2014-03-19 15:48 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>: > > > > 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 >
For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction" (And I didn't know it before doing the search)... 0.5 second of searching on google... and the great John was unable to do it... must mean something. Quentin > > >> >> > 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) > -- 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.
