Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part VII 21

[dik]

thread1618-496010:
thread1618-496614:
thread1618-497017:
thread1618-497239:
thread1618-497988:
thread1618-498967:

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

but lying about a potential global calamity is evil at a new level.

I'm not surprised that's your position. You were probably a Captain Planet fan growing up and that's why you see them this way. LOL.

For what it's worth, can you point to anything that Exxon specifically said that's "lying about a potential calamity". I think most of the lying on this subject is done by politicians and activists. But, that's just my personal opinion.

Most of the "opposition" to AGW has always been more along the lines of.... "Wow, these claims are serious. How certain can we be about the timeline and the severity of the issues that will occur? Is that degree of certainty worth destroying the global economy? Are there other solutions that would be more reasonable? Other mitigation measures that would be more affordable?"

My stance has always been from an "energy economics" point of view. What's the most cost effective way of reducing CO2 emissions today? Maybe replace all coal power plants with combined cycle gas turbine plants instead? Maybe dramatically expand the use of nuclear power? Let's do THOSE things and do them NOW!!

Oh, wait, the hard core leftists / environmentalists won't let us do that because it's not a PEFECT solution?! Okay, I guess they're not really serious about CO2 reduction. We'll just have to putter along with more expensive, less efficient solutions than aren't very scalable (like solar and wind). We'll just have to continue puttering along until there are perfect solutions, we've made enough small and inefficient changes, or until the consequences become known and all we can do is mitigate.

 

[dik]

...seems like a natural axiom or corollary... it's not a difficult leap.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[IRstuff]

"Wow, these claims are serious. How certain can we be about the timeline and the severity of the issues that will occur?

This is the classic gaslighting approach, "I'm just asking questions" kind of thing. I've never seen Captain Planet. The bottom line is that Exxon cut funding on their own climate research and cast shade on climate change

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=0

just as you are casting shade by associating anyone who disagrees with you with Captain Planet.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty/

My stance has always been from an "energy economics" point of view. What's the most cost effective way of reducing CO2 emissions today? Maybe replace all coal power plants with combined cycle gas turbine plants instead? Maybe dramatically expand the use of nuclear power? Let's do THOSE things and do them NOW!!

So, I'll ask my question, "Aren't there unintended consequences?"

You are doing exactly what Exxon Mobil has been doing. I'm hardly a poster child for climate change, and I've not advocated completely dropping fossil fuels; that's your contribution to the negative aspersions. I seriously wonder if you are really anywhere near the right of center position that you've previous claimed.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[GregLocock]

The main thought-crime Exxon committed (I think) was emphasizing the uncertainty in the science. They picked a climate sensitivity of 3 deg C/doubling for that summary report, with a range of 1.5-4.5. That is, reality could be in error by a factor of 300% depending on which CS you picked for your science.

The IPCC's range for CS is no better despite 32 years of taxpayer funding.

The simple fit for the last 32 years says 2 deg C/doubling.



Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[dik]

...water, water, everywhere Part II:

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-alarming-entire-global.html

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

I guess not everywhere... a possible sign of the future.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/...-rio-verde-foothills-scottsdale-contd-vpx.cnn

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

"Aren't there unintended consequences?"

Not sure what you're getting at exactly. Yes, there are always unintended consequences when the government is interfering with the economy. Many times these unintended consequences directly eliminate any benefit intended by said actions. An example for AGW would be the following:

In order to lower to carbon footprint of your country, you take actions that dramatically increase costs of manufacturing in your country. Thereby sending all your manufacturing overseas.... in countries where the carbon footprint of manufacturing the same goods is higher (though the cost in todays dollars is dramatically less). Then importing those same goods halfway across the world, thereby increasing the carbon footprint some more.

This is where we are now. My suggestions have been the following:
a) Get rid of coal in the US. Replace with more carbon friendly sources of power. I often say Gas Turbines because these are so relatively easy to build, permit, construct, and they would very dramatically reduce the CO2 footprint for that power.

b) Add tariffs on any imported goods based on various considerations (based on desire to reduce CO2 emissions in other countries).
b1) Any goods that were shipped more than a certain number of miles.
b2) Any goods manufactured in a country, province or state that gets more than x% of power from coal fired power plants.
b3) Any company that intentionally released certain gases that should be cleansed or flared or what not.

c) In a similar way, we could put different tariffs on imports from any country whose human rights record we don't like.
c1) If they don't allow women to vote.
c2) If gay people are imprisoned solely for being gay.
c3) If their constitution calls for the destruction of a particular race of people or a particular country that is part of the UN.

d) Requiring better gas mileage from cars. Any cars that don't have that mileage could be heavily taxed. Maybe those taxes can be used to fund rebates on the CO2 emission friendly cars. I.e. make the people who are buying the worst cars (based on C02 emissions) subsidize the purchases of low emission cars.

