I think you are mistaking my position. I was simply stating a matter of fact. I’m for subsidies for solar collectors (and fuel efficient cars) to jump start the market. An alternative would be directly funding research, but that is best for real risky items, and solar power needs engineering and economies of scale, not fundamental new discoveries.
The trick is getting the global economic cost to be factored into the buying decision. If it isn’t, all our bemoaning the impact of coal does no good.
Bet on exactly what? Please be precise.
Saying yes about exactly what? Again, please be precise.
Exactly what changes? Please be precise.
Oh, and please don’t just link to an entire IPCC report or web page.
Regurgitating for you all the context on AGW as laid on this, and countless other threads would be an exercise on futility, as demonstrated by your deliberate lack of understanding shown in your last post.
No, they didn’t. Go back that far and you have different species. Earth hasn’t been as warm as it’s likely to become for tens of millions of years.
And it is a big threat to mankind. Famine isn’t fun. Neither is dealing with hundreds of millions of refugees.
Replacing an energy structure that’s falling apart and dependant on a resource that’s running out comes to mind. Magically eliminate global warming, and we’d still have to spend trillions to build those nuke plants, repair our infrastructure, replace our gasoline powered vehicles with something else, and so on. Reducing all sorts of polluting power sources also comes to mind, increasing air quality.
OK, you are right. And I think subsidies are the way to go. It worked in Germany, it can work in the US. (although, while searching for a cite, it appears that Germany is cutting back on its subsidies. I wonder what that will do to the Solar Cell market.)
Lol. And of course you refuse to explain your sloppy, ambiguous language with any precision. That’s part of the alarmist game.
Cites please? And please don’t just link to an entire IPCC report or web page.
Would that include coal?
Well, since I have a published, peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” on climate science in Nature Magazine, as well as one peer-reviewed article (and one non-peer reviewed article) in Energy and Environment on the same topic, I would suggest your claim of worthlessness is only 50% correct …
Also, you say that 'nearly everyone on earth who is actually competent in the subject is in agreement", which is awful gosh-darn exciting … but it seems you forgot to tell us what they are in agreement about. A bit more information regarding that little detail might be useful, since as it currently stands, your statement is 100% content-free.
w.
Am I losing my mind here?
Ale says to brazil84:
brazil84 sez:
Ale replies:
Ale, what the f*ck does that have to do with a bet? Are you unable to answer a simple question? Because if so, you are in the wrong forum, you want MPSIMS. I am so sick of AGW supporters pulling this kind of nonsense, I sometimes wonder, why bother?
w.
You’re proposing that writing a letter to the editor puts you on par with a fully fledged climate scientist?
Have you been paying attention?
Good grief.
Do I really have to spread out the whole list of negative ecological, political, ethical, etc, etc, etc… implications every time I say “AGW is a bad thing”?. Is this the debate equivalent of the death of a thousand cuts?
Do you honestly think that if I humor Brazil84 with his request that I´ll learn him anything new in that area?, he has heard and disregarded the arguments over and over again already.
My point, what I took exception to, was his attitude about (emphasis mine):
It reflects a very troubling attitude towards a very, very serious problem (do I have to insert all negative implications of AGW here?) that needs to be adressed (do I need to insert here all the possible ways of adressing AGW?), and to adress it you first have to recognize it; something that sadly has gone afoul of some peoples´ preconceptions.
Yes, that perhaps bugs me, it´s an incomprehensible attitude to me. It implies that things can be either way, there is an ongoing AGW (melted ice caps, rising sea levels, destruction of habitats, you know all the things already mentioned a gazillion times here and elsewhere) or AGW is, forgive me, only hot air.
Now if you don´t know either way and still you choose to relentlessly attack the AGW yay position which leads to unnecessary delay on the measures needed to counteract or stop it, then you´re truly gambling with the future of he planet as we know it.
Lets go over it once again:
This shows another misguided logic and attitude, it would appear that some species have survived past extintion events, therefore there´s nothing to worry about a new, man made one. That is more or less the same as arguing that a post apocalyptic world a la Mad Max it´s OK since the human race still survives. (Do I *really *have to add a couple paragraphs to explain why that it´s not OK?)
Yes, life on Earth is not going to die off completely, but mass extintions would still mean a big threat to us. I talked about coral reefs, temperature goes up, reefs die off, an entire ecosystem goes literally belly up,a key part of the whole marine ecosystem at that. You don´t think that would have an impact on human population?
I´m aware that corals (to carry on with a handy example) have gone through mass extintion events in the past and have survived. So, maybe 99.9% of all reefs die off, and then in the course of a few hundred thousand years they may bounce back.
