Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 9:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
by making strong efforts to curb our emissions.

But if you try to force that issue before replacements are ready, you make access to energy too expensive for poor people and countries and you cause harm.

But you cannot rely on the pace of innovation and implementation by private industry. At least initially those implementations will be driven by economic considerations for the private enterprise. Government has to incentivize innovation and early implementation until economics become an effective driver of what needs to be done.

Generosity by foundations and organizations and by governments has to help spread effective technologies around the world or we will all suffer in one way or another, even economically.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 603 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 9:27 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Funding for research into better energy tech is a good idea.  Get alternatives more mature and their adoption will be much easier.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 10:18 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
Glad you brought up Hansen. This is his position on Global warming:

gb wrote:
James Hansen today on his website and links to his most recent 2018 articles: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

As to Moncton his work was superseded by more recent studies.

The lag comes from several papers that are summarized and linked to by Skeptical Science. The three studies referred to indicated a lag of about 800 years within statistical limitations.

Unless the new work uses the appropriate feedback calculations, it will still yield inapplicable results.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 10:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
You misuse the term risk, here. Risk refers to exposure to danger. In Avalanche work this risk is referred to as consequences. Risk is juxtaposed against the probability of that risk (or of those consequences). In the case of avalanches the worst consequences would be death. In the case of the Earth's and humanity's risk we don't know what that risk could be because we cannot foresee any or all of the things that could happen in a worst case scenario. Politics has made it necessary to put that risk in terms of financial loss. But how does one quantify the loss of lives, damage to health, destruction of certain of Earth's ecosystems, or of the diminishment of quality of life? How can you put a dollar figure on any of those? We also don't really know - how could we? - the probability of these risks or of many of them coming true?

How could this in your statement be true ?,

gb wrote:
Prudence lies not on the side of finding out by accident what the consequences of Global Warming might be, not the other way around. We have hints of these risks from historic hurricanes last year or of northward migration of pathogens, or of this

gb wrote:
to name just three examples. That is why we should take out an "insurance policy" by making strong efforts to curb our emissions.

He didn't misuse risk, he merely used it in a way you disagree with but which is and of itself still meeting standard definitions.

As for Africa, we again run into the issue of causation. Incurring additional expenses making it more difficult to help them if you choose, because you've spent the money on what isn't a cause, doesn't help anyone.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 10:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
But you cannot rely on the pace of innovation and implementation by private industry. At least initially those implementations will be driven by economic considerations for the private enterprise. Government has to incentivize innovation and early implementation until economics become an effective driver of what needs to be done.

Generosity by foundations and organizations and by governments has to help spread effective technologies around the world or we will all suffer in one way or another, even economically.

It incentivized massive losses during the prior administration's gambling. What you're arguing for is the same people as anywhere else making guesses no better than anyone else's, with someone else's money.

Humans you don't trust because of human nature don't improve when you put them in positions lacking or inverting all of the disincentives they're liable for in private life. They get *worse*.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1396 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Doppelganger
Armchairing
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 10:42 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Humans you don't trust because of human nature don't improve when you put them in positions lacking or inverting all of the disincentives they're liable for in private life. They get *worse*.

dizzy.gif  biggrin.gif  Sometimes these are just fun to deconstruct, let's see what we have here.

What role do you assume "human nature" plays in my formation of trust?

Who are the members of this group of ambiguous "humans" who would be candidates to "improve"?

What are some examples of these "disincentives" that they may be "liable" for?

If you are able to provide examples of these "disincentives", how would you describe the decay of one's character if these restrictions and disadvantages are removed from their environment?

Just curious.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 2:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
because you've spent the money on what isn't a cause, doesn't help anyone.

Of course you are all wet here. Global warming is real, CO2 rise is real and CO2 isotopes and O2 concentration drops are all of the signal of fossil fuel burning. And studies of past climate (using O18) demonstrate on average a 3 degree rise per a doubling of CO2. Will it be the same this time? I agree with you that the key here is feedback loops and the significance of variables that lead to them.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostFri Aug 17, 2018 2:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
gb wrote:
But you cannot rely on the pace of innovation and implementation by private industry. At least initially those implementations will be driven by economic considerations for the private enterprise. Government has to incentivize innovation and early implementation until economics become an effective driver of what needs to be done.

Generosity by foundations and organizations and by governments has to help spread effective technologies around the world or we will all suffer in one way or another, even economically.

It incentivized massive losses during the prior administration's gambling. What you're arguing for is the same people as anywhere else making guesses no better than anyone else's, with someone else's money.

That sounds like it came from a backwards looking think tank. Solar energy is up 33% over last year in the US but it is a new industry with rapidly evolving technologies and those technologies take investment to develop. Also in an evolving industry there will be winners and losers. Motley Fool summarized this well:
Quote:
Will consolidation help solar economics?
The upside for the few survivors in the solar industry should be better economics. As companies have floundered, they've been forced to sell product at cash costs or less, bringing down the whole industry with them. But if manufacturing consolidates into just a handful of large companies, they could slowly develop scale and technology new entrants couldn't compete with -- and slowly inch margins higher. This is because, unlike most industries, solar manufacturers who go bankrupt usually disappear rather than restructuring and keeping the market oversupplied. Bankrupt manufacturers don't typically have equipment others are willing to buy, which we saw with Suntech Power, Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, OptiSolar, and Abound Solar. They usually flood the market in their last breaths but rarely does another strong manufacturer buy the distressed assets or does a restructuring work.

