Page 30 of 34 FirstFirst ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 LastLast
Results 726 to 750 of 834
  1. #726
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,659
    Oh shit! Talk about moving goalposts....
    When will the R's start being more "core" on AGW than D's?

  2. #727
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,370
    R's need to start walking the walk, not just talking the talk. But then so do D's.

  3. #728
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    6,067
    There's no way we could build 100,000,000 houses in this country... we'll run out of bricks!

  4. #729
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    995
    Well shit, first we learn that denying climate change is no longer a viable position. Now they tell us it will cost more money to not address climate change than it would to implement the Green New Deal.

    Damn, what's a denier to do?

    The Green New Deal Costs Less Than Doing Nothing

    The Climate Impact Lab, a consortium of researchers and experts (including Jina), published a paper in the journal Science almost two years ago that modeled the costs associated with things like agricultural output decline, mortality due to temperature extremes, and increases in electricity demand. They found that by the end of the century, the U.S. could be losing between one and four percent of its GDP—or a few trillion dollars, most likely—every single year. The estimated impact was geographically varied: Some parts of the country might fare better, losing little or none of its GDP, while others could be losing hundreds of billions every year.

    ...

    The Republican plan to do nothing, then, means America would be double-charged for its inaction: The country would lose trillions in missed opportunities for growth, and many trillions more due to a growing catastrophe. Passing a Green New Deal, or something like it, may sound expensive up front, but Republicans should see it for what it is: a sound investment that will generate the greatest returns imaginable—a livable planet.

  5. #730
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    222

  6. #731
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,567
    Daily weather does not=Climate. That said, some odd and intense Spring Weather going on right about now.

  7. #732
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Daily weather does not=Climate. That said, some odd and intense Spring Weather going on right about now.
    Temp may hit 90 around Seattle today.

    Crazy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  8. #733
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by goldengatestinx View Post
    Don't depend on your expensive electric vehicle to help...
    This just in from Germany: electric vehicles tested higher in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than their diesel counterparts.
    Quote Originally Posted by goldengatestinx View Post
    The researchers compared the total production energy expense needed to build an electric vehicle to that of a diesel one. The result might surprise you: electric vehicles account for 11-28% more CO2 emissions than diesel vehicles.
    Quote Originally Posted by goldengatestinx View Post
    The Germans estimated that a battery from a Tesla Model 3 would require between 11 and 15 tons of CO2 emissions to produce.
    A full life-cycle analysis is appropriate.

    So the Tesla may not be the best example of an efficient electric car. IIRC, Singapore attempted to regulate it as a gas guzzler, based on it's high energy consumption. In the end I believe politics overruled science. What did the Germans find for a Leaf or a Bolt? or the new Volkswagons?

    https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...wer-mix-charts
    From 2008 to 2018, German coal use for power generation declined ((229-275)/275) 17%. Overall electric generation increased a small amount 2%? (Hard to eyeball from the charts). Assuming the decline in coal continues at a similar rate, The 2018 Tesla will pass the Mercedes in about ten years.

    Ah, but you'll say we need to develop new power to fuel those electric cars...
    Renewable generation in Germany increased ((235-93)/93) 153% from 2008 to 2018. Assuming this trend also continues, new electricity in Germany is rapidly getting cleaner. Arguably, the newly installed supply should be assigned to future new electric car demand.

    The researchers also ignored the pollution effects of diesel cars (NOx and SOx pollution). There's a heavy health cost, environment cost, and cost in infrastructure maintenance. How many priceless lungs, Black Forests, Notre Dames, etc are saved by switching away from diesel? This should also be accounted.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldengatestinx View Post
    Even if this feat could be achieved – which critics claim is an impossible goal, practically-speaking – the scientific effect is almost certain to be global cooling as plant life dies off from too little CO2 for photosynthesis and the atmosphere clouds over, blocking natural sunlight.

    If the Earth is, in fact, entering a Mini Ice Age, then the UN’s proposals to zero-out carbon emissions and even dim the sun go beyond the preposterous into the life-threatening.
    "preposterous" is the right word for this part of the article.

    Too little CO2? Missed the last 100 years of plot development? Preindustrial level of 280ppm, current level above 400ppm, zeroed out in the future at (450?, 500?) ??? ppm. Plants will almost certainly have >50% more CO2 than historically needed for the next few centuries.

    Mini Ice Age? As evidenced by increasing temperatures and receding glaciers?

    Quote Originally Posted by goldengatestinx View Post
    When will the madness end?
    Speculative answers;
    2028 for German Tesla buyers. (trusting the Germans and discounting non-CO2 impacts of today's diesels)
    Maybe already for cheaper German electric vehicles.

