Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
    The thing is..

    If the Global Warming Crowd are wrong (premature) then......what? The economy slows down and well that's it. I was born in the 80's, my parents grew up in the 70's, a shite economy didn't harm me or them (too much).

    If the Global Warming Crowd are right then.... then we are heading for cataclysmic changes that human civilisation will be largely helpless to prevent.

    And I'm sorry but this isn't Hollywood, the young rogue scientist isn't going to prove the Doom-sayer establishment wrong, especially when he seems to be funded by oil companies........
    Let's assume that "Global Warming Crowd are right"...
    The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, developed by William Nordhaus at Yale University, which has the highest climate costs of the Obama administration’s three models, estimates that global GDP in 2100 without climate change would be $510 trillion. That’s 575 percent higher than in 2015. The cost of climate change, the model estimates, will amount to almost 4 percent of GDP in that year. But the remaining GDP of $490 trillion is still 550 percent larger than today. Without climate change, DICE assumes average annual growth of 2.27 percent. With climate change, that rate falls to 2.22 percent; at no point does climate change shave even one-tenth of one point off growth. Indeed, by 2103, the climate-change-afflicted world surpasses the prosperity of the not-warming 2100.

    [...]

    Even with U.S. “leadership,” the commitments made by other countries under the Paris agreement look almost identical to the paths those countries were on already. Thus the agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for instance, projected 3.9°C of warming by 2100 without the Paris agreement and 3.7°C with it.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...climate-change

    If we spend >$40 trillion now, we would "boost" the average GDP growth rate from now to 2100 to 2.27% vs. the 2.2% we would have with all of the deleterious effects of climate change. (Any GDP growth rate less than 3% sucks.)

    However, they only use a 3% discount rate with the Social Cost of Carbon. Most businesses use 7% or higher... And OMB guidelines actually require a 7% case to be run.
    How Climate Rules Might Fade Away

    Obama used an arcane number to craft his regulations. Trump could use it to undo them.

    by Matthew Philips , Mark Drajem , and Jennifer A Dlouhy
    December 15, 2016, 3:30 AM CST

    In February 2009, a month after Barack Obama took office, two academics sat across from each other in the White House mess hall. Over a club sandwich, Michael Greenstone, a White House economist, and Cass Sunstein, Obama’s top regulatory officer, decided that the executive branch needed to figure out how to estimate the economic damage from climate change. With the recession in full swing, they were rightly skeptical about the chances that Congress would pass a nationwide cap-and-trade bill. Greenstone and Sunstein knew they needed a Plan B: a way to regulate carbon emissions without going through Congress.

    Over the next year, a team of economists, scientists, and lawyers from across the federal government convened to come up with a dollar amount for the economic cost of carbon emissions. Whatever value they hit upon would be used to determine the scope of regulations aimed at reducing the damage from climate change. The bigger the estimate, the more costly the rules meant to address it could be. After a year of modeling different scenarios, the team came up with a central estimate of $21 per metric ton, which is to say that by their calculations, every ton of carbon emitted into the atmosphere imposed $21 of economic cost. It has since been raised to around $40 a ton.

    This calculation, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), serves as the linchpin for much of the climate-related rules imposed by the White House over the past eight years. From capping the carbon emissions of power plants to cutting down on the amount of electricity used by the digital clock on a microwave, the SCC has given the Obama administration the legal justification to argue that the benefits these rules provide to society outweigh the costs they impose on industry.

    It turns out that the same calculation used to justify so much of Obama’s climate agenda could be used by President-elect Donald Trump to undo a significant portion of it. As Trump nominates people who favor fossil fuels and oppose climate regulation to top positions in his cabinet, including Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency and former Texas Governor Rick Perry to lead the Department of Energy, it seems clear that one of his primary objectives will be to dismantle much of Obama’s climate and clean energy legacy. He already appears to be focusing on the SCC.

    […]

    The SCC models rely on a “discount rate” to state the harm from global warming in today’s dollars. The higher the discount rate, the lower the estimate of harm. That’s because the costs incurred by burning carbon lie mostly in the distant future, while the benefits (heat, electricity, etc.) are enjoyed today. A high discount rate shrinks the estimates of future costs but doesn’t affect present-day benefits. The team put together by Greenstone and Sunstein used a discount rate of 3 percent to come up with its central estimate of $21 a ton for damage inflicted by carbon. But changing that discount just slightly produces big swings in the overall cost of carbon, turning a number that’s pushing broad changes in everything from appliances to coal leasing decisions into one that would have little or no impact on policy.