I think we're already getting to the point where discerning developers will prefer to work with manufacturers they see as long-term winners, particularly in the U.S. and other developed markets. The difference between most solar panels is small, but if a developer doubts the future of a particular manufacturer, they'll likely choose the more stable supplier, like NextEra's decision to use SunPower for a recent 125 MW project or First Solar signing 111 MW of sales since February. On the flip side, weaker companies like Yingli Green Energy and Suntech Power, as it was going bankrupt, quickly lose sales because customers can see financial trouble coming. Paying a small premium of a penny or two per watt would be a small price to pay for more stability, and for manufacturers that penny or two, it can be the difference between breaking even and making a profit.

We're early in the industry's consolidation, but I think we'll see some of the manufacturers I mentioned above slowly expand their share. If they can maintain decent economics, they'll slowly squeeze weaker suppliers out. And with the solar industry reaching a point of more sustainable growth long-term, this could finally be a winning industry for investors.

Forbes took a largely similar position on July 6 of 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/06/whats-new-in-solar-energy-research-in-2018/#6fc50fb44743 And then you only need to look at the Middle East and China to see huge investments in Solar Energy.

Continued incentivization at this stage in it's development will help to make US companies working new generation renewables competitive. And that has a far better chance of helping the US economy than subsidizing oil and worse yet coal. Coal jobs could easily be replaced with healthier and far more rewarding jobs in renewable energy in the same regions.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSat Aug 18, 2018 1:43 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It doesn't make them competitive. They're eating more resources than they produce. That's the appearance of competitive while wasting resources.

On to scare news...

Quote:
“The science tells us that exceeding 2°C in average global temperature will largely exceed the thermal tolerance of corals today. It is already happening. Rolling mass bleaching events, unknown to science before 1979, are increasing in frequency and severity.”

Source: https://theconversation.com/drowning-out-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef-2644


Falsified....

Quote:
Mass coral bleaching events during the last 20 years have caused major concern over the future of coral reefs worldwide. Despite damage to key ecosystem engineers, little is known about bleaching frequency prior to 1979 when regular modern systematic scientific observations began on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). To understand the longer-term relevance of current bleaching trajectories, the likelihood of future coral acclimatization and adaptation, and thus persistence of corals, records, and drivers of natural pre-industrial bleaching frequency and prevalence are needed. Here, we use linear extensions from 44 overlapping GBR coral cores to extend the observational bleaching record by reconstructing temperature-induced bleaching patterns over 381 years spanning 1620–2001. Porites spp. corals exhibited variable bleaching patterns with bleaching frequency (number of bleaching years per decade) increasing (1620–1753), decreasing (1754–1820), and increasing (1821–2001) again.

there are some mays multiplying other mays at the end, but the argument leading has been falsified.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostSat Aug 18, 2018 6:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
It doesn't make them competitive. They're eating


Falsified....
but the argument leading has been falsified.

I agree that your last post was falsified as it came from the televangelist Watts bizarre blog. But what would you expect coming from that source - and I use that last term loosely.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Aug 20, 2018 8:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
What role do you assume "human nature" plays in my formation of trust?

I assume you apply your view of human nature in your determinations of who to trust, and how much, and why.

Doppelganger wrote:
Who are the members of this group of ambiguous "humans" who would be candidates to "improve"?

Anyone you would consider putting in a position of govt power.

Doppelganger wrote:
What are some examples of these "disincentives" that they may be "liable" for?

Personal fiscal and legal liability for the use of force against innocent people, fraud, theft, assault, contract violations, etc etc. Not to mention losses to a business for poor investments, etc.

Quote:
If you are able to provide examples of these "disincentives", how would you describe the decay of one's character if these restrictions and disadvantages are removed from their environment?

The removal of these disincentives yields a person whose choices, actions and ideas reflect the pursuit of ones own goals regardless of the wishes of innocent people, and by using force against them.

And it's worse than that, because in govt many of the incentives are not missing, they are inverted. Agencies are *rewarded* with more power and more money for expanding control, for example.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Aug 20, 2018 8:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
I agree that your last post was falsified as it came from the televangelist Watts bizarre blog. But what would you expect coming from that source - and I use that last term loosely.


You sure have trouble with all the others, and in no case is falsification due to the source.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4818 | TRs

gb
Member
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 8:05 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Watts is prominently mentioned here: Watts has a point
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1396 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Doppelganger
Armchairing
PostTue Aug 21, 2018 10:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
The removal of these disincentives yields a person whose choices, actions and ideas reflect the pursuit of ones own goals regardless of the wishes of innocent people, and by using force against them.

And it's worse than that, because in govt many of the incentives are not missing, they are inverted. Agencies are *rewarded* with more power and more money for expanding control, for example

OK, thanks for the clarification. Maybe it's the smoke, that's twice I'm inclined to agree with your posts today - if I am reading your comments correctly you are asserting that a crook is gonna be a crook, and the system does not have sufficient checks in place to keep people looking for power/money/etc from pursuing their dreams.

We may be pointing our fingers at different examples, but still more progress!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Aug 27, 2018 1:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Exactly. It doesn't make much sense to distrust people because they are people and prone to all the faults built into human nature...and then argue those you give *more* power,  *less* actual, direct legal and fiscal liability, and someone *else's* money...are somehow magically better.

Great cartoon over at gb's least favorite source today...

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday mtnrider, PetDrAndrea, Quest for Adrenaline, RockShadow, hikejon!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy