On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>> >>> Do you think I am incorrect in saying that your list does NOT look >>> like the "general policy recommendations that most of those who see an >>> urgent need to curb global warming could agree on"? >>> >> >> >> Yes. >> > > > And what is this belief based on? > The web pages of the most famous and powerful environmental organizations on the planet. > the even more ridiculous strawman on your list saying that all nuclear > power plants should be shut down immediately > Ridiculous yes strawman no, except in the sense of them having straw for brains. And the sad thing is the governments of Germany and Japan seem on the verge of accepting the advice of these "strawmen". > > > So you're just going to make evidence-free assertions and ignore my > substantive question about whether the RCP4.5 scenario, which clearly DOES > "make a measurable reduction in global warming by 2100 > The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP either. > This article from Scientific American details a proposal by a group of > engineers for a major investment in solar energy which they estimate would > allow the U.S. to get 69% of its electricity, and 35% of total energy > including transportation, from solar power by 2050, for an estimated cost > of $420 billion spread out over 40 years > In a era where even a simple helicopter gunship can have a 400% cost overrun I'm supposed to take a cost estimate like this about changing the engine room of the entire world economy seriously?? A gargantuan scientific breakthrough would be required for the above scenario to occur, and the record for correctly predicting one is not good and you can't just order one up no matter how much money you spend. I think those cost estimates were pulled directly out of somebody's ass. > Even if their cost estimate was off by an order of magnitude, 4 trillion > dollars spread out over 40 years would be unlikely to devastate the > economy, > I wouldn't bet my life that the estimate is correct within 3 orders of magnitude. And given the fact that any reduction in CO2 emissions made today will take at least 40 years to show up as lower temperatures (if it ever does) I say the best policy is to just wait tell we know for sure the warming will continue and is a bad thing or until technology improves. After all it's not as if this is the first time the human race has had to deal with climate change, if we got through an Ice Age we can get through a little warming without panicking. > >> if we spent the same money on clean water in just 8 years every human >> on earth would have clean potable water and this would stop 2 million >> deaths and prevent a billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. >> > > > I agree entirely that we should spend the money to give everyone clean > water, and what's really sad is that we aren't bothering to do it even > though the price would actually be a hell of a lot lower than $400 billion, > only about $10 billion a year would be needed > And yet environmentalist said we should have spent $400 billion a year to implement the Kyoto Protocols. And if we had what would we have gotten for our money? If you believe the climate models, and you do, we " would shave 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius (0.20-0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) off global average temperatures by 2100". https://www2.ucar.edu/news/record/effect-kyoto-protocol-global-warming > >> and you believe that science and technology will not find far better >> ways to deal with the problem in the next century as technology improves, >> > > > Another strawman, > Your new favorite word. > the IPCC's own emissions reductions scenarios specifically mentioned the > idea of technological improvements alongside policy changes. > And did they consider Nathan Myhrvold's solution or anything even remotely like it? Of course not, that would be blasphemy. > >> and if you believe that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be used >> > > > Another strawman, > And the magic word is... strawman. > as seen in the links on pro-nuclear environmentalists and climate > scientists I provided > It is not necessary to show that every member of a movement is deluded to show there is a systemic problem. The Sierra Club is against nuclear power and so is Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, it's mainstream and the few that have another opinion (like Stewart Brand) are treated as traitors by other environmentalists. > I don't actually believe it's anything more than John Clark's baseless > fantasy that their lives would be at risk from an investment of, say, a few > hundred billion dollars per decade in solar power or nuclear energy to > balance out the decreased fossil fuel use." And I believe it's a pleasant but baseless fantasy to believe we're just on the verge of replacing fossil fuel with solar energy as the powerhouse that drives the economy and we just need a few more dollars to seal the deal. >> a year ago those same climate scientists predicted that the 2013 >> Atlantic hurricane season would be much more active than average, but it >> turned out to be the quietest season in a century. That might not prove >> they're totally full of shit but it does make me reluctant to bet my life >> that their next prediction will be better. >> > > >I think you are confusing climate science with weather prediction > (including seasonal forecasts). > There are 2 pieces of advice I'd like to give any young soothsayer just starting out in the business: 1) Make lots and lots of predictions, a few of them will probably be right and only the correct ones will be remembered. 2) Make only long range predictions, that way if you're wrong you won't be around to feel the embarrassment. > >> And I repeat it's not my responsibility to provide evidence that >> climate models are bad, it's climate scientists responsibility to provide >> evidence that they're good > > > > And as with any scientific conclusion on which there's a strong consensus > in the field, I think its a safe bet they HAVE provided convincing evidence > in scientific papers, > They HAVE provided convincing evidence that they work? Well that must mean that there are 1914 climate models that correctly predicted how things are now. Somehow I missed hearing about that, so tell me all about it! >> Besides having a boiling water IQ he's [Freeman Dyson] made computer >> models about the climate at the core of giant stars and in H-bombs and >> knows the limitations of such models. > > > > That is not really akin to "climate" unless it involves feedback effects > Oh for christ sake, do you think the nuclear reactions and hyper hot plasma at the center of a star involves no feedback loops both positive and negative? > Dyson apparently doesn't understand the difference between temperature > forcings and other parameters, > So one of the greatest physicists of our time doesn't understand the implications of temperature but you do. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