    According to a 2013 government update on the SCC, by applying a discount rate of 5 percent, the cost of carbon in 2020 comes out to $12 a ton; using a 2.5 percent rate, it’s $65. A 7 percent discount rate, which has been used by the EPA for other regulatory analysis, could actually lead to a negative carbon cost, which would seem to imply that carbon emissions are beneficial. “Once you start to dig into how the numbers are constructed, I cannot fathom how anyone could think it has any basis in reality,” says Daniel Simmons, vice president for policy at the American Energy Alliance and a member of the Trump transition team focusing on the Energy Department. “Depending on what the discount rate is, you go from a large number to a negative number, with some very reasonable assumptions.”

    […]

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ight-fade-away

    With a 7% discount rate, there is no economic benefit to "fighting" climate change... even if the Gorebots are right (which they aren't).

    All of the recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity put the transient climate response at about 1.35 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2.





    The Gorebots continue to use a climate sensitivity of >3 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. That's is why their models keep doing this:



    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      What are your qualifications?

      What ever they are no one is impressed by someone regurgitating the dogma.
      I'm not the one arguing. But I am the one paying attention and being skeptical of a scientific community rife with abuse and driven by $.

      Comment


      • The Social Cost of Carbon model... Another mathematical construct from the people who brought you the climate change models that are totally inaccurate...

        Why should we believe they got it right this time?

        Yes, I looked up what I could find of the math involved in this on-line. The model is on the order of Dupuy's QJM. You can damn near make it up as you go along.
        In fact, an easy way to use it would be to plug in the answer you want then vary all of the rest of the inputs until you get ones that look reasonable. Since most of the modelling is a summation of inputs you can start with values of zero (0) for these and slowly increase them until they equal out to the answer you want.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Armored Fist View Post
          I'm not the one arguing. But I am the one paying attention and being skeptical of a scientific community rife with abuse and driven by $.
          Me too.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • And the walls come tumblin' down...

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...faulty-models/

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...st-five-years/

            Comment


            • Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

              Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

              An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

              Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
              ...
              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...faulty-models/
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

                Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

                An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

                Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
                ...
                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...faulty-models/

                Article that isn't behind a paywall in the UK

                https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a3638521.html

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                  Article that isn't behind a paywall in the UK

                  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a3638521.html
                  That's a link to an article about the paper... not the paper.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                    Article that isn't behind a paywall in the UK

                    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a3638521.html
                    Here's a link to the Nature News article about the paper...

                    http://www.nature.com/news/limiting-...ssible-1.22627

                    The actual paper can currently be accessed here...

                    https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/.../ngeo3031.html

                    It basically boils down to: We have no fracking idea what we are doing... But it's imperative that you send us more money so we can save the planet.

                    The really funny thing is that Exxon figured this out in 1978...

                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                      Article that isn't behind a paywall in the UK

                      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a3638521.html
                      Obviously not an effort by one part of "the West" to gouge another part of "the West".
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • From a 2014 Houston Geological Society meeting...

                        Speaker: W.C. Rusty Riese
                        Adjunct Professor, Rice University
                        Climate Change: Facts and Fictions

                        The past several years have seen several opinion pieces regarding climate change appear in the pages of many publications, both scientific and secular. Although both sides of this now almost religious debate were represented, few if any real facts or data are provided to support the opinions expressed. The public deserves more, and specifically deserves to be properly informed.

                        [...]

                        https://www.hgs.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=1354
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • Geoengineering

                          Here's an interesting variant on "Anthropogenic Climate Change", which some might assign to "Conspiracy Theory", but there is some foundation and substance here, even if not to the extent this link claims. Main point here is that we humans may not know enough to try fixing what isn't broken or changing systems for suppossed improvement.

                          Geoengineering Affects You, Your Environment, and Your Loved Ones

                          Geoengineering Watch
                          http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
                          Last edited by G David Bock; 22 Sep 17, 14:08.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            From a 2014 Houston Geological Society meeting...

                            Speaker: W.C. Rusty Riese
                            Adjunct Professor, Rice University
                            Climate Change: Facts and Fictions

                            The past several years have seen several opinion pieces regarding climate change appear in the pages of many publications, both scientific and secular. Although both sides of this now almost religious debate were represented, few if any real facts or data are provided to support the opinions expressed. The public deserves more, and specifically deserves to be properly informed.

                            [...]

                            https://www.hgs.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=1354
                            Rusty Riese, the bloke that states oil spills are not just the fault of the oil industry, but of consumers. It's like stating that drug dealers are not at fault, but the users. Reality check please.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              Rusty Riese, the bloke that states oil spills are not just the fault of the oil industry, but of consumers. It's like stating that drug dealers are not at fault, but the users. Reality check please.
                              Reallity check is that all cost$ trickle down to we bottom rung Consumers.

                              So long as any of "Us" are end-product users~consumers, we will end-up paying all the "tagged on" cost$ ~ Duh!

                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • Last year, Dr. Neill Frank gave the following presentation at the 2016 Ryder Scott Reserves Conference…

                                Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
                                by Dr. Neil Frank


                                A couple of Dr. Frank’s slides were from WUWT posts. Slide #16 is one of mine… 😎
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X