Climate change is absolutely not a problem to date, at least no more than it has been for centuries. There is no evidence that this is the case, the world hasn’t warmed in ten years, and the climate changes in the 20th century were not abnormal in any way. The world has been warmer in the last thousand years, in the last ten thousand years, and the last interglacial. Both polar bears and humans seem to have survived that very well, thank you.
Now, you tell us that climate change has “already happened” … thanks for the bulletin, but you seem not to have noticed that the climate has been changing for about … oh … three billion years or so, so yes, you are correct, climate change has already happened … don’t think I’ll panic quite yet, though, believe I’ll just take a deep breath …
Please disabuse yourself of the idea that you know what my assumptions are. Stick to your own assumptions, at least there you have a chance of knowing what they are.
Also, this:
could serve as a stellar example of your total grasp of the situation.
That’s all fine, but at the moment solar panels are not cost effective even here in sunny California without government subsidies, in the form of tax credits. (I’d love to put solar panels on my roof if it made sense.) We need cheaper panels with better efficiency, which will happen, and there is some smart money in Silicon Valley on it. Right now, it is like the stories about home computers in the early '70s - some people could afford minis at home, but it didn’t make sense for most until we got the < $1K PC.
Okay, so *you *aren’t convinced. I get that. People who actually work in the field and *understand *the intricate details of the problem are convinced.
Humanity needs to address this issue and your misgivings aren’t relevant. We need to proceed as our best science advises us. And 99+% of reputable scientists in the field think this is something worth preparing for. The fact that you choose to believe the less than one percent is a personal choice based on your feelings and it would be irresponsible to base policy on it.
[On topic]Nuclear power generates 20% of the U.S. electricity and there are currently 104 reactors in the U.S. That suggests that we would need to build less than 412 reactors to replace our electricity usage (less than because our current reactors are designed with 70s technology and less efficient than a modern one would be).
It seems like it’s a good idea regardless of AGW, since it would make us closer to energy self sufficient. We’d still need heating oil and gasoline, but it would be a start.
From a quick google some anti nuclear sites claim that it costs 3 billion to build a nuclear plant. If that is the case the Iraq war has thusfar cost us 550 billion or so which would have constructed us 183 new power plants, supplied perhaps 30% of our electricity energy costs, and lowered the world’s oil prices by dropping demand.
The problem arises with the Anti-nuclear crowd is the possibility that they are simply anti-capitalists who will reject everything including wind generators.
But I agree, if the goal is to reduce co2 then it should be looked at as a timeline starting with today. We need serious power plants that generate power without combustion and that is either a large hydro-electric plant or a nuclear plant.
I like the idea of using existing coal plants in conjunction with algae-diesel plants because we create onc source of power (diesel) using the CO2 from the coal plant. There’s a definite win/win in the short term doing this. Even if it costs more per gallon it would be better to pay $5/gallon for diesel over the long run if it stabilizes fuel prices. It is the instability of transportation prices that drives many of the inflationary commodity prices. In effect, we will make a cleaner burning fuel, provide a much more efficient fuel, remove CO2 from existing power plants, reduce CO2 from automobiles due to more efficient vehicles, increase the amount of tax revenue from fuel (versus foreign oil), reduce money flowing to unfriendly countries, and increase the amount of GDP which in turn increases money for lending which drives down the cost of borrowing.
I agree that it’s a huge amount of money, and there are many things that we could do with that money. However, we tend not to do those things until it’s too late. My main point was that we spend this sort of money on a regular basis around the world - it’s just that people don’t see it.
One thing that no one has noted here is that the report points out that this is not a net increase in spending. In fact, the somewhat less agressive mitigation strategy analyzed by the IEA would be a net money saver - and that does not include any “monetized benefits” such as saving polar bears or reducing the potential for sea level rise or etc. That’s a direct benefit from using less energy. The $45 trillion amount does represent a net increase in expenses - not the full $45 trillion - but unfortunately I was not able to dig the net increase out of the executive summary of the report - it’s probably in the full report, which is only available for purchase.
You’re also right about the impact, or at least the perceived impact. If everything goes perfectly right, then we will all see…no change, or at least less change. Skeptics will continue to have a lot of fun pointing out the incredibly large amounts of money for the proverbial elephant repellent - the one where the guy has some bizarre object in his office he calls an elephant repellent, the visitor seems skeptical, and the owner points out there are no elephants in the room, ergo, success!
The problem with waiting to see if the experiment is a success is that by the time you are absolutely sure, it’s too late. This debate is going to go on for the next hundred or more years - if you could buy stock in debates, this is the one to get into, cause it’s only going to get more intense.
Interestingly, this is following exactly the same path as nearly all the health/environment debates of the past:
Stage 1 - It’s not a problem
Stage 2 - It may be a problem, but it has nothing to do with me
Stage 3 - It’s a problem, but the solution is impossible
Stage 4 - It’s a problem, and there are solutions, but those solutions are best applied to someone else
Stage 5 - It’s a problem, and there are solutions that would apply to me, but they’re way too expensive
Stage 6 - It’s a problem, there are solutions that I could do, but they are worse than doing nothing
Stage 7 - It’s a problem, we’re working on it, but there should not be any regulation
Stage 8 - It’s a problem, we’re leading the way, and there needs to be consistency in regulation
This is a continuum, and although there are various players in all stages, in general I think we’re moving from Stage 3 into Stages 4 and 5.
That is a large exaggeration. There were over 400 climate scientists of various disciplines and levels of experience who spoke out against AGW in 2007. The truth is, some climate scientists believe as you do … and some don’t.
Why is consensus so important to you that you will exaggerate it, ignore opponents, and make claims like the one above? Even if it were true, it would be meaningless … and the consensus is not even true.
Gosh, lobohan, thanks, and your ideas are totally irrelevant too … see how stupid that sounds? What gives you the power to decide who is relevant? You just look dumb when you try to play king of the world.
Perhaps curiously, I agree with you about nuclear power. I think it is a good idea. However, that is a separate question to whether we should spend $45 trillion on the off chance it might make our grandchildrens life marginally better.
There is absolutely no evidence that sea level rise has accelerated over the past century.
There is absolutely no evidence that we are having more storms, droughts, heat spells, or cold spells, than in the past century.
Thus, your fears are based on a hypothesis.
If you have evidence (not results from tinkertoy computer models which have not been tested as much as the software that runs a highrise elevator … I’m talking about evidence) that the threat is real, bring it on.
Otherwise … I’ll pass on spending the $45 trillion, thanks all the same. I don’t buy a car based on theories, much less spend that kind of money.
In the early 1900s, eugenics was believed by … what was your expression … something like “99+% of the reputable scientists in the field”. However, that didn’t make eugenics correct … you see, when you talk about consensus you’re not talking about science.
You want to spend money on hypothetical problems (which have not been realized), that’s your business. Me, I’ll stick to real problems, we have plenty of those. You AGW folks repeated claims that “the wolf is coming, the wolf is coming” do nothing but destroy your credibility.
Nonsense. Ice that has been frozen for millennia is melting, all over the world. Ice sheets are shrinking and breaking up. The permafrost in Alaska is melting.
Yes, but not in the way you mean. Unlike you, I realize that letting the situation go to hell is likely to be much more expensive than doing something to stop or moderate the disaster. Waiting until the Antarctic ice sheet melts and most of Florida is underwater would be rather harder on the economy than building new power plants that we need to build anyway.
My point, since you didn’t get it, is that one person finding fault is useless. You need to use the tools of science and go with the best scientific predictions. And like I said, nearly everyone on earth who actually is competent in the subject is in agreement. Your opinion is worthless, like mine, because neither of us are trained in the proper disciplines to meaningfully interpret the data.
Nitpick: The function of the moderator is NOT to keep a reactor from overheating. The moderator slows neutrons down, making them MORE likely to react with a nucleus and cause a fission. So you could say the moderator makes the reactor run hotter…but actually, it is what allows the reactor to operate at all.
I’m not arguing that a flamable moderator is a great idea, mind you.
First, I agree that solar technology isn’t cost effective today, but it will be if we continue to put research in it. If solar panels follow the same path as computers did, then 20 or 30 years from now, every building will have at least some number of panels producing electricity.
Second, your attitude about the cost of solar technology is what got us in this global warming mess in the first place. Coal is cheaper then the alternatives, so lets keep burning coal, right? Should we keep ignoring the environmental costs of our current energy habits, because it costs less in terms of money? At what point, if ever, does the negative impact on our environment outweigh the savings of using carbon-based fuels?
I think its a shame that we have so much coal available to us, because the abundance of that non-renewable resource will force us to continue burning it, based on economical forces. Imagine what would be happening if the coal and oil supplies on this planet were reversed: The price of electricity would be skyrocketing, and everyone would be buzzing about alternative technologies, but we would still be driving around in gas guzzling SUVs and building sprawling networks of highways, because gas is still cheap.
Polluting fuels like coal and oil cost less then the clean alternatives, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest in those alternatives to prevent further environmental degradation.
150 years ago there where no helicopters to rescue flood victims, trucks to move aid around, international emergency teams that hop on a plane, fly half way around the world and deliver food and medicine, which by the way wasn´t available a century and a half away. Want to give a meaningfull statistic?, look at the number of people affected by extreme weather, not the casualties.
I agree 100%. Not only that, but we have radar to give better advance warning of storms and radio and TV to sound warnings. Roads and buildings are better engineered and built, at least in the developed world.
I hope we can agree also in that, even though technological advances can mitigate the impact of climate change on the human population, this is not the same as arguing that climate change isn´t happening ,that it isn´t caused by human activities or that it isn´t in our best interest to avert it.
And while technology can make life easier for us it may not help the biosphere; if it gets warmer I can crank up the AC to keep me comfortable, but coral polyps don´t have that option and they simply die off.
Perhaps, but CAGW is being hyped as a big threat to mankind. In any event, it would appear that polar bears, coral reefs, and just about every other species has made it through times that were significantly warmer than now.
Think about it, perhaps. Are you willing to bet what it´s at stake?
Could be either way really, in one hand we have the mayority of climate experts saying yes, on the other a small fraction saying no. Perhaps it may be so or not, just a gamble then. So in one hand we have the end of the world as we know it, literally; and in the other we have the option of making changes that are good regardless of the threat of global warming.