- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 1,564
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible.
Exiting the Paris Accord will hurt the US economy.
"Withdrawing from the Paris agreement does not make economic sense for the US, a group of economists has argued, as the cost of clean energy has fallen since the agreement was signed in 2015, while the risks of climate catastrophe have increased.
Economists from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics examined the economic case for the US withdrawal, which President Donald Trump signalled in June 2017, and which will take effect on 4 November, the day after this year’s presidential election.
They found that climate breakdown would cause growing losses to US infrastructure and property, and impede the rate of economic growth this century, and that an increasing proportion of the carbon emissions causing global heating would come from countries outside the US. That gives the US a vested interest in whether the Paris agreement succeeds or fails, regardless of whether the US fulfils its own voluntary obligations under the accord."
Trump exiting Paris accord will harm US economy – LSE research | Environment | The Guardian
That renewables are starting to out compete fossil fuels all across the world leading to great economic opportunities.
Plunging Renewable Energy Prices Mean U.S. Can Hit 90% Clean Electricity By 2035 - At No Extra Cost
Why Energy Storage Is Proving Even More Disruptive Than Cheap Renewables
There also just the health benefits from reduction in air pollution alone outweigh the cost of the Paris Accord.
Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals
Yet another reason to not vote for Biden!We'll get back in the accord after Biden becomes prez.
[h=2]A fickle faith: Climate change concerns evaporate in US polls[/h]
Donald Trump would be delighted if Biden and Harris make climate change a leading issue.
Climate change is the luxury fear people wear on their sleeves when they can afford it. It’s a piece of fashion. Optional and discarded at a moment’s notice.
[h=3]Amid COVID-19, Americans don’t care about climate change anymore[/h]Will Johnson, Fortune Magazine
In a survey we at the Harris Poll conducted last December, American adults said climate change was the number one issue facing society. Today, it comes in second to last on a list of a dozen options, ahead of only overpopulation. Among Gen X men, in fact, more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant. COVID-19 and the recession have, of course, reordered priorities around the world.
We asked a panel of U.S. adults a series of questions about today’s most crucial issues, environmental policy options, and their own behavior. In all three categories, I was personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging.
The rise in the skepticism of the Gen X men is interesting. In UK polls, the peak age of believers was 30 – 50 years which includes a lot of Gen Xers.
[h=4]The pandemic is undoing years of activism:[/h]And when the pandemic ends—or at least is suitably controlled—American adults say they’ll behave in ways that would increase their carbon footprint. According to our survey, we’ll drive as much as we did before, take public transportation less, bicycle or walk less, buy more clothes, and have more stuff packaged up and shipped to our homes. And most of us plan to jack up the home AC and heat even more than we already have.
It’s taken two decades of relentless advertising to achieve mass compliance and new habits, but just a few months to be reminded of how convenient some things are. The pandemic gave people permission to break the old rules.
This must be killing the greens.
This is perhaps not as huge a shift as implied. Climate change belief has always been wafer thin, and prone to coming and going at a moments notice. No matter how many “cared” when asked the right question, when they have to rank their concerns “climate change” is always near the bottom.
The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible. Air pollution also has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, but leave it to leftist filth to dishonestly conflate the two.
The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible. Air pollution also has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, but leave it to leftist filth to dishonestly conflate the two.
[h=2]
Donald Trump would be delighted if Biden and Harris make climate change a leading issue.
Climate change is the luxury fear people wear on their sleeves when they can afford it. It’s a piece of fashion. Optional and discarded at a moment’s notice.
Amid COVID-19, Americans don’t care about climate change anymore
Yet another reason to not vote for Biden!
No because he would go with what "feels good" without considering the consequences....because he's more likely to listen to experts in any given field?
I can see how most Trump Supporters would hate that! It simply STINKS of "education".
No because he would go with what "feels good" without considering the consequences.
The bad consequences of AGW are simply prediction of what might happen "IF" quite a few assumptions plugged into the models are accurate.Hmmm, "consequences". That's a nice word.
But ignoring an unfolding disaster like anthropogenic global climate change will surely have no consequences, right?
Paris, while imperfect, was at least something. But Trump doesn't understand the nature of "consequence" after a lifetime of living free of them. Others took care of his messes. His dad, Roy Cohn, Russian bankers...
Now America has broadly proclaimed they don't even want a seat at the table. We have ceded anything like leadership. So events will ultimately overtake us and we will be without any control.
So do tell us all about "consequences".
The bad consequences of AGW are simply prediction of what might happen "IF" quite a few assumptions plugged into the models are accurate.
IF, the climate has a high sensitivity to added CO2!
