2014-03-19 15:44 GMT+01:00 John Clark <[email protected]>: > 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. >
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=RCP4.5+temperature+climate&l=1 > > > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
