|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change is Real | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Bill Moyers interviews Anthony Leiserowitz on Making People Care About Climate Change
Most excellent. So what can we do to increase awareness and willingness to act? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first.
AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significant anthropogenic forcing – Watts Up With That? From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn’t statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Can you help me out with the science behind this paper? I have to admit to being able to critique the paper myself. After all for every paper denying AGW, there are many more supporting it.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing From three economists? Well this is a statistcal study of some of the data and their math is probably all right. I'll await the climatologists take on the data used in this analysis as well as a recheck of the math. From what we know already after decades of study, I wouldn't hold my breath. This extraordinary claim, at first glance, does not appear to contain the extraordinary level of evidence required. But we shall see.
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first. If my understanding of the state of the present science is acurate then it's already too late. The effects will become more and more dire over the next 30, 40, 50+ generations and there is not anything we can do to stop it. All we can do if we started in ernest today is to slow the accelerating rate of damage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first. The science was settled by Arhenius in the early 20th century:
quote: Carbon dioxide will trap heat in our atmosphere. Even if other mechanisms are adding to warming, our contribution to the atmosphere is trapping additional heat that would otherwise be radiated into space. There is no getting around it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first. What do you think would ruin the global economy specifically? What makes you think several trillion dollars need to be spent? What makes you think we don't have several trillion dollars?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
What do you think would ruin the global economy specifically? Spending money we don't have and losing much of our energy infrastructure. Ref: the recent regulations impacting the US coal industry. This could be mitigated by building nuclear power plants again, but the irrational phobias out there are preventing that in the US.
What makes you think several trillion dollars need to be spent? There are many such estimates on the web. Here's the first one I found: Capital Cost of Germany's ENERGIEWENDE What makes you think we don't have several trillion dollars? Latest reports put our current debt at over 16 trillion dollars, and unfunded mandates could run as high as 100 trillion dollars. Edited by Coyote, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not sure how we would be spending money we don't have.
Exactly how does that work? Doesn't the coal industry buy supplies and technology from other companies? There are no such things as unfunded mandates when it comes to business. I've seen the horrors that are coal country and the slag heaps from other mining as well. What does the US current debt have to do with the issue at all. It's not like the US should pay for the costs of regulations. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3797 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined:
|
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first. Since this topic is on Climate Change and not economics, I'll refrain from correcting the misapprehension that countries don't use debt to service their economies. Debt is not always a bad thing, such as we have now in the United States. As far as the science of AGW is concerned it is, for all intents and purposes, settled. The paper referenced has a few problems. Ignoring that the paper comes from the [underline]Department of Economics[/underline] of The Hebrew University, the first is the fact that physics doesn't fall so neatly into statistical models. Climate forcings are not so neat and if the author's don't understand the physics inherent in climate forcings they're bound to screw up, as they do in the paper. The second issue is the fact that the author's assume that global mean temperature behaves like a 'random walk', when in fact historical climate has been rather stable. For more in-depth analysis, those interested might check out the following links:
Real ClimateRabbett Run Climate blog Bert Verheggen's Climate Change Blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3797 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
See my reply to Coyote. It has some links that explain why the paper is bunk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
From three economists? Well, we all know that there's no-one so good at predicting the future as economists. Nothing ever takes them by surprise.
Well this is a statistcal study of some of the data and their math is probably all right. Not according to this guy. However, it doesn't really matter. Papers like this serve their purpose by existing, they don't actually have to contain good math or (in this case) any physics whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Spending money we don't have and losing much of our energy infrastructure. At the very least, that should be an "or" and not an "and", since obviously the money is to be spent on replacing the energy infrastructure. You give as an example Germany's Energiewende. The reason it costs so much is because their plan does not involve just turning off all their carbon-emitting power plants and returning to the Middle Ages. They could do that for free.
- The US capital cost would be about $18.7 trillion by 2050, if the US were to follow Germany’s course. What would be the capital cost of meeting our increasing energy needs by an expansion of the present infrastructure? What about running costs? I seem to remember that after one has made a capital investment in a coal-fired power plant, it is necessary to keep buying coal to put in it. Sunlight is comparatively cheap. Googling around, I see that the Energiewende is supposed to save more money annually than it costs by 2020. I'll post a link if I can find out the basis for the calculation; at the moment I don't know if it's actually true, but the running costs are definitely something you'd have to take into account, you can't just look at capital costs to see if it makes economic sense. If people did that, our economy would still be based on subsistence agriculture, and this message would be incised on birch bark with a sharp piece of flint and brought to you by carrier pigeon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Well, we all know that there's no-one so good at predicting the future as economists. Nothing ever takes them by surprise. Hey Bub, One of my Masters is in Economics and I assure you, given the level of math skill needed to model complex chaotic systems like the economy and climatology, it always takes us by surprise when one of us gets something right! OK, it doesn't happen often but when it does it is one hell of a surprise. So there! Edited by AZPaul3, : some change or other. I forget. Edited by AZPaul3, : something else I forgot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I seem to remember that after one has made a capital investment in a coal-fired power plant, it is necessary to keep buying coal to put in it. Sunlight is comparatively cheap. Sunlight is cheap for sure, but the technology to convert it to useful work is not. Strictly looking at operating costs coal is still more productive than solar. That's why solar has not replaced coal. The problem is that our accounting systems do not account for the true social and environmental "costs" of such a plant. Only the operating cash flow is considered. If there were a way to assess an environmental damage cost as a journal entry into the expense system then the equation would be considerably different. That's not going to happen. So until our solar technology reaches a point where it is less expensive, on an operating cash flow basis, than digging coal out of the ground and shipping it many hundreds of miles, then coal will remain. We humans will always opt for the cheaper solution in order to maximize return on investment. Edited by AZPaul3, : What I said made no damn sense at all. Had to change.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024