IF the future emissions average 12 ppm per year for the next 80 years, (RCP8.5), Current emissions are below 3 ppm per year!
And lastly IF the predicted warming causes the predicted changes.
Humanity's real problem is energy, We do not have enough natural hydrocarbons to allow everyone alive today,
to live a first world lifestyle for very long. We have to address the global energy gap.
The difference is the level of certainty. driving into a solid surface at 100 mph has a much higher certainty than the catastrophic predictionsIn the same manner that IF I drive my car at 100mph into a wall I can predict I will not fare well.
Then we should start getting worried:
(SOURCE: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...radiation-changes-Nature-Geosci-1-735-743.pdf)
of the IPCC!
I am not worried in the least, the same assumptions apply!
Why do you think it is important that we have a seat at a table, when emissions in the US are falling faster than those who are at the table?Indeed, I will agree that we need to pay PARTICULAR attention to emissions. Which is why it is important for us to be at the table in the conversation...not running away from it as if it isn't a real problem.
Perhaps, you think wasting tax payers money is a good thing?
Actually, we do not need to be concerned about emissions, they will be taken car of as a side effect to a viable energy solution.This is an interesting point. Seems like a great call for de-carbonization of our energy infrastructure! That would help.
Also we should not decide on de-carbonization of our energy infrastructure, as that limits our possible solutions.
Nature stores energy as hydrocarbons, perhaps it is wise for us to follow an example that has evolved over billions of years!
We have to address the energy gap with viable solutions, which include energy storage and accumulationAgreed. We will soon have little choice either way.
plans that allow the poor duty cycle poor energy density alternative sources to fill our modern energy demand,
not just for the first world, be everyone alive.
The difference is the level of certainty.
Why do you think it is important that we have a seat at a table, when emissions in the US are falling faster than those who are at the table?
Actually, we do not need to be concerned about emissions, they will be taken car of as a side effect to a viable energy solution.
Also we should not decide on de-carbonization of our energy infrastructure, as that limits our possible solutions.
Nature stores energy as hydrocarbons, perhaps it is wise for us to follow an example that has evolved over billions of years!
We have to address the energy gap with viable solutions, which include energy storage and accumulation
That's why those little squiggles are there. Those are distributions with an assessment of how likely the modal value is.
1. WE (along with western Europe) are the largest contributors to the current excess CO2 load in the atmosphere due to our 150 years of massive industrialization.
2. If the people who are most responsible for the mess don't act like they want to be part of the solution, why would anyone like India or China care? They just want to have what we already enjoyed.
From your mouth to God's ear as they say. But, sadly, owing to our entrenched energy infrastructure which is currently built on and solidly supported by fossil fuels it is unlikely that the necessary changes in infrastructure will happen fast enough.
Why do you think fracking is all the rage now? It's exactly the behavior you are taught in any economic geology class. As a source for material becomes less available the pursuit moves to lower and lower "grades" and more cost can be borne in "beneficiating" the raw material.
The EROEI for petroleum is really low right now in part because of how we have structured our energy infrastructure so we can accept more costly extraction for a while. The key is do we want to? Right now we don't factor in the real down-stream costs of using fossil fuels so we aren't making rational decisions on this front.
Sid Vicious should not "de-heroinize" his daily routine since that will limit him.
Nature stores these hydrocarbons through the carbon cycle which takes a very long time to accumulate just a ton of fossil fuel. We can burn that in a couple minutes.
Therein lies the rub. Making a seam of coal is a very long process. Burning a ton of coal is a very quick process.
Excess CO2 in the atmosphere can't really be cycled back out quickly to the previous "lower level" because the carbon cycle is inherently slow. Contrast that with the hydrologic cycle which is relatively fast. Excess H2O (another greenhouse gas) can easily be re-equilibrated to a lower level with a simple rainstorm.
Agreed.
But we must also understand that fossil fuels are a dangerous, polluting and horrible source for that energy. (And I did my doctorate on coal chemistry. I love that stuff. I love the chemistry of kerogen, coal, oil, etc. I also realize it is a rather nasty means of getting energy. And I accept that it must end. Not only for the purposes of environmental stewardship but also downstream healthcosts and, finally, the climate.)
I know what the error bars mean!
But even with those they started with assumptions.
You start with the assumption that we have created a "Mess", when there is scant evidence that the added CO2 is any issue at all.
We can already make our own hydrocarbon fuels on demand, and speed up the carbon cycle.
You are letting your bias against hydrocarbons, limit your vision of possible solutions.
The model output error bars are different from the assumptions used at the model initialization.Sorry.
(I just noted you were talking about "surety" as if it wasn't implied from the data I presented from Knutti and Hegerl).