    American Teslas already win on CO2 basis. US grid (27% coal, EIA 2018) uses 23% less coal than German grid (35% coal, link above).

    Good question. When will people listen?
    10/01/2012 Site was upgraded to 300 baud.

  9. #734
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    17,560

  10. #735
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    995
    "I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned."
    "The danger from climate change no longer outweighs the risks of nuclear accidents."

    In 2016, observing these trends, I launched a company devoted to building offshore wind turbines. My journey, from admiring nuclear power to fearing it, was complete: This tech is no longer a viable strategy for dealing with climate change, nor is it a competitive source of power. It is hazardous, expensive and unreliable, and abandoning it wouldn’t bring on climate doom.

    The real choice now is between saving the planet and saving the dying nuclear industry. I vote for the planet.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...013_story.html

  11. #736
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,567
    https://thebulwark.com/what-changed-...limate-change/



    I spent the better part of my professional life (1991-2014) working at a libertarian think tank—the Cato Institute—arguing against climate action. As Cato’s director of Natural Resource Studies (and later, as a senior fellow and eventually vice president), I maintained that, while climate change was real, the impacts would likely prove rather modest and that the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions would greatly exceed the benefits.

    I changed my mind about that, however, because (among other things) I changed my mind about risk management.

    If we think about climate risks in the same fashion we think about risks in other contexts, we should most certainly hedge—and hedge aggressively—by removing fossil fuels from the economy as quickly as possible.

    Let me explain.

    The big debate in climate science right now isn’t whether or not climate change is occurring—or whether human activity is the main cause. The big debate is about scale: How much change will there be, over how long a time frame, and how large (or small) will be the follow-on effects.

    Despite many decades of research, scientists are still uncertain about how sensitive the atmosphere is to greenhouse gas loading. Evidence from the peer-reviewed literature suggests that a doubling of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere above pre-industrial levels (which we’re likely to see sometime after mid-century) will eventually warm the planet anywhere between 1.5C and 4.5C (2.7F to 8.1F). That’s a very large spread.

    The difference between the low-end and high-end estimates is the difference between a passing event of modest consequence and global environmental and economic convulsion the likes of which we’ve never seen.

    The question, then, is largely about what is the most likely outcome from this wide distribution of possible outcomes. While their arguments might differ at the margins, the so-called “lukewarmers” (of which I counted myself during most of my years at Cato), contend that warming will likely be at the very low-end of the range of likely outcomes, and that it will prove of little consequence to the future beneficiaries of a growing economy.

    Environmentalists, for their part, argue that warming will almost certainly be at the higher end of the distribution of possible outcomes–and that, accordingly, we have no time to lose. “The world is going to end in 12 years,” claims Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (albeit figuratively), “if we don’t address climate change.”

    And thus, we find ourselves in the midst of a debate about the most likely outcome of climate change, even though the truth is that neither side can know with certainty which variant will come to pass. And, funnily enough, both sides seem to think that the most-likely outcome will dovetail with their preferred political position on other matters. Conservatives insist that environmentalists are greatly exaggerating risks (as is their wont) and that if we follow their climate agenda and abandon fossil fuels, we’ll destroy the global economy and surrender economic liberty (a claim that I once embraced but no longer do, given the remarkable technological advances in low-carbon energy technology). The left argues that conservatives are like the man jumping off the top of a skyscraper, claiming no discernible harm has come to him yet even as he plummets to his doom, and that the solutions are giant programs like the Green New Deal, which entail everything from fossil fuel independence to the entire social agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America.

    How are we supposed to figure out which side is right?

    The answer is that we can’t be sure. And that’s okay. Because in life you rarely know for certain what’s going to happen next. You plan for a range of outcomes and try to mitigate your exposure to the worst possible risks. There’s an entire economic discipline on this subject. It’s called risk management.

    Risk management is not about discerning the optimal response to the most likely outcome. It is about discerning the appropriate response to the most likely distribution of possible outcomes. That means incorporating the possibility that climate change, either by a bad roll of the geophysical dice or a large and unexpected societal vulnerability to warming, turns into a bigger problem than we expect.

    In his most recent book on the economics and policy of climate change, economist Richard Tol outlines three factors that would motivate greater climate ambition if we look beyond the “most likely” outcomes.

