if Sea Level was 6 inches higher during the MWP, it then went down because during a warm period, it snow more and put the water back on land as ice. That is happening and will happen in this warm period. Sea level will go down, the ice on land will advance again and cool the earth and turn off the snowfall during the next little ice age.
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by popesclimatetheory
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Danny Thomas
FOMD,
Why would *ANY* rational responsible persons respect denialist economic analyses?
So if it comes with a label, it’s to be ignored w/o consideration for the content?
Based on this, is there zero validity to Mr. Tol’s entire discussion? Please define “rational” so I’ll understand better the ground rules for that which we should consider and that which we should not.
If Canman posts ““The sea level rise is the straightest graph in all of climate sciencedom.” then we therefore are irrational for considering Mr. Tol’s discussion? Did I get that right?
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by David L. Hagen
Richard: Thanks for the affirmation on the need to develop abundant, reliable, convenient and cleaner fuel.
I encourage you to reexamine how sustainable is the current "awash" in oil. From a macro global viewpoint, actuary Gail Tverberg finds <a href="http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/growth-in-world-oil-supply-with-fitted-trend-lines-bw.png?w=640&h=384" rel="nofollow"><b>oil growth rate dropped 90%</b> from 7.8%/year (1965 to 1972) to 0.7%/year (2005-2011)</a>. That is not even keeping up with 1.1%/yr population growth.
In <a href="http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamilto/handbook_climate.pdf" rel="nofollow">Oil Prices, Exhaustible Resources, and Economic Growth, </a> economist <a href="http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jhamito" rel="nofollow">James Hamilton:</a>
<blockquote>. . .the phenomenal increase in global crude oil production over the last century and a half and the implications if that trend should be reversed. I document that <b>a key feature of the growth in production has been exploitation of new geographic areas rather than application of better technology to existing sources</b>, and suggest that the end of that era could come soon. The economic dislocations that historically followed temporary oil supply disruptions are reviewed, and the possible implications of that experience for what the transition era could look like are explored.</blockquote>
See especially figures pages 42-53. Every US state’s oil production has peaked except for North Dakota/Montana.
Better insight is obtained using <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=multi-hubbert&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15" rel="nofollow">multi-cycle Hubbert models</a>. E.g. See Fig. 13 and Fig. 15 in <a href="http://gaia.pge.utexas.edu/papers/PatzekManuscriptRevised.pdf" rel="nofollow">Exponential growth, energetic Hubbert cycles, and the advancement of technology</a> Tad Patzek 2008
Tight oil is “just” another type of resource marginally useful by improvements in fracking technology but with higher production costs. Particularly note short term cash flow needs versus life cycle economic viability. While there is <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-15/goldman-sees-u-s-oil-output-maintained-as-costs-sink-with-price.html" rel="nofollow">some low cost production</a>, Goldman Sachs (2012) analysis of “<a href="http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/10/19/1220571/oil-production-costs-in-goldmans-flatter-world/" / rel="nofollow">oil production costs</a> found “the global oil & gas industry needs c.US$115/bl to be free cash flow neutral after capex and dividends.” Now ~60% of the <a href="http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2012/10/GS_OILBREAKEVEN.jpg" rel="nofollow">top 360 oil projects </a> cannot meet financing plus dividends at $60/bbl.
Oil importing countries will be hit economically sooner and harder than oil exporting countries.
Jeffrey Brown created an “Export Capacity Index”(ECI) leading indicator (ratio of production/consumption). <a href="http://peakoilbarrel.com/closer-look-saudi-arabia/comment-page-1/#comment-34736" rel="nofollow">From 2005-2012 rates</a>, only 21% (7/33) of oil exporting countries are increasing relative production. 79% (26 of 33) of exporting countries are trending towards having to import oil!
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Brandon Shollenberger
TonyB:
Remembering our previous conversations I had bet myself 5 pounds that you would pop up from nowhere within Thirty minutes to pass a scathing comment
It’s taken nearly two hours so I seem to have won my bet but am unsure how to collect it. :)
If you’re finding yourself unwilling to pay yourself, I’m sure you could find a a guy who could… offer you some encouragement for a small commission.
I think that big corporations and govts are becoming increasingly concerned by the escalating and audacious attacks that have taken place and doubtless there are many we never hear of.
I don’t know what makes you think the attacks are escalating or becoming more audacious. I think there’s a strong case the opposite is true. The media certainly gives more attention to “hacks” nowadays, and the spread of social media has made many people more concerned about “hacks” (as they have more of a stake now), but that’s all I see.
Especially in regard to audacity. I struggle to think of a notable “hack” where the hacker exposed themselves to any meaningful risk (excluding when they did so purely via stupidity). It’s easy to cause problems when you know you won’t get caught.
Mind you, i still think my prediction of the current generation of teenagers collapsing in a heap on the floor should they be denied access to mobile phones for more than 24 hours still holds true.
I don’t know. I think you might have to take away their computers and tablets too. I think a lot of them could handle only having those to access the internet for a day or two :P
Happy holidays to you too!
