1) My OP is not questionable. It's actually quite obvious, and even climate scientists will tell you that they aren't experts in how best to solve these problems economically.
2) I've said many times already that I believe in global warming caused by humans, but that really has nothing to do with my OP.
Protip: Never, ever make a claim like that. I speak from experience, BTW.
Good! So you accept the scientific opinion. Now do you accept the likely possibility of massive costs associated with both climate change itself and climate change mitigation?
:lamo
Nice dodge. Now can you please answer the question? Do you or do you not accept the scientific opinion on climate change?
This sounds like an ominous statement, but it really only says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming,
and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
Erm.... Why didn't you spend 5 minutes looking on Google? You would have seen that economists have, in fact, directly researched, examined and discussed a variety of issues related to climate change.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm
https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-new-economics-of-climate-change
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...an-previously-thought/?utm_term=.d1fb9611d45c
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...ts-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change
Amazon has numerous books on the subject. They even sell a textbook -- which is in its 2nd edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction...=8-4&keywords=the+economics+of+climate+change
I'm sorry, but that's an absurd argument.
There are tons of consumer products that drop in price over time. In many cases, they fall in price specifically because people are buying them. You have economies of scale, which reduces costs; you have competition, which drives prices down and efficiency up; the companies making the panels have more resources for R&D, to make more efficient and cheaper panels.
Fusion is a long, long way off. Decades. We've been working on it for decades already, too. We cannot wait for fusion to work itself out, and become economically viable.
Climatologists have in fact considered that possibility. Unsurprisingly, in a way that any student of behavioral economics would immediately grasp, they are worried that people will use that option as an excuse to dump more CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important is that screwing around with the environment in that way could have unknown environmental impacts. Not to mention that lots of the damage cannot be undone -- e.g. if there is significant loss of land ice, removing CO2 from the atmosphere will not restore it.
Dealing with an impacted climate is not like putting a car in reverse. It's more like trying to put an egg back together.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump
Yeah, thing is? People have been engaged in those discussions, for a long time. I'm not sure how you missed it.
And I am not contesting the global temperature trends, (not now anyway).Whatever that is might have a point in there somewhere, but the scientists are pretty convinced about the global temperature trends.
The data shows the outgoing radiation was not reduced much, only about 1/3 of the prediction.If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Well, things are missed when you just go to the propaganda news network for your information and are just fed a bunch of ignorant talking points. It's not wonder these people constantly make fools of themselves on these forums and prove they are so uninformed
:lamoHow about you screw off with your patronizing attitude. I'm not interested in your pro tips.
And yes, climate change has costs. It also has some benefits. Policy to fix it also has costs, and there isn't just one policy option, there are many. Some policies will help the rich more, some will help the poor, some will help some rich and hurt other rich people, etc. Some will be more efficient, some will be less efficient, etc., etc., etc. But for me to say that climate scientists aren't economists and climate scientists aren't experts in determining what policies we should implement economically, I mean, that really isn't questionable, it's common sense.
Let me point out the fallacy of the consensus using your own link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
This sounds like an ominous statement, but it really only says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and adding CO2 can cause some warming.
The currently accepted level of forcing for 2XCO2 is 1.2 C, so
the forcing warming expected from the change in CO2 level from 280 ppm to 406 ppm,
would be 1.73 X ln(406/280)= .642 C, this means that the above statement can be satisfied
without the additional amplified feedbacks required for the IPCC's mid to high end predictions.
The consensus is not that the full suite of IPCC catastrophic predictions are correct, but rather simply
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
There are also a lot of scientists that opt-out of conversations. There is a lot of labeling and attacking that goes on by the Left, including by scientists, when a Republican politician wants to take a more economic approach to the issue.
Look at how Democrats recently argued against Red Team/Blue Team discussions on Climate Change. People on the Left keep saying things like "the debate is over". Well, no, the debate is not over. .
1) I know that oil gets subsidies. The reason for that is because oil is one of the most cost-effective forms of energy, and because transportation plays such a huge part of the cost on every product in the entire economy, it makes sense to subsidize the cheapest form of energy for transportation. And I think the importance of diversity often gets lost. Different energy forms have different strengths, weaknesses, and best uses. Nuclear energy is the cheapest, but we don't use it on vehicles, and for good reason. If completely ended fossil fuels and switched entirely over to renewables, we would lose a lot, not just in cost benefits, but also in being able to power different types of things effectively. Here's a small 1-page statement about the value of diversity in energy: https://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/The-Value-of-Energy-Diversity And btw, energy diversity is the Republican stance. They don't just push fossil fuels. If you look at what President Trump's policy was, all forms of energy, including renewables, are promoted/allowed. This is a market-based approach.
3) Metaphors are not meant for proving things, they are simply meant for explaining. I understand what you are saying so there is no reason to use a metaphor. The fact that you call my dismissal of your analogy a "dismissal of evinces" shows that you are guilty of the Fallacy of Analogy.
Again look at the 95% you are speaking of,So you're unwilling to accept a 95%+ probability? Why are you giving so much weight to the other 5%?
That simply says that it is extremely likely that most of the warming is caused by Human activity.and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
Again look at the 95% you are speaking of,
That simply says that it is extremely likely that most of the warming is caused by Human activity.
Which I demonstrated with only the forcing warming, no amplified feedbacks necessary.
Why are you giving so much weight to statements that are not mine?
No, dude. it's settled.
There is really no doubt that, at this time, CO2 is the largest human influence on the atmosphere. Not only is it one of the largest emissions, it also stays in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, depending on how it is sequestered.
There are other factors, like methane or deforestation, which play a part. But CO2 is the big one. This is not about "faith," it's not about politics, it's not about partisanship, it is simply the overwhelming conclusion of the science.
You mean facts like that while CO2 levels have been increasing steadily,
the energy imbalance has been fairly stable for 16 years.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpr...-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png?w=640
The Science of AGW requires that there be an upward .5 Wm-2 change over that period.
I guess it is a little difficult to spot.
An average person would spend about $540 driving an electric vehicle for the typical 15,000 miles per year. In some states, electric vehicle owners can fuel their vehicles to capacity for less than dollar. Oregon is an example of a state where most drivers spend about $30 per month to charge their electric cars.[/I]
Careful with that question--it sounds suspiciously like "When will you stop beating your wife?"
Are you suggesting that that 95+% probability is to be ignored?
Good point! I ran the numbers through a spread sheet averaging 12 months, 36 months and 60 months,Well, if you perceive those as triangles above and below the zero live, the base of the triangles are wider for the positive side than negative side. Using the volume of the near triangle shapes makes an obvious net positive.
Not at all, please define what you think the 95% probability is of?
This is really a rhetorical question, since it says it right in the text,
"that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."
I have long said that AGW is a collection of concepts, some based on Science, others on belief.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas..Science,
That Doubling the level of CO2 will force the surface troposphere system
to warm roughly 1.2 C.. also science but a bit more subjective.
That the warming from the CO2 forcing will be amplified to produce the mid to high end of the IPCC prediction...belief.
Once again the only thing necessary to satisfy the 95% statement, is that more than half of the observed warming is from Human activity.
The simple CO2 forcing meets the criteria, for this warming is predominantly caused by humans.
Literally answered right there in the text: "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."
Okay. Have you done your own research into this matter, or are you simply supplying a personal interpretation into articles/news stories you have read?
Literally answered right there in the text: "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."
Okay. Have you done your own research into this matter, or are you simply supplying a personal interpretation into articles/news stories you have read?
I'm not putting any words in your mouth, or deliberately weakening your position. I'm pointing out the flaws in exactly what you are writing.Amazing. You strawman me and then have the gall to call me uninformed. If you think there is consensus on what policies should be implemented to solve climate change, tell me what they are, because your link didn't explain that consensus. It merely explained things like there is a consensus global warming is harming the economy. Well, that's not a policy solution.
Oh, and you are one of those pretentious people that attacks the average American as if you are so much smarter than everybody else. Get out of here with that crap.
Blink, in Oregon, charges $0.39 to $0.49 per kWh to charge a car.
Blink - Membership FAQs
Now maybe there are cheaper places on a rare occasion, but $0.39 doesn't seem cheap to me.
Spending $540 to drive 15,000 miles seems quite cheap to me.
I don't think they were relying on that number. If they calculated it on personal chargers, the cost of electricity in Oregon is around $0.11 per kWh. I'll bet they calculated it at the consumer rate, not one of these Blink chargers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?