So about that climate "Pause"......

[piasabird]

The big question is so what? What is your solution? Taxing carbon will not make the carbon suddenly be removed from the air. Research in the carbon cycle reveals it takes about 100 years to remove carbon from the air.

Lets see what the return is on the investment before we spend money on it. Research is good as long as the research is being spent to find a way to remove the carbon from the air. However, more research about what carbon does is pretty much like beating a dead horse.

 

[Jaskalas]

Still waiting for the believers to go back to wood stoves, oil lamps, and horse/buggy. Once the believers set the example more people will be willing to listen/follow suit.

How many times must it be explained that personal sacrifice is near worthless?
These things must be addressed on a national / global scale.
All must sacrifice.

 

[Spungo]

Still waiting for the believers to go back to wood stoves, oil lamps, and horse/buggy. Once the believers set the example more people will be willing to listen/follow suit.

What about electric stoves? Wind, nuclear, hydro, and solar electricity do not contribute greenhouse gases. A lot of people already support these.
Transportation is still a challenge.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How many times must it be explained that personal sacrifice is near worthless?
These things must be addressed on a national / global scale.
All must sacrifice.

Gotta start somewhere.

 

[chucky2]

Hey, if half of the Believers in the US started personally addressing their impact on CO2 production, that would be addressing it on a national and global scale. I mean, do they really need to take a trip to the mall? Do they really need to buy anything there? Do they really need to go on that vacation? The answer to all that is, No. All those things require CO2 consumption to provide. Are those more important than the massive global scale issues of sea rise? Any reduction in CO2 is worthwhile, and those reductions take time. Believers need to start now, both to get the CO2 production down and to spur others on by their actions.

 

[dainthomas]

Oh most of those are on the ladder of denial that I've posted before, including your 'it's happening but we can't stop it therefore do nothing' denialism.

Scientists don't agree that we are unable to stop or at least strongly mitigate global warming in a way that isn't prohibitively costly, especially when you take into account the cost of doing nothing. If you think otherwise, feel free to provide peer reviewed sources that back you up. I'll also take the statements of worldwide scientific organizations.

Even on the SGU podcast they said that the earth will continue to warm for at least 100 years. No matter what. We'll certainly have hit peak oil by then and be naturally moving to other sources. Would be really nice if fusion was perfected by then.

The point is, if literally shutting down civilization would have no effect in the next century, then it stands to reason that the various carbon credit trading schemes will have less than no effect (other than to line someone's pockets).

Power needs to be generated 24/7. The sun is only up half the time, and the wind isn't always blowing. Instead of wasting money heavily subsidizing these two unrealistic sources, money should be invested in a REAL method of baseline generation other than fossil fuels.

 

[Cozarkian]

Exactly! Denialists have gone from 'it's not happening' to 'it's a good thing!'

All on the ladder of denial.

The argument that it might be a good thing and we should focus on adaptation rather than prevention is over a decade old.

 

[fskimospy]

Even on the SGU podcast they said that the earth will continue to warm for at least 100 years. No matter what. We'll certainly have hit peak oil by then and be naturally moving to other sources. Would be really nice if fusion was perfected by then.

The point is, if literally shutting down civilization would have no effect in the next century, then it stands to reason that the various carbon credit trading schemes will have less than no effect (other than to line someone's pockets).

Have no effect? That's nonsense. For that to make any sense the planet warming .1 degree would have to be equally as bad as the planet warming 10 degrees. I'm unaware of a single credible source that things carbon reductions will have no effect on future temperatures. Can you provide one?

Power needs to be generated 24/7. The sun is only up half the time, and the wind isn't always blowing. Instead of wasting money heavily subsidizing these two unrealistic sources, money should be invested in a REAL method of baseline generation other than fossil fuels.

Why on earth are those unrealistic sources? Not only can power be stored, but your argument rests on the illogical idea that because those sources might not entirely replace fossil fuels that they are not useful. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What about electric stoves? Wind, nuclear, hydro, and solar electricity do not contribute greenhouse gases. A lot of people already support these.
Transportation is still a challenge.