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by James Evans
David Appell,
“Of course you’re paying for my choices. Pollution affects health — you’re not immune to that.”
But that’s a miniscule consideration when compared to all the other factors in my life.
Climate change wasn’t a huge topic of conversation on the eastern front during WW2.
P.S. If you are really worried about your impact on me, then – do you drive a car? Do you use a computer composed of material garnished from fossil carbon deposits? Do you wear clothes that were manufactured using fossil fuels? Do you use hospitals that can afford to provide the treatments that they do because of low cost energy?
The hypocrisy, it burns.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Lucifer
Well, looks like on a per unit basis, the government ( which subsidizes all energy ) picked another loser in nuclear:
We’ve got a lotta nat gas. It’s not very CO2 intensive. Why not just use it?
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Tonyb
Fan
Apples and oranges. A satellite record perched on top of a tidal gauge record?
Are you aware as to how many gauges it covers and of those how many have never been moved?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Rud Istvan
There is no doubt that nuclear electricity generation is in the future. Not so much because of climate change, but because of increasing cost and declining availability of fossil fuels. China is projected to reach its own peak coal before 2030. Rather than import thereafter, they will go nuclear more than now. That is China’s sensible part of the Obama pledge. But meanwhile, they build much more USC coal than 3g nuclear, and invest in 4g nuclear pilots that will become thepreferred nuclear when that becomes the predominate investment a decade hence.
So the issue is less nuclear per se, than how much in what form when? At least in the US, we are fortunate to have decades of shale gas reserves for CCGT, buying the time to get 4g nuclear technically ‘right’. Instead, we are squandering on solar and wind, and not making the nuclear power next gen research investments while we have the chance.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Richard S.J. Tol
Gates: As I said, there is no solid evidence. Data are best for Europe and China, and there you cannot draw the conclusion that climate change led to the collapse of civilizations. In other parts of the world, there is speculation but nothing that withstands scrutiny.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Brandon Shollenberger
ceresco kid:
I sincerely hope you are right. But, I remember two “unthinkable” events from the last decade that no one saw coming.
The reason I believe what I believe is my understanding of the technology involved. For instance, knowing a nuclear power plant can’t possibly be hacked means I don’t need to worry about it being hacked.
That’s different than just thinking something won’t happen. The terrorist attacks of September 11th were unforeseen, but anyone who thought about the problem in advance would have seen it was a possibility. A similar kind of attack was used as a plot device in several novels (e.g. Stephen King’s Running Man and some book by Tom Clancy).
The strangest thing to me is people are so focused on the “cyber” aspect of it. There are lots of computer networks in this world that are quite secure against any cyber attack yet could be completely taken over by one guy with a gun. I get the impression people worry about/focus on the idea of “hacking” mostly just because it’s “mysterious.”
Incidentally, the biggest obstacle to any cyber doomsday is how ad hoc most of the world’s IT structures are. I knew a guy who said there were days he wished these doomsday scenarios were realistic because it’d mean we finally got all the computer networks to actually work together properly. He said this after a day he had to go to three different buildings to restart servers because he had no way to take them down remotely. And that was an administrator of the network!
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Canman
The best speaker I’ve seen on explaining the scale of energy use is CalTech prof Nate Lewis:
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Don Monfort
I get it, Tony. You are not giving examples of wars precipitated by climate change resulting in civilizations falling. You are talking about how co-incidental climate/weather affected a couple of specific campaigns, as all military campaigns are affected by climate/weather. Cold comfort for gatesy.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Max_OK, Weird Citizen Scientist
JimD, that’s true, but it’s a pie in the face of free-market fruitcakes.
What’s most important to them is not economic growth but how the growth is achieved. They don’t want government directing economic activity through tax policies and regulations.
I agree with them in part. I don’t believe in putting economic growth ahead of everything. I believe economic growth should be achieved through environmentally responsible ways. I disagree with them in part. I believe an unregulated market is carte blanche for despoiling the environment.
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by jim2
Well said and correct, Rud.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Max_OK, Weird Citizen Scientist
The decline in the price of oil is a bad thing.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Canman
My “bizarre” assertion was meant to be rhetorical. Those lines in that GIF look cherrypicked. After the elbow at 1920, the rise over the last 100 years is a remarkably straight line.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Tonyb
Don
Climate always changes and military conflicts go on whatever the weather. Sometime though, the climate of the time can affect the outcome but almost certainly the conflict would have taken place anyway.
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Don Monfort
Nuclear power used to be a lot cheaper. Regulatory ratcheting is largely responsible for the high cost of nuclear power. Here is a detailed analysis:
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by Max_OK, Weird Citizen Scientist
Good question, Lucifer. Why not just use it? Well, you can only use natural gas once. When you use it, you lose it. And natural gas does pollute some, but not as bad as coal. Those are the only reasons I can think of.
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by David in TX
Solar energy is best used by storing it in chemical bonds until needed.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