There can still be "unintended consequences". No doubt. But, the idea is to leave the market as alone as possible, but to add some extra costs to things that are inefficient and reduce the costs of things that are efficient.

My suggestions are a little bit "protectionist". This is because we know the consequences of these actions will be detrimental to the US consumer. The price of goods (and energy) will go up. But, the idea is to "game the system" in a way that the rest of the world is encouraged to also reduce their carbon emissions.

 

[dik]

Recycling Lithium ion batteries:

https://www.csagroup.org/wp-content...=mailchimp&utm_campaign=std-newsletter-202301

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

This is the classic gaslighting approach, "I'm just asking questions" kind of thing.

Not gaslighting at all. Here we have one group of politicians activists saying, "We have special information about what is going to happen over the next 30 years. You need to take actions x, y and z to prevent catastrophe."

Sure, we have a group saying, "Your arguments aren't convincing. Nah, nah, nah.... My fingers are in my ears, I can't hear you." I'll refer to those people who don't believe that a) Global Warming is happening (even if the amount of warming is debatable), b) That atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing exponentially, primarily due to human activity, c) That the scientific theory tying the two together is very solid.

Then we have another group saying that "anyone opposes actions x, y or z must be viewed as a flat earther, a terrible person. Probably white supremacist too. "

We have another group saying, "The first groups arguments demonstrate that something is happening pretty convincingly. But, the catastrophic effects they claim are not as convincing. Let's talk about the cost of 'mitigation measures' as opposed to only talking about the costs of 'prevention'. After all, those actions (partial prevention in conjunction with mitigation) are much more affordable and realistic.

That last group is the group that I'm in. Instead of calling everyone who disagrees with us evil, let's figure out what affordable actions we can agree to take NOW to help with the issue. Plan for future mitigation as well.

 

[GregLocock]

Josh, the EU is proposing a tax rather like your proposal. It is protectionist no doubt, but I agree that manufacturing does not survive in high cost nations without some form of protectionism. 40 years ago Australia had a thriving clothing, shoe, and car manufacturing industries. Tariffs were removed, those industries have all gone, along with their ecosystems. The knock on effect of the car industry going is that the big toolmakers packed up. That meant passenger aircraft maintenance was no longer viable, so that went.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[BridgeSmith]

I'll refer to those people who don't believe that a) Global Warming is happening (even if the amount of warming is debatable), b) That atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing exponentially, primarily due to human activity, c) That the scientific theory tying the two together is very solid.

Response to a) Yes, the global temperature have been going up, not by as much as the alarmists would like us to believe from their cherry-picked data. Does that prove the temperature will continue to rise? As I said, a trend is only a trend until it's not. We don't know where the global average temperature will go next year, much less in the next century.

Response to b) The vast majority of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of natural processes. In order to make it the result of human activity, you have to prove the 'forcing effect' of our minor contribution, which is still debatable.

Response to c) By the scientific definitions, AGW is not a scientific theory; it is a scientific hypothesis, one with as much evidence that doesn't support it, as evidence that does.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[JoshPlumSE]

BridgeSmith -

I mean no disrespect to you. You are free to believe differently than I do. However, I'm amazed that you're quibbling with me over the term "theory" vs "hypothesis". What is a theory, but a collection of hypothesis that join together to explain something?

Others on this forum will come down harder on you for not accepting items b and c of my statement. So, I'll leave that alone.

To all the rest of you, I will suggest that some "protectionist" actions related to AGW (as I have suggested) could still appeal to the BridgeSmith's of the world that don't buy into AGW at all. So, we have the potential to still move forward with collective political will even though we have serious belief and policy differences.

 

[hokie66]

Josh,

Your proposals 17 Jan 1829 would destroy the economy of many developed nations. Yet you rail against government intervention. You can't have it both ways.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I wasn't around in 1829, or even 1929, so I'm not sure what proposals you are referring to.

Regarding government intervention, I think it needs to be done much LESS FREQUENTLY than we currently do it. However, if we want to make any progress on CO2 reduction, we must take some government action. I support actions to make the true cost (including the cost to society) of energy more reflected in the price of energy.

Now, the type of government actions that I prefer usually are more directly related to what their intent is. For example, I love the idea of gasoline taxes paying for the maintenance of our roads and highways. Why? Because that's taxing the people that use the government service. Right?

Building bridges, then charging a toll to anyone who uses them in order to pay off the construction loan and maintenance costs and such. That's great! The people who benefit from the bridge and use it are the ones who pay for it.