    The first is that surprises are weighted toward the bad. Despite some technical ambiguity, scientists believe that the chance of a nasty surprise on the climate front is much larger than the chance of a pleasant surprise. The second is that the risk of locking ourselves into a high-carbon, worse-than-expected climate world is larger than being locked into overly-expensive green energy. That is largely because once CO2 is in the atmosphere–where natural residence times are measured in centuries—it is very expensive to remove through technical means. Green energy boondoggles, on the other hand, can be reversed rather easily, and will at least deliver some health benefits from reduced air pollution, regardless of how climate change plays out. Lastly, societies have long demonstrated a willingness to pay in order to avoid prompting risks that are asymmetric, ambiguous, and irreversible. Global warming is all three.

    While Tol’s arguments might strike some conservatives as a suspicious attempt to smuggle in the “precautionary principle” (a principle my friend Indur Goklany once railed against in a book I commissioned and edited when I was at Cato), there is an important distinction between accounting for—and managing—risks and uncertainties on the one hand, and applying something akin to the precautionary principle on the other. Conventional risk management treats both sides of the risk equation—the chance that outcomes will be either more favorable or less favorable than anticipated—in an equal fashion. In so doing, it adheres to what economists call the “expected utility” framework.

    The precautionary principle does not; it puts its policy thumb on bad outcomes. It just so happens that, in the context of climate change, the asymmetry comes down squarely on the side of managing climate risk, with all its ambiguities and potential irreversibilities.

    We make similar decisions about risk in other contexts all the time.

    Consider, for instance, that the most likely outcome of investing your money in equities is a better return than you might receive from investing in other financial instruments, such as municipal bonds.

    Does this mean you should invest all of your money in equities? No. Most investors understand that there is a great deal of uncertainty in markets, and that the returns on investment in any given year are difficult to predict. Investors thus tend to hedge their bets, particularly when economic risks are nondiversifiable (as they are in the climate context).

    Think of the distribution of possible outcomes as a deck of cards. Equities have a greater spread of good and bad draws from the deck than do bonds, which pay the same no matter how the wider economy is doing. Investing in bonds is thus an investment in stability; something that is so attractive to investors that they forgo greater returns elsewhere to secure that stability. Investing in cutting CO2 emissions is akin to investing in bonds on the financial front. In fact, if we think of CO2 in the atmosphere as an asset (albeit one with negative returns), then the issue becomes much clearer.

    Unfortunately, no analogy is precisely applicable to the climate debate. We have a great deal of historical data, for instance, to inform our sense of the likely distribution of potential outcomes in the finance sector. We have many fewer data points to repair to in the course of informing our sense of the distribution of potential outcomes in the climate arena. We have imperfect geologic records. We have imperfect computer models, which reflect our imperfect understanding of climate dynamics. But that ambiguity is itself a motivating factor for reducing emissions. Never before have we run an experiment where greenhouse gases were loaded into the atmosphere at today’s rates. We have no backup planet if things go horribly wrong.

    When asked why I changed my mind about federal climate policy, this is a large part of my answer. Building an argument against climate action upon a forceful claim about the most likely outcome of greenhouse gas emissions is to build an argument upon analytic sand.

    You don’t have to believe with all your heart that the worst-case scenario is sure to happen. You just have to understand that it is one possible outcome. And that we should not be making policy based on an assumption that we are certain of this or that outcome.

    When it comes to managing large-scale risks, straight-forward economics suggests that we ought to take climate change very seriously.

  12. #737
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,857
    Think how history will judge the climate deniers, especially the late stage deniers...

  13. #738
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    3,583
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Think how history will judge the climate deniers, especially the late stage deniers...
    Will there be any remaining records documenting what actually happened here after we're gone? We've moved away from hard copies of things. Nothing but the guidestones is built to survive an apocalypse and last centures. Would visitors from another world be able to decipher our technology and export our records from what's left of the hard drives and servers after we're gone?
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  14. #739
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,739
    I'm almost to the point that I don't think we deserve this planet any longer. I said this to myself last night after my better half told me about a kid that nailed a flamingo at the zoo with a rock breaking it's leg which resulted in having to put it down.

    We fuck up everything. Bring on the apocalypse.
    dirtbag, not a dentist

  15. #740
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Loveland, Chair 9.
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Think how history will judge the climate deniers, especially the late stage deniers...
    i'm looking forward to it as currently the deniers usually like to say the sun is in charge and by most accounts the sun is entering a period of minimization where it should get colder, hopefully more colder than the deniers have been reporting over the past few years as most of those reports can be accounted to weather patterns imo, but if it still gets hotter over that period than the climate crazies have their evidence.

    one thing that suprises me from the climate crazies is the lack of reports of warming in china as its one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, there should be all sorts of evidence there.
    Eat em up Houston Cougars !

  16. #741
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,659
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiCougar View Post
    one thing that suprises me from the climate crazies is the lack of reports of warming in china as its one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, there should be all sorts of evidence there.
    sarcasm...?
    Does the co2 a country puts out stay right above said country?

  17. #742
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    995

    Very Bad News on Climate

    Quote Originally Posted by SkiCougar View Post
    one thing that suprises me from the climate crazies is the lack of reports of warming in china as its one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, there should be all sorts of evidence there.
    Here's an interesting point about China and CO2 emissions. Yes, China's footprint is big. But, by convention manufacturing emissions are allocated to the country where goods are produced, not where they are purchased and consumed. So, 10-40% (depending on the year) of China's emissions have been to produce goods for consumers in other countries such as the US.

    As we have outsourced our manufacturing to China, we've also outsourced our emissions.

    Additionally, shipping of goods between countries isn't allocated to any country. So when the US says our emissions are going down (or went down for a few years), they really didn't. We just outsourced them.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much...esponsible-for

  18. #743
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    5,491
    Well, well, well...
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...co2-emissions/
    Ya don't say?

  19. #744
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,685
    Was wondering what anyone thinks of this quote.
    It’s a soundbite, the context being that insurance companies are perpetuating the use of non-renewable energy.

    The 40 largest US insurers hold over $450 billion in coal, oil, gas and electric utility stocks and bonds. They hold a bigger proportion of their investments in fossil fuels than average index funds.

  20. #745
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    Wait, why do you have such a hard on for nucular? I thought you were balls deep in oil and gas?

    Retiring nukes to replace them with natural gas or other fossil fuels is a terrible idea. But if they can be replaced by cheaper wind and solar, by all means go for it.

  21. #746
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,659
    Quote Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post
    Nuclear accounts for 20% of our electrical output.

    There is 90,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste that no one wants, NIMBY.

    https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/dispo.../issue_summary
    Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste
    The nation's decades of commercial nuclear power production and nuclear weapons production have resulted in growing inventories of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste. This highly radioactive waste is currently stored at sites in 35 states because no repository has been developed for the permanent disposal of this waste.

  22. #747
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,956
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Nuclear accounts for 20% of our electrical output.

    There is 90,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste that no one wants, NIMBY.

    https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/dispo.../issue_summary
    Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste
    The nation's decades of commercial nuclear power production and nuclear weapons production have resulted in growing inventories of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level nuclear waste. This highly radioactive waste is currently stored at sites in 35 states because no repository has been developed for the permanent disposal of this waste.
    Yeah, but it's not cooking the planet. Nukes have a long shelf life and a really high cap cost to build. At current energy prices, we shouldn't be building new nukes, but we also shouldn't be in a rush to retire them before fossil fuel plants. And we should still be allocating some real money to basic r and d in that sector. Not as much as we should be allocating to carbon removal and sequestration research, but still.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

  23. #748
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,739
    dirtbag, not a dentist

  24. #749
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Wait, why do you have such a hard on for nucular? I thought you were balls deep in oil and gas?
    You got me all wrong, man. I'm into energy production, period. Whether it be hydrocarbon, nuclear, wind or solar. Doesn't matter to as far my work is concerned. And even in an imaginary scenario of unicorns and rainbows where O&G production became a thing of the past, electric still needs the means to get around so transmission lines and distribution solutions will always be necessary NO MATTER the power source.

    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Retiring nukes to replace them with natural gas or other fossil fuels is a terrible idea. But if they can be replaced by cheaper wind and solar, by all means go for it.
    I'm all for cheap wind and solar, and glad we've made such great strides in that segment BUT there are always going to be cloudy or windless days here and there. They're all fantastic as PART of a multi-faceted approach but there's no getting around the fact that we'll always need electric plants based on totally reliable fuel sources.

  25. #750
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    5,491
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Nuclear accounts for 20% of our electrical output.

    There is 90,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste that no one wants, NIMBY.
    Texas has already said we'll take it. Next...

    That said, even IF the radioactive waste is as disastrous as people purport (and I don't think it would be if we actually built new plants with 2019 standards, not old ass Cold War era technology), you have to ask yourself what's worse? Radioactive waste (that CAN be dealt with if people and bureaucracy will only allow) -OR- catastrophic global warming as those same opponents say is going to wipe out the planet. If you TRULY believe in the notion of cataclysmic global warming, seems that the choice should be obvious. Deal with the nuc waste, even if it means kicking that can down the road.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •