and house than their predecessors two centuries ago. They are healthier, live longer, and are better educated.
Infant mortality rates have dropped considerably and tend to skew the different life expectancy graphs, they give additional years beyond 15 or 21. The average life expectancy in the US shot up 30 years from 1880-1998 but has remained stagnant. In other places however, like India it continued to rise during the same period.
I'll have to look for a paper or write my own I guess.

Your claim wasn't that standards of living are at their highest in the last 200 years, and I wouldn't dispute it if it was. Your claim was that "quality of life and longevity continue to increase at the greatest rate in human history". Back that up.

People die everywhere all the time due to floods, hurricanes, tsunamis etc. With the world population on the rise it's only going to get worse.

Yes. The situation is bad enough already, so lets not add to it by allowing climate change to be as bad as it is on track to be.

I still think a strong world economy is better prepared to deal with the fall out from climate change rather than a weakened one based on wishful thinking we can halt the inevitable.

I think you may be making the same mistake that many have made when approaching the subject of climate change (that is, since the denialists moved their goalposts from "it's not happening" to "its not us" and then again to "its us but we can't stop it".) And that mistake is believing climate change to be a binary. It's not a binary yes or no; if we act now, and we fail to prevent 2 degrees of warming in the next 50 years but we prevent 4 degrees of warming in the next 50 years, then the next generations are going to have to deal with alot less of the fallout, and will have alot more time to adjust.

Have you ever seen a study that compares the "real" business as usual model with the one where we rapidly decarbonize and the world economy comes to a crashing halt? Recession and even depression are well known and real possibilities, more real than the model predictions of climate extremes. Has that occurred to you or is that something you "deny"?

Yes, it has occurred to me. But if we take the majority of funding for it from military sources and from increased taxes on the rich, it doesn't have to do too much damage to the economy. The US spends what, $700bn a year on defence? I say halve that and take the $350bn spare and use it to deal with a genuine threat, and simultaneously start producing something useful with the money: energy. As a bonus, you get increased energy security and less likelyhood of future conflicts caused by climate-change induced resource scarcity. Not just america, of course - major european economies should do the same, though they have less to take from military spending.

 

[Mikemcc]

No. It's large part of what makes them cost effective, barely.



You should read this and certainly this.

The first one appears to be ideological tosh, and I don't believe you've read the second one, because it doesn't support your contention of:

It doesn't matter if you aren't manufacturing anything.

Yes, there are challenges, but there are ways to deal with them. The UK manfacturing industry has seen many changes, our ship-building is virtually gone, stell-making is severely reduced, coal mining aLL BUT gone. But we now produce more cars than ever, our high-tech industries are world leading (ARM for instance, pharma, biotech, defense industries, etc). Your contention about not manufacturing 'anything' is fanciful scare-mongering. Yet you complain about 'alarmism', that's very hypocritical.

 

[Trakar]

I would have thought we should leave our kids a thriving economy instead of telling them that we listened to green morons, and taxed and regulated industries until they moved to China and India.

This assumes that continuing on as we are will (a) establish a thriving economy in our nation and (b) would allow that economy to survive and persist in the increasingly climate altered environment of the near and more distant future.

My understandings seem to indicate that the refusal to pay a little now to forestall and diminish future damages and problems only means that our children will have to pay much higher taxes to deal with the full brunt of these expenses (with interest) in the future.

 

[Furcifer]

ha i can gree , while im not sure if smartgrids really will use less maintenance compared to todays more primitive net.

Me neither, but they're supposed to from what I've heard.

 

[Mikemcc]

3% of the purchase cost over the lifetime. The need for maintenance has decreased with successive generations, and offshore turbines will require even less (the DOE has a prize for a 10MW gearless superconducting turbine, the goal of which is to reduce maintenance by reducing the number of moving parts ie; the gearbox)
...

My bold

Oh rly? so the cooling plant won't need any maintenace, and there's no jobs in developing these designs, or their following designs?

 

[Trakar]

Bishop Hill linked this:
I see a gentle admonition to the proud "I don't do blogs" types.

Seriously?!

I see agreement with my perception of blogs as places that "feature discussions amongst groups of largely like-minded individuals who merely reinforce each others views." I see an urging for civility and open-ness, but no sign that such is being heeded or committed to all who are posting to such blogs. But then, as you are citing a blog citing another blog, I guess some bias in the authors' considerations should be expected.

 

[Trakar]

...Then don't argue that a consensus in science makes something right.

Were the audience members verified to be climate researchers?

 

[Furcifer]

Sure. Nuclear.

You wish.

Your claim wasn't that standards of living are at their highest in the last 200 years, and I wouldn't dispute it if it was. Your claim was that "quality of life and longevity continue to increase at the greatest rate in human history". Back that up.

That's what the standard of living is, although it varies. Prior to 1850 is was stagnant although the record aren't exactly the greatest. The turning point varies from country to country as well, in the UK it's 1820, in India it's 1940.

Yes. The situation is bad enough already, so lets not add to it by allowing climate change to be as bad as it is on track to be.

No it's not "bad enough already". People are living longer than they ever have with more food on their table and better education than any time in history. In this area we're reporting record crops. You've been mislead to believe it's worse than it is, that's what alarmists do. I was saying the same crap an 1995 and it wasn't true then either.

I think you may be making the same mistake that many have made when approaching the subject of climate change (that is, since the denialists moved their goalposts from "it's not happening" to "its not us" and then again to "its us but we can't stop it".) And that mistake is believing climate change to be a binary. It's not a binary yes or no; if we act now, and we fail to prevent 2 degrees of warming in the next 50 years but we prevent 4 degrees of warming in the next 50 years, then the next generations are going to have to deal with alot less of the fallout, and will have alot more time to adjust.

And if you screw with the economy you risk sending us into a world wide depression that will kill millions.

How about "It ain't broke so don't get in there with a monkey wrench a muck up the works"?

Yes, it has occurred to me. But if we take the majority of funding for it from military sources and from increased taxes on the rich, it doesn't have to do too much damage to the economy. The US spends what, $700bn a year on defence? I say halve that and take the $350bn spare and use it to deal with a genuine threat, and simultaneously start producing something useful with the money: energy. As a bonus, you get increased energy security and less likelyhood of future conflicts caused by climate-change induced resource scarcity. Not just america, of course - major european economies should do the same, though they have less to take from military spending.

It doesn't matter, you just shift emissions to others places in the world that are desperate for cheap energy so they can improve their standard of living. In the process you hurt your own economy.
The climate models don't account for human ingenuity. There have been significant technological advancements in every decade since the 1900's and not a single model can account for that. It's not a matter of relying on technology rather it's foolish to so grossly underestimate it when we're trying to make such monumental changes to society and the environment.

 

[Furcifer]

The first one appears to be ideological tosh, and I don't believe you've read the second one, because it doesn't support your contention of:

Nonsense.

The UK manfacturing industry has seen many changes, our ship-building is virtually gone, stell-making is severely reduced, coal mining aLL BUT gone. But we now produce more cars than ever, our high-tech industries are world leading (ARM for instance, pharma, biotech, defense industries, etc). Your contention about not manufacturing 'anything' is fanciful scare-mongering. Yet you complain about 'alarmism', that's very hypocritical.

And if cars lasted for 120 000 hours that manufacturing would dry up pretty darned quick. This "Green Sector" crap is great, but in economic terms because of their design they're no more than "booms". You ever been to a "boom" town?

Large scale projects to improve infrastructure are significantly better in the long term, if people have something to go back to when they're done. It's not sustainable to keep building high speed rail lines back and forth across the country.