So how much of your power is from those sources? In many places in the US the power comes from coal power plants.

 

[fskimospy]

The argument that it might be a good thing and we should focus on adaptation rather than prevention is over a decade old.

I'm sure some people brought it up in the past, but as the science behind AGW has become more and more overwhelming I've seen more deniers switch to this argument.

 

[OverVolt]

Eski just repeats what other people tell him. Boring.

 

[fskimospy]

So how much of your power is from those sources? In many places in the US the power comes from coal power plants.

Why do you base your acceptance of science on how people cook their dinner?

 

[K1052]

So how much of your power is from those sources? In many places in the US the power comes from coal power plants.

Coal has declined from over 50% of the generation mix to the low 30s in a decade and is forecast, even by the utilities themselves, to fall much lower than that. Probably within another decade or so it will be a niche energy source compared to ng/renewables/nukes.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why do you base your acceptance of science on how people cook their dinner?

LMAO!!!! If you get your electricity from sources that contribute to climate change you are partially responsible for said climate change.

 

[fskimospy]

LMAO!!!! If you get your electricity from sources that contribute to climate change you are partially responsible for said climate change.

Yes, we are all partially responsible for climate change. That's why I'd like for us to craft a solution that will cover everyone. This is a collective action problem: individual choices are near meaningless which is why we need national policy.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm sure some people brought it up in the past, but as the science behind AGW has become more and more overwhelming I've seen more deniers switch to this argument.

Its actually weakening as predictions have failed to materialized. The models diverge from observations and require more adjustments. Slowly but surely it will become obvious that the CO2 sensitivity was overestimated, and the theory that there are runaway positive feedback loops in a stable system is incorrect, because that is atypical of stable systems.

Also the climate is probably the least important and worst way to model the surface temperature of the planet. Its only 26 miles of air compared to the 5.972 × 10^24 kg mass of the planet. Everything acts on the climate and if you get even the slightest thing wrong, it will blow the changes out of proportion because of its low heat capacity relative to other variables at that scale.

You know how we lack a cohesive "theory of everything" that describes universal science and physics processes across multiple scales? Climate science is just the wrong equations at the wrong scale run amok. It'll never be accurate. Not the way they are doing it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Coal has declined from over 50% of the generation mix to the low 30s in a decade and is forecast, even by the utilities themselves, to fall much lower than that. Probably within another decade or so it will be a niche energy source compared to ng/renewables/nukes.

Yet Chicago still gets the majority of it's power from coal.

http://chicagoloopster.medill.northwestern.edu/2012/01/27/sources-of-our-power/

 

[Jaskalas]

Its actually weakening...

How much data must you ignore in order to say that?

 

[fskimospy]

Its actually weakening as predictions have failed to materialized. The models diverge from observations and require more adjustments. Slowly but surely it will become obvious that the CO2 sensitivity was overestimated, and the theory that there are runaway positive feedback loops in a stable system is incorrect, because that is atypical of stable systems.

Also the climate is probably the least important and worst way to model the surface temperature of the planet. Its only 26 miles of air compared to the 5.972 × 10^24 kg mass of the planet. Everything acts on the climate and if you get even the slightest thing wrong, it will blow the changes out of proportion because of its low heat capacity relative to other variables at that scale.

You know how we lack a cohesive "theory of everything" that describes universal science and physics processes across multiple scales? Climate science is just the wrong equations at the wrong scale run amok. It'll never be accurate. Not the way they are doing it.

I definitely think we should listen to the guy who doesn't understand basic thermodynamics about climate modeling. lol.

 

[dainthomas]

Have no effect? That's nonsense. For that to make any sense the planet warming .1 degree would have to be equally as bad as the planet warming 10 degrees. I'm unaware of a single credible source that things carbon reductions will have no effect on future temperatures. Can you provide one?

Oh they'll have an effect. I wasn't saying otherwise. Me sitting on the beach scooping water out with a bucket will also reduce sea level. But how much effect will it have? Is there a paper that says reducing CO2 by X will slow global temperature increase by Y? I haven't seen that.

Is reducing pollution a worthy cause regardless of global warming? Of course, but it needs to be done in an intelligent and economically sustainable manner.