But don't state what those "assumptions" are that set the confidence intervals.
You have not provided evidence that the climate experts think the added CO2 is causing a mess,The earth's climate experts over the last 60 years or so disagree with you.
You likely have not noticed, but almost no one is fracking for oil anymore.Not economically. Which is why we still drill for and even frack to get it from the ground.
And yet, you seem to be unable to see that man made hydrocarbons could be part of our energy future.Well, to be fair to me and MS and PhD in the area of organic geochemistry I know a goodly amount about hydrocarbons.
An example might be that they assumed that the temperature warmed 5C from the last glacial maximum to the pre industrial temperature,
and that CO2 levels rose from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. Both assumption could be off by quite a bit.
You have not provided evidence that the climate experts think the added CO2 is causing a mess,
some think so, but others do not.
And yet, you seem to be unable to see that man made hydrocarbons could be part of our energy future.
Perhaps, you can tell us, which other molecule can carry as many hydrogen atoms, and is liquid at normal pressure and temperature,
and is compatible with our existing distribution infrastructure?
First off model results are not really evidence, they are results based on the input assumptions.So why do you think so many different lines of independent, unrelated evidence point to about the same estimate?
You have instrumental data, you have data from volcanic eruptions, you have paleoclimate proxies. All are dramatically different methods of estimating the value, yet they all converge on a similar range.
What is wise about casually dismissing the energy packaging that has lead to the greatest advances in human civilization?No, I can "see" it, I just have no reason to think it is wise. Based on the science.
People do not just get around in cars, we also have to fly jets across the ocean, and ships across the sea.Why does it have to be a liquid at normal temps and pressures? I mean there are more energy dense materials (nuclear at 3000000MJ/kg vs petroleum at a measly 42MJ/kg) and we KNOW how to make electric vehicles (I have one in my drive way as we speak).
The infrastructure was designed around hydrocarbons, it does not really care about the source of those hydrocarbons.But this all assumes that we need to have the energy infrastructure that has developed around fossil fuels. That is putting the cart before the horse. As I noted earlier our energy infrastructure has been CUSTOM DESIGNED to work with fossil fuels (mostly petroleum and coal but also some natural gas).
Either way it doesn't much matter. We WILL one day have to adapt to a different energy infrastructure. Whether it's because we've run out of fossil fuels or it's because finally the world's denialists were forced to accept that they were wrong all along and AGW is as real as most of the scientific community thinks it is.
The Paris Accord was created by communists and Marxists for the very specific reason to punish the US and cause as much economic harm as possible. Air pollution also has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, but leave it to leftist filth to dishonestly conflate the two.
First off model results are not really evidence, they are results based on the input assumptions.
and a bunch of them fall into a group, because they start from the assumption of CO2 being the primary driver of climate change,
and extrapolate from there.
Your bias against fossil fuels, is blinding you
In point of fact the models are physical models which means that the majority of the assumptions are predicated on known physical relationships.
I don't know where you are getting your rosy picture of "manmade hydrocarbons" as a real-world, ready to use system. Yes, hydrocarbons CAN be made from pre-existing material. But if you want to make sure you are doing non-net-CO2-increase then you will have to make them from CO2 which is going to cost energy (and money) to reduce the carbon first and then build it up to longer chains. So it's not going to "pay for itself". If you start from pre-existing carbonaceous fuels you are, by definition, going to put more CO2 into the atmosphere (that's basic chemistry).
So this dream you are harboring of some magical "man-made hydrocarbon" as a savior for this topic seems to be sometime off in the future.
So they assume that the forcing, the forced energy imbalance is roughly equal to a 2% increase in solar output.Thus the 2xCO 2 forcing is almost as large as for +2% So, and in both cases the expected surface temperature change in the absence of climate feedbacks is 1.2-1.3•C. However, the quantity of most interest is •T•, the surface temperature response when climate feedbacks are allowed to operate. The classical 2xCO2: and 2% solar irradiance GCM experiments yielded a global mean of T ~ 3C for ether forcing.
If the Earth absorbs 240 W/m2, adding 2% would add 4.8W/m2 of imbalance at the top of the atmosphere,The Earth absorbs about 240 W/m2 of solar energy and, on average must radiate that amount of thermal energy back to space.
It is not a matter of if we can make carbon neutral transport fuels from scratch, but the cost of goods sold of that fuel.SUNFIRE-SYNLINK—a co-electrolyzer based on solid oxide cell (SOC) technology—enables the highly efficient production
(a projected ~80% efficiency on an industrial scale) of synthesis gas in a single step using water, CO2 and green electricity.
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?