Similar things with electricity. Make the consumers of electricity pay for the construction of the plants and their effects. But, since coal has effects on the environment (i.e. something like 10 times the amount of CO2 emissions per MW power generated), it makes sense that this form of power should be dramatically more expensive when compared to other forms of generating power.

 

[BridgeSmith]

What is a theory, but a collection of hypothesis that join together to explain something?

You should read up on the progression from hypothesis to theory, and the level of experimental evidence that is required to get there, before criticizing me for "quibbling" with you about it. There's not even close to enough congruent evidence for AGW to be considered a scientific theory, and enough evidence against it to raise questions of whether it can still be considered a valid scientific hypothesis.

Others on this forum will come down harder on you for not accepting items b and c of my statement.

I invite any reasoned debate on those subjects. I'm open to being convinced that what you asserted are true, but I haven't seen evidence thus far that amounts to more than speculation, conjecture, and alot of assumptions thrown into computer models. The old adage about computers (garbage in; garbage out), still holds true regardless of how 'advanced' the programming may be.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[BridgeSmith]

However, if we want to make any progress on CO2 reduction, we must take some government action.

Before that, we must establish that CO2 reduction is beneficial, warranted, achievable, and affordable.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[hokie66]

Josh,

1829, or more correctly 18:29, was the clock time of your post, not the year.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I invite any reasoned debate on those subjects. I'm open to being convinced that what you asserted are true, but I haven't seen evidence thus far that amounts to more than speculation, conjecture, and alot of assumptions thrown into computer models.

Do you admit that we can predict the surface temperatures of the planets in our solar system that don't have atmosphere? And, that this prediction is pretty darn accurate? I'm talking Mercury, the moon, pluto, any terrestrial objects in our solar system that don't have their own atmosphere. I should point out that this prediction also, includes the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. That's step 1. Pretty hard to deny.

Step 2: would be to then admit that we can also predict the surface temperatures of other planets (the one with atmospheres) based on the gas content in their atmosphere. Mercury (no atmosphere) is half the distance to the sun compared to Venus. Yet, Venus has higher temperatures. It's atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. Demonstrating a pretty conclusive link between this atmosphere and an increase in temperatures compared to what a planet without an atmosphere would have. You can do similar things with Mars which has a VERY thin atmosphere (1% the pressure of ours).

Step 3: This step would be to look at the ice core data for the past few thousand years and admit that it shows a precipitous increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last hundred or so years. Same thing with the Mauna Loa data. Admit that this is a pretty strong indictor that there is a lot more CO2 in our air than there was 100 years ago.

Step 4: Did humans cause the increase in CO2, or was it natural. Or, is it a bit of both. See below link for the billions of tons of CO2 that are released each year from human activity. That 37 Billion tons each year. Just from fossil fuels.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/

Also, we must admit that the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has different carbon isotopes (or ratios of isotopes) than that release by regular plants. So, we can have a pretty good idea of how this (ratio of carbon isotopes) has changed over the last 50 years or more. This makes a pretty convincing case that fossil fuel emissions are a MAJOR source of the increased CO2. Make sense? Any major problems with my logic so far?

That's really all it takes for me to believe that there has been a man made change to the atmosphere in terms of CO2 content. And, that the CO2 changes are likely to cause some increase in temperature.

Now, I'm a skeptical person. So, I don't take the "fear mongering" of the alarmists very well. I believe in the basic premise that they're claiming. But, to move from their basic claims to catastrophe is a reach for me. However, I definitely see significant risk should we continue down the path exactly as we are. I feel they have made that case effectively and now I am more interested in how to handle our "solutions" in a way that doesn't kill more people than the original disease.

 

[GregLocock]

Step 2 relies on the same albedo.

Step 5 the CO2 effect saturates at very low ppm, we are now seeing the effect of ovrloading the filter shape and just looking at the shoulders of the reponse (hence the dependence on doubling)

Step 6 there are far stronger and faster effects on short and long term temperature, especially the greenhouse effect of water vapor, and many transport and albedo effects of H20. 80% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor, we have no way of knowing how that has changed, anthropogenically or not.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Step 5 the CO2 effect saturates at very low ppm, we are now seeing the effect of ovrloading the filter shape and just looking at the shoulders of the response (hence the dependence on doubling)

That's certainly a possibility. I think there is enough "uncertainty" associated with the predictions that we probably shouldn't be committing economic suicide in order to prevent what we probably can't prevent anyway.

However, I would suggest that the it's also possible that we haven't seen the full effect yet and that it might get worse. There is soooo much normal variation in temperatures that it takes decades to see even a small amount of change above normal variations.

I am plenty willing to consider that there are other effects as well. Water Vapor, particulate carbon and such.