Why on earth are those unrealistic sources? Not only can power be stored, but your argument rests on the illogical idea that because those sources might not entirely replace fossil fuels that they are not useful. That makes absolutely no sense.

They are unrealistic because they are not baseline generation. A power grid needs a stable source that is always available no matter what. Solar and wind do not even come close to meeting that definition. And no, you can't store enough power to replace a traditional baseline generation source.

If you want to get rid of fossil fuel generation, you need to come up with something brand new (since nuclear fission is politically unfeasible right now).

 

[fskimospy]

Oh they'll have an effect. I wasn't saying otherwise. Me sitting on the beach scooping water out with a bucket will also reduce sea level. But how much effect will it have? Is there a paper that says reducing CO2 by X will slow global temperature increase by Y? I haven't seen that.

Is reducing pollution a worthy cause regardless of global warming? Of course, but it needs to be done in an intelligent and economically sustainable manner.

I mean you literally said they would have 'less than zero effect'. As for projections of CO2 PPM that we need to meet in order to keep things from getting too bad, here you go:

https://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/presidentialaction.pdf

The exact levels aren't known but we have ballpark estimates. Certainly enough to act on.

They are unrealistic because they are not baseline generation. A power grid needs a stable source that is always available no matter what. Solar and wind do not even come close to meeting that definition. And no, you can't store enough power to replace a traditional baseline generation source.

If you want to get rid of fossil fuel generation, you need to come up with something brand new (since nuclear fission is politically unfeasible right now).

That doesn't make them unrealistic at all, in fact it would enable us to vastly lower our emissions. Under the old scenario our fossil fuel generators ran 24 hours a day. With sufficient wind and solar maybe they only run 8 hours a day. Emissions cut by 2/3rds! It's not like it's the power plant itself that creates carbon emissions, it's RUNNING the power plan that creates carbon emissions. The less you run it, the less we emit.

 

[K1052]

Yet Chicago still gets the majority of it's power from coal.

http://chicagoloopster.medill.northwestern.edu/2012/01/27/sources-of-our-power/

Your source is out of date. ComEd is down to 39% coal for the 12 months ending June 2015:

https://www.comed.com/documents/about-us/environmental-commitment/environmental_disclosure_12mons_ending_20150630_rev.pdf?FileTracked=true

With additional retirements and ng conversions forecast that will drop further yet. Most of their power comes from nukes and ng not coal.

 

[dphantom]

That doesn't make them unrealistic at all, in fact it would enable us to vastly lower our emissions. Under the old scenario our fossil fuel generators ran 24 hours a day. With sufficient wind and solar maybe they only run 8 hours a day. Emissions cut by 2/3rds! It's not like it's the power plant itself that creates carbon emissions, it's RUNNING the power plan that creates carbon emissions. The less you run it, the less we emit.

You are appearing to be a fracking idiot. You cannot run a baseline generating station 8 hours a day turning it off and on. they are not designed to do that. It takes time to ramp up and ramp down. Wind and solar cannot take the place of your baseline generation without massive storage capabilities that do not yet exist. Wind and solar will continue to grow but they cannot yet replace baseline generation unless you are willing to put up with unplanned brown outs and blackouts.

 

[fskimospy]

You are appearing to be a fracking idiot. You cannot run a baseline generating station 8 hours a day turning it off and on. they are not designed to do that. It takes time to ramp up and ramp down. Wind and solar cannot take the place of your baseline generation without massive storage capabilities that do not yet exist. Wind and solar will continue to grow but they cannot yet replace baseline generation unless you are willing to put up with unplanned brown outs and blackouts.

We run lots of other power generation besides baseline, which wind and solar can (and do!) easily replace.

 

[bshole]

"It's a good thing!" until accelerating sea level rise results in incredible costs for those living along the coasts.

ROFLMFAO. I am surprised that you can keep a straight face when making that argument. It requires a complete disconnect from measured reality.

That 3 mm/yr global rise rate is just so damn fast, no way to get out of the way. Hell in 400 years or so we will have a full meter higher sea levels.