Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by mwgrant

$
0
0

Vaughan Pratt,

My discomfort is not with any particular worst cases, but instead is a general concern with the use of a worst case in looking at the risks. To me it is an approach that is messy both in concept and in implementation.

I feel strongly that the characterization and formulation of the policy decision(s) is getting far too little attention. When one is arguing for or against particular scenarios as is so typical here and elsewhere during the formulation of an approach one is getting way ahead of the game.


Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by climatereason

$
0
0

Vaughan

I am not trying to make any sort of prediction, just trying to get to the root of Hansen’s prediction. His followers don’t seem to believe what others have interpreted his talks and papers to mean.

it would be good to have some sort of clarity from people such as jch.

tonyb

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by PA

$
0
0

thomaswfuller2 | July 22, 2015 at 12:55 am |
Hiya TE,

Comparing trends of total pop to working age pop is not going to lead to enlightenment. China’s population is actually still growing, as is their income and the migration of people from electricity free villages to the cities.

They’re building 346 coal plants now. There’s a reason.

Let’s see. Is that a fact or a factoid.

China has 620 coal plants that produce 3785 TWh from 758 GWe of capacity. Gross electric production was 4994 GWh in 2012. They have closed 71 GWe of coal capacity since 2006. All 4 of the major Beijing coal plants will have been shut down and replaced with gas by next year. 150GWe of nuclear planned by 2030 (Wiki says 200 GWe installed 2030 and 400 GWe installed 2050).

The average coal power station (758/620) is about 1220 GWe. China likes to build 500-600 GWe coal plants (and seem to have a taste for nuclear in the same size) so presumably the bulk of their power stations are twin plants. The coal plant capacity factor 57% (they get over 87% from nuclear). The 200 GWe of nuclear in 2030 is the equivalent of 305 GWe of coal generation.

China supposedly is going to add 1,583 GWe of generation by 2030. Half is supposed to be renewable. 150 GW is going to be nuclear. 346 coal plants represents about 208 GWe of coal generation which leaves 434 GWe which will be a mix of things but mostly gas.

The current 74% coal fired generation is expected to drop to 55% by 2030. If the 346 new plants are twin generation facilities they will be a little over, if they are 600 GWe plants they will be significantly under. 55%.

Don’t know – depends on how many coal plants they retire but at the current rate of coal plant retirement it isn’t going to be that big a difference. They are adding about as much nuclear as coal.

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by cerescokid

$
0
0

Five stars, JCH, for completely missing the point. What’s new.

You also probably missed the point that when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, it INCREASED income inequality as evidenced by a 300% increase in taxpayers making over $1 million, going up by 180,000. Obama is trying his best to break that record. Let’s see how much greater income inequality is by 2017. He has a chance at surpassing the 180,000.

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by PA

$
0
0

Well, if you believe an ground water study about 1/2 of the real sea level (1.7 to 1.9 mm/y) rise is ground water depletion. This will show up as land sinking and ocean rising in satellite studies for a 2x change in sea level even though virtually all the sinking land is in Timbuktu and not near the coast.

Hansen’s warming isn’t going to affect that. Given that the sea is warming a little and we will continue to deplete groundwater – actual sea levels (the tidal gaugey things) will be 7-11 inches higher in 2100.

The current ice sheet melting is about 1/10 of the satellite sea level rise or less..

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by KenW

$
0
0

Worst case scenario?

Carbon based fuel is declared a Global Human Resource and as such is collectivized under UN authority. An international superagency is established to regulate production, distribution, pricing and consumption. The agency controls all cash flows and is run by people that make Sepp Blatter look like Mother Teresa

Implausible? Well, we still have plenty of coal, and since fracking pushed “Peak Oil” way down the road the new mantra is “Leave it in the ground”. Should divestment fail to do the trick, then political intervention will be required, Of course, maybe i’m just spending too much time over at The Guardian.

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by HAS

$
0
0

Vaughan Pratt
“Anyone looking at anything less than 20-year climate is kidding only themselves and their followers.”

Agreed.

That’s why waiting another 10 or 20 years before leaping to conclusions in light of uncertainty is sensible.

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by HAS

$
0
0

Vaughan Pratt

“Is that too unlikely for you, Judith?”

Given all your assumptions I for one think one needs to conclude “(t)he probability that atmospheric CO2 will be above 1000 ppmv in 2100 is therefore about 0.5″ if that is any help.

If we had eggs we could have ham and eggs, if we had ham.


Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by aplanningengineer

$
0
0

Jim D. I’m working on that distinction it has some appeal and maybe it’s a good one but maybe not. It may work for climate versus earthquakes or hurricanes, but maybe not so much for examples like curtailing travel (with unless accompanied by long quarantines in isolation) to stop potential pandemics. (But maybe you’d get behind that). Do we put all the money we can into technology for blowing up potential asteroids which collectively might doom us. How much freedom are we willing to give up to save individuals from potential deadly semi random attacks (worthy question with many credible answers/views but the debate is not aided by the precautionary principle).

