Author Topic: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal  (Read 680 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2017, 07:29:11 am »
What does GDP have to do with people dying from extreme weather, food scarcity and resultinf conflict and diseases?
GDP measures those things. Large population drops will result in large GDP drops.

But what if the band of disbeliebers represented through your arguments are the ones that are wrong?
Fair question. And for what it is worth I ask myself the same question. The way to deal with this uncertainty is try to find approaches that make sense no matter what the future will be. For example, EV cars make a lot of sense if they can be made technically viable so encouraging the use of EVs is a useful government policy despite the fact that I believe the technology is not ready yet and may never be ready. However, messing up our power grid by effectively outlawing the construction of new baseload (coal, hydro, gas or nuclear) is extremely harmful and should be rejected. Arbitrary CO2 reduction targets are also harmful policies because they encourage governments to waste resources pretending to meet targets rather than focusing on actual improvments.

What if we could have "made it" starting with innovation that is occurring now
2 can play at that game: what I am and right and aggressive policies don't work AND drive the global economy into a deep recession which results in much greater harm than would have occurred if those resources had been focused on adaptation rather than mitigation?

In 2006 the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" talked about the flooding of New York right up to the site of the Twin Towers due to sea level rise.  People scoffed.  But in 2012 it happened.   That is just one example of how the predicted effects of climate change are happening now.
Sandy was a storm that happened before and will happen again. It is delusional to suggest that the damage was materially different because of some unmeasurable influence from the slight warming to date. People who claim that very bad weather event is "caused by climate change" are intellectually no different from the people in the past claiming their cow died because the unmarried old woman (a.k.a. witch) cast a spell. IOW - it is scapegoating.

I guess it baffles me how one can literally watch as the experts predictions come true
Because they are not coming true. You suffer from confirmation bias where you think a media article that tells you what you want to hear is the only valid opinion on a topic. Lets look at Sandy again to better understand how complex the entire attribution problem is. Let's start with a link to a source you should fine reasonably credible:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/repository/entry/show/PSD+Climate+Data+Repository/Public/Interpreting+Climate+Conditions+-+Case+Studies/Climate+Change+and+Hurricane+Sandy?entryid=98c8065f-d639-496a-a684-fe4762e1d1be

Now the NOAA says two important things:

1) They affirm my statements that there is no evidence that climate climate change has not increased the number of hurricanes nor will they necessarily increase in the future.

2) They note that SLR is the only factor that might have influenced the damage done by Sandy but they also note that a portion of the SLR has nothing to do with AWG.

The NOAA does not state (but they should have) is the SLR is less than the daily tide and the storm surge happened to coincide with an abnormally high tide so was the surge caused by climate change or the non-AGW portion of the SLR or the high tide? Take any one of those away and the damage would have been a lot less.

To muddy the waters further there is evidence that similar surges occurred in the past (e.g. 1821):
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07366

Now it goes without saying that waldo will likely respond with a bunch of verbiage claiming that there is no uncertainty but actual scientists like the ones at NOAA do not share the faux certainty of the alarmists.