But even if it wiping out that ecosystem didn´t pose a direct threat to humans (fisheries collapse for example) I would still like, one day, to take my future sons or daughters out to sea to see first hand a wonderful display of life, not just bare, slimy rocks and tell them “coral reefs where very pretty, so bad you missed them”
Life on this planet is precious beyond any price you can attach to it, if all it takes to avert global warming is 45 Trillion spread over 4 decades I think we are being handed a bargain.
No, but you have to explain your claims in a reasonable way. If you wish to debate in a reasonable manner, that is.
Earlier, you said this:
My question, which is extremely reasonable, was this: What exactly are a “majority of climate experts” saying “yes” about?
And yet you evaded the question. Like many alarmists, you prefer to leave that issue ambiguous.
Again, for discussion purposes, it’s important to know what exactly the stakes of this wager are. Are we spending 45 trillion to save 100 human lives? 1,000,000 lives? 1 coral reef? 10,000 coral reefs?
Again, many alarmists prefer to leave this issue ambiguous.
So what is your plan for the nasty toxic waste solar produces as a by-product?
Where do you envision stashing the nasty chemical wastes (considerably greater in quantity than nuclear waste for a given energy output) generated in making all those panels?
Carbon dioxide atmospheric levels are a mayor part on the steady rise of temperatures registered in the recent past, burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the athmosphere, thus slowly but steadly rising the global temperature.
You didn’t know that already?, honestly I feel like my chain is being pulled. It´s not my fault if you are not paying attention, or pretending not to know the arguments.
How about the city I live in, population about 10 million, completely flooded by increasing sea levels caused by melting ice caps? (That are already melting at an increasing rate so it´s not some hypotetical) Hundreds of mayor cities would end up in the drink, how much would it cost to wall them up or relocate them? It´s not necessary for people to die to have a catastrophe.
Cite?
A letter to the editor? Dude, you are correct, your opinion is worthless. It was a Nature Magazine “Communication Arising”, and was fully (and quite aggressively, I might add) peer-reviewed. For your homework, compare and contrast this with letters to the editor, which are not peer reviewed.
Also, I have been paying attention, which is why I asked the question – what, exactly, are you claiming that “nearly everyone on earth who is actually competent in the subject” is in agreement about? If that has been answered previously, please point it out, as I have not been able to find it.
While you are at it, you could tell us who it was that surveyed “nearly everyone on earth who is actually competent in the subject” in order to determine what they agreed on.
w.
Perhaps the OP envisions dealing with them the same way we’ve dealt with other, non-radioactive wastes: by reprocessing them into inert compounds.
Yes, doing so will take time, energy, money, and ingenuity … but it can be dealt with. But it can be dealt with in a fraction of the 10,000 years that radioactive waste needs to be dealt with.
I find it interesting that the pro-nuclear contingent is raising the waste issue of solar energy. That’s all fine and good, but can you also at the same time compare and contrast solar energy waste with radioactive nuclear waste? I’ve not seen that so far from your side. Curious.
To me, it’s a time versus scale equation. One may be able to “deal” with radioactive nuclear waste by puting it in casks and burying it under a mountain … IF you can get the nearby mountain dwellers to agree to that – and so far they are saying a big “f**k you” to that idea!
But any solar energy waste, even if you want to assume that the waste is going to be really nasty and there’s going to be a lot of it, will pale in comparison to anything that has to be stored for 10,000 freaking years – a project of such vast undertaking that I don’t think it’s humanly possible to acomplish.
Of course I did. But the unspoken claim is that increases in temperature will cause water vapor levels to increase, increasing the temperature further, which will cause water vapor levels to increase further, and so on, and so on.
Even Richard Lindzen agrees that increased levels of CO2 have the potential to cause the atmosphere to get warmer. The question is whether it will start a positive feedback loop or not.
If the atmosphere warms by a small amount, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Bangkok will be flooded. That’s just Al-Gore style hype.
There´s more than just one positive feedback possibility, as an example, less ice (as it´s already happening) in the ice caps reduces the Earth´s albedo, thus increasing the intake of solar radiation. And going back to corals (handy example since at 30º water temperature they ring the bell) the polyps absorb CO2 from the oceans and turn it into calcium carbonate, you stop that and you end up with more carbon dioxide in the system, which increases the water acidity that buggers other planktonic creatures in the ocean that also secuester carbon into calcium carbonate which reduces the amount of CO2 scrubbed from the athmosphere by the oceans and so on in that vicious circle.
So there is reason to expect a non-linear warming.
As for Bangkok, 2 meters in sea level rise would make me wade my way to work. A 0.5% reduction on global ice “stocks” (About 32 million cubic kilometers according to this cite) would rise the seas 4 meters already. There´s no need for a complete, or even drastical melting of the ice caps to suffer serious impact from it.