The response of choosing for yourself may be a little glib. Why use such disparate risk acceptance from what overwhelmingly people choose for themselves for dealing withcollective risk. We don’t care about others risks from but potentially catastrophic events. People are “compelled” to go to earthquake zones all the time as part of normal expected business travel. Can people choose potential catastrophic risks for their children? Other people’s children? Is it ok to incarcerate people in these areas? Can any of us really be assured ever that our actions won’t ever contribute somehow to an increased by very small risk of catastrophic harm to others? Can’t we all (from any political leaning) point to others whose life “choices” subject us to remote but potential risks in some theoretically possible way? Do we worry about all risks to others?

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2

$
0
0

For all you Pollyannas out there: I told you so. Smart grid: Dumb idea. Smart house: Dumb idea. Internet of things: Dumb idea.
From the article:

Hackers took control of a car and crashed it into a ditch by remotely breaking into its dashboard computer from 10 miles away.
In the first breach of its kind, security experts killed the engine and applied the brakes on the Jeep Cherokee, sending it veering off the road – all while sitting on their sofa.
The US hackers said they used just a laptop and mobile phone to access the Jeep’s on-board systems via a wireless Internet connection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11754089/Hacker-remotely-crashes-Jeep-from-10-miles-away.html

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by JCH

$
0
0

You’re the one with the blind spot. I don’t distort what he’s said. If you want to discredit him, and you have not, then you need to do some Paleo work. So far no significant group of Paleo sea level scientist seems to agree with you that Hansen is discredited; in fact, many of the most significant Paleo sea level scientists are either coauthors with Hansen or frequently coauthors with Hansen’s coauthors.I don’t see them running away from him.

Comment on Risk assessment: What is the plausible ‘worst scenario’ for climate change? by jim2

$
0
0

@Jim D | July 21, 2015 at 11:49 pm |
“but when it comes to risking other people’s lives there is a difference in what precaution means.”
However, you have to PROVE, not ASSERT, that the use of fossil fuels is putting you at risk. You have not done that, so you have no basis to limit my freedoms.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by rhhardin

$
0
0

You can connect nicely with nature if you scythe your lawn instead of mowing it the usual way. No need to be in the sticks.

I do an acre. Don’t do it all in one day.

I use scythesupply.com. Start with an “outfit” and a 26″ grass blade.

The 36″ blade is nice but takes some developed skill to use.

The secret is keeping the blade edge very thin and sharp.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by JCH

$
0
0

My Aunt moved to Texas in 1960 and became rich. In 1965 she had central air installed in her house. When the bill came at the end of the month she turned it off and never used it again. She died at 88. About a year before that a friend of hers turned her son into APS for keeping his Mom in her house with no AC. She cussed out the caseworker.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
ristvan Your comment on Intelligent Design an illogical <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/" / rel="nofollow">ad hominem (genetic) fallacy</a> i.e. rejecting A because someone believes an unrelated issue B. Your statement is equivalent to advocating that satellite microwave temperature measurements must be excluded because one of the developers has a particular belief about the origins of the universe. Your argument appears based on the false presupposition of "closed" science, presuming that science cannot model for test evidence for intelligent agents, or that it must presume only material causes. (i.e., logically you would also have to exclude arson investigation etc.) The USA was founded on an appeal to "the Creator" and to "the laws of nature and of nature's God" by the <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=laws+of+nature+declaration+of+independence&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#q=declaration+of+independence" rel="nofollow">Declaration of Independence.</a> Similarly the <a href="http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta" rel="nofollow">Magna Carta.</a> If you exclude those, you have no moral basis for why you should help the poor or kill off <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2010/12/15/surplus-population-sorry-mr-scrooge-but-youre-mistaken/" / rel="nofollow">"the surplus population".</a> The modern scientific revolution was led almost exclusively by Protestant Christians, (not atheists). You cannot thereby nullify their discoveries and developments. Try addressing the arguments presented, not your prejudices.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by rhhardin

$
0
0

Suck basement floor air upstairs with a solar powered 12v fan and a 12″ diameter flexible duct, for solar air conditioning.

Effectiveness fades over a few weeks as you heat up the basement floor. But then it’s better for heating the house next winter.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by jim2

$
0
0

IF the house has a basement, that is.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
<a href="http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150125/" / rel="nofollow">Anthropocene by Paul Crutzen (2000), Anthrocene by AndrewRevkin (1992)</a>. Both assume the IPCC's alarms while failing to reject the null hypothesis of natural variation.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>A cash flow today is more valuable than an identical cash flow in the future[3] because a present flow can be invested immediately and begin earning returns, while a future flow cannot.</blockquote>Exactly. In addition, future "cash flows" are speculative, and the value of that speculation is a matter of <b>opinion</b>. Which was my point. (Or rather, which is another way of restating my point.)

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David L. Hagen

$
0
0
Fernando The danger of central control is detailed by <a href="http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/195" rel="nofollow">Vaklev Klaus in Blue Planet in Green Shackles. What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?</a> <blockquote>The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism or communism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. This ideological stream has recently become a dominant alternative to those ideologies that are consistently and primarily oriented toward freedom. It is a movement that intends to change the world radically regardless of the consequences (at the cost of human lives and severe restrictions on individual freedom). It intends to change humankind, human behavior, the structure of society, the system of values – simply everything.</blockquote>
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images