The heck with recharging in 3-5 minutes. They need to design the cars to take a standard modular battery that can be swapped out in 5 minutes so if you need more range you just pull into a "filling" station and trade batteries.
Geoengineering without reducing CO2 does nothing to help the ocean acidification issue. Geoengineering that reduces sunlight reduces the yield of our food crops. Unless you're pretty sure about the secondary effects geoengineering could be dangerous.
I think your $50T figure is way off base. That may be the total cost but how much will we spend if we don't go the renewable route? It could be that we spend $45T on "normal" infrastructure and only and additional $5T on renewables. I've seen a number of economic studies that say it would cost us 1-2% of GDP to go the renewable route.
Hansen's model was perhaps as right as it could be for the time. It is rather primitive compared to today's models as it didn't even include atmosphere-ocean coupling. The climate sensitivity is a parameter you input into a model, not something inherent built into the model. And to quote George Box: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." We'll never have a climate model that is able to compute things down to the molecule level but that doesn't mean they don't provide useful information and insight into what's happening.
Yes, the temperature alone will not kill that many people. But changes to the climate in agricultural areas and ocean acidification could make it impossible to feed everyone and when people get hungry they get desperate. If civilization collapses that leaves a lot of people struggling to survive and things could get ugly.
I'm probably what you would call one of "these global warming religion people." I and the people I "worship" with know that it's going to take 20-30-40 years to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. It's going to take that long just to replace all of that fossil fuel infrastructure. Anyone with a lick of sense can figure that out. The point is to get serious about it. You should do a little research on leading edge battery research.
See my reply to presidenteloco. It's likely that within a decade or so we'll have battery powered vehicles with ranges of 500 miles or more due to improvements in battery technology.
In you previous post (assuming you are the same AC) you said the IPCC prediction from 2001. That would be the AR3 report. That's what I referenced and linked to in my reply. The link you provided is for the IPCC AR1 report in 1990. I wouldn't expect to see the same chapter with the same title in two different reports. I looked at the AR1 report you linked and couldn't find anything that said 2.5 degrees in 2010-2015. Would you kindly point out where in there you got your information from? Thanks.
Another guy who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is chaotic in nature but it varies within a range. For instance the highest temperature ever recorded on the Earth was 134 F in Death Valley and the lowest was -128.6 F at Vostok Station. Those records may be broken sometime but not likely by much. Climate defines the range that weather is chaotic in. If the climate shifts the range for the weather shifts right along with it.
Probably not. Humans are resourceful and as long as we can find sufficient food, water, shelter and breathable air there will be some of us left. After all humans have found ways to live both in the Kalahari desert and on Beaufort Island in the arctic. That doesn't mean the population won't be greatly reduced though.
Sorry but that is wrong. From the 2001 AR3 report, specifically WG1 Chapter 9: Projections of Future Climate Change."The temperature change for the 30-year average 2021 to 2050 compared with 1961 to 1990 is +1.3C with a range of +0.8 to +1.7C...". That is a far cry from 2.5 degrees (C or F?) in 2010-2015.
1998 is the hottest year in the CRU record. Both the GISS and NOAA records have 2010 and 2005 tied for the hottest year. Of course the CRU group is headed up by Phil Jones so how can you trust it?
A recent paper by Ben Santer et. al. found it takes at least 17 year of data to be sure the climate signal has overridden the noise of weather so you need to go back to at least1993.
To be fair 1998 is still the hottest year on record in the Hadley/CRU record. It makes sense that a British publication would use that. Of course the CRU record is from the group that the vilified Phil Jones heads up so I don't know how much anyone wants to trust it but then again of the major temperature record groups the CRU shows the least warming. What is a "skeptic" to do?
Modern atmosphere-ocean coupled models don't assume anything like that. The lag is part of the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans as the oceans are the source of nearly all of the lag.
You are right but I was also thinking in terms of overnight for the solar power. If you follow battery technology much you know there are some potential developments that would improve them immensely.
And what evidence do you have for that? Why would you assume it will continue at that rate forever? After all there is certainly evidence for much different rates of SLR in the past. But at 25 feet above the current sea level he's got well over 100 years before it's a problem unless something extraordinary happens.
Hansen's 1988 projections used a climate sensitivity of 4.2 C which wasn't an unreasonable value to use at the time. Current estimates put the value from 2 - 4.5 C with the value most likely around 3 C. Using a sensitivity of 3 C in Hansen's 1988 model would put his projections, particularly using Scenario B, more in line with what actually happened. At the bottom of this post they discuss Hansen's 1988 model in light of the data up to 2010 and here they give a more detailed discussion of Hansen's model specifically.
