Things are getting better, or at least not changing, part 1 10

[GregLocock]

Re the hilarious map - So we've had a 1 deg rise since 1880 in which time the earth has got 15% greener (especially the sub Saharan region) and this results in a 1.5% drop in GDP for the sub Sahara. Oh. Perhaps that picture is not very robust, or at least the authors are aspiring to cargo cult science.

https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Tomfh]

This climate hysteria, with people running around like chickens with their heads cut off, convinced that the world is about to end, is one of the clearest examples of cargo cult science we’ve ever witnessed.

 

[TugboatEng]

Let me get this straight, you know nothing about plants , not even enough to know about seasonal lifecycles. Yet,l you are here telling us that a little bit of a gas that is essential for life is somehow going to cause a mass casualty event?

 

[RadiateurFou]

So we've had a 1 deg rise since 1880 in which time the earth has got 15% greener (especially the sub Saharan region) and this results in a 1.5% drop in GDP for the sub Sahara.Oh. Perhaps that picture is not very robust

Denying a full study in one sentence is a bold moove.

Yet,l you are here telling us that a little bit of a gas that is essential for life is somehow going to cause a mass casualty event?

No i'm not saying that

 

[TugboatEng]

What credentials are required to call oneself an ecologist?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It is indeed better for current generations as they won't be to much impacted by the problem. But it will be a problem for future generations, and they won't have the luxury of not doing anything being a choice. For a problem caused not by them but by the old generations in addition.

The proper question we should be asking ourselves is an ECONOMIC one. What is the cost of going net zero in the next 20 years or so? I'm talking about BOTH economic cost and loss of life. Right? We energy (and food) are so expensive that large numbers of people die that should be factored into the calculation. Heck, when large number of people go from living a high quality of life to a subsistence one that should be factored in too. Right?

Then compare that cost with the cost of doing VERY LITTLE now. Just was we can do to cost effectively reduce CO2 emissions. Replace coal with Nuclear power. Mandate hybrid / more fuel efficient cars and such. Plant more trees. Maybe recycle food and agricultural waste into bio diesel on a larger scale. But, we then deal with the economic cost of ADAPTATION and DAMAGE.

What I mean by adaptation is that we move away from areas that will be flooded. We adapt our agricultural production to whatever new climate cycles we have. We build different type of transportation as gas and jets and such become more expensive. By dealing with damage, I'm talking about hurricanes, floods and whatever types of displacement (and deaths) these cause. Sometimes it may mean re-building with better infrastructure designed to handle more sever weather events.

It is almost guaranteed to be more cost effective to handle this through adaptation and dealing with damage.

 

[GregLocock]

You mean pointing out an obvious defect in the model isn't allowed? If it is wrong in one place why would you expect it to be right elsewhere?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Tomfh]

It is almost guaranteed to be more cost effective to handle this through adaptation and dealing with damage.

Correct, which is why the claim has been made that failing to achieve net zero within the next few decades carries an infinite cost. It effectively bypasses any rational assessment of the issue by asserting that if we don’t follow the doctors orders our children face catastrophe, essentialy framing it as a life-or-death matter. This kind of argument is used in other contexts as well and is a rhetorical tactic worth being aware of.

 

[SnTMan]

EXISTENSIAL!!

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[RadiateurFou]

The proper question we should be asking ourselves is an ECONOMIC one

It depends on the scale of the problem. If the problem is not a big deal, then yes the question is first an economic one, to avoid going to far in the solution.
But when the scale of a problem gets big enough, there is a threshold where the economic cost goes second behind actually finding a solution.
Countless experts are saying that we are in the second case, and i tend to listen to them.
It is a question of personnal belief, i understand that you think we are not in the second case but in the first one. At the end of the day, it's up to the democratic process by voting for a candidate that match our beliefs and we'll have to respect that.

 

[TugboatEng]

There is no wisdom in putting so much weight on politicians to save the human race.

 

[GregLocock]

Politicians will tell you they love children more than money. Now do a google search for funding cuts to childrens for your country.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

But when the scale of a problem gets big enough, there is a threshold where the economic cost goes second behind actually finding a solution.

Even when the scale of the problem is huge, it's STILL an economic problem. Look at WWII. The scale could not be bigger a World War that must be fought on two fronts. After most of the world had already been captured (or was in imminent danger of being captured) by the Axis powers.

How was it even possible for the USA to fight that way? There was will of the populace and the public to fight the war. Sure, that came first with Pearl Harbor. Then it became an economic problem... HOW do we fight the war? How do we fund the war efforts? Where do we put our money? Navy? Army? Research to fund weapon development? How do we keep our people from starving while we're funding the war?

Look at the cold war. This ended up being, above anything else a war of economics. The Socialist Countries had such terrible economies (because of their political choices) that they couldn't support the populations they had. They couldn't fight wars effectively. They couldn't even keep their people from fleeing to other countries where the standard of living was better. All of this was primarily an ECONOMIC disparity between countries.

The fight against Global Warming will ALWAYS be largely a question of Energy Economics. What is the most efficient use of the limited resources we have to address the problem? What forms of energy are most efficient in reducing our CO2 footprint. What is the "opportunity cost" of implementing (or not implementing" the proposed solutions?

If we do something (like the Inflation Creation Act) and that causes hardship (though job losses, and high inflation), then the politicians who voted for it may be forced to retire or get voted out of office. The country may revolt. So, it's science, economics, politics and a myriad of other things.... Heck, it's even a religion for people who believe on faith what the prophets are saying.

 

[RadiateurFou]

What is the "opportunity cost" of implementing (or not implementing" the proposed solutions?

I guess that's the main question politicians need to answer