Put a price on carbon including the carbon that goes into producing and delivering imports. Then the high carbon/low regulation producers don't have an advantage over domestic producers.
At the rate the cost of solar photovoltaic cells are dropping it will soon be cheapest way to produce electricity. Then all we need is a way to store enough energy to get us through the intermittent nature of solar power.
I've never heard of that happening to a credit union. I doubt the members would stand for it in most cases. Why would they want their cost of banking going up?
Slashdot Mirror
The heck with recharging in 3-5 minutes. They need to design the cars to take a standard modular battery that can be swapped out in 5 minutes so if you need more range you just pull into a "filling" station and trade batteries.
Geoengineering without reducing CO2 does nothing to help the ocean acidification issue. Geoengineering that reduces sunlight reduces the yield of our food crops. Unless you're pretty sure about the secondary effects geoengineering could be dangerous.
I think your $50T figure is way off base. That may be the total cost but how much will we spend if we don't go the renewable route? It could be that we spend $45T on "normal" infrastructure and only and additional $5T on renewables. I've seen a number of economic studies that say it would cost us 1-2% of GDP to go the renewable route.
Hansen's model was perhaps as right as it could be for the time. It is rather primitive compared to today's models as it didn't even include atmosphere-ocean coupling. The climate sensitivity is a parameter you input into a model, not something inherent built into the model. And to quote George Box: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." We'll never have a climate model that is able to compute things down to the molecule level but that doesn't mean they don't provide useful information and insight into what's happening.
Yes, the temperature alone will not kill that many people. But changes to the climate in agricultural areas and ocean acidification could make it impossible to feed everyone and when people get hungry they get desperate. If civilization collapses that leaves a lot of people struggling to survive and things could get ugly.
I'm probably what you would call one of "these global warming religion people." I and the people I "worship" with know that it's going to take 20-30-40 years to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. It's going to take that long just to replace all of that fossil fuel infrastructure. Anyone with a lick of sense can figure that out. The point is to get serious about it. You should do a little research on leading edge battery research.
See my reply to presidenteloco. It's likely that within a decade or so we'll have battery powered vehicles with ranges of 500 miles or more due to improvements in battery technology.
True, but the transmission lines would have to be intercontinental to help the America's. At best they're around 6 or 7 hours across.
In you previous post (assuming you are the same AC) you said the IPCC prediction from 2001. That would be the AR3 report. That's what I referenced and linked to in my reply. The link you provided is for the IPCC AR1 report in 1990. I wouldn't expect to see the same chapter with the same title in two different reports. I looked at the AR1 report you linked and couldn't find anything that said 2.5 degrees in 2010-2015. Would you kindly point out where in there you got your information from? Thanks.
Another guy who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is chaotic in nature but it varies within a range. For instance the highest temperature ever recorded on the Earth was 134 F in Death Valley and the lowest was -128.6 F at Vostok Station. Those records may be broken sometime but not likely by much. Climate defines the range that weather is chaotic in. If the climate shifts the range for the weather shifts right along with it.
Probably not. Humans are resourceful and as long as we can find sufficient food, water, shelter and breathable air there will be some of us left. After all humans have found ways to live both in the Kalahari desert and on Beaufort Island in the arctic. That doesn't mean the population won't be greatly reduced though.
Would that stop you from posting AC?
Sorry but that is wrong. From the 2001 AR3 report, specifically WG1 Chapter 9: Projections of Future Climate Change. "The temperature change for the 30-year average 2021 to 2050 compared with 1961 to 1990 is +1.3C with a range of +0.8 to +1.7C...". That is a far cry from 2.5 degrees (C or F?) in 2010-2015.
Good observation. Now all you have to do is show scientifically why CO2 can't be a leading indicator as well.
1998 is the hottest year in the CRU record. Both the GISS and NOAA records have 2010 and 2005 tied for the hottest year. Of course the CRU group is headed up by Phil Jones so how can you trust it?
A recent paper by Ben Santer et. al. found it takes at least 17 year of data to be sure the climate signal has overridden the noise of weather so you need to go back to at least1993.
Something like "CO2 absorbs radiant energy in the infrared band which leads to heating of the environment it is in."?
To be fair 1998 is still the hottest year on record in the Hadley/CRU record. It makes sense that a British publication would use that. Of course the CRU record is from the group that the vilified Phil Jones heads up so I don't know how much anyone wants to trust it but then again of the major temperature record groups the CRU shows the least warming. What is a "skeptic" to do?
I don't know where your 5 C by 2010 came from in the mid 1980's but it certainly wasn't from climate scientists at the time.
Modern atmosphere-ocean coupled models don't assume anything like that. The lag is part of the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans as the oceans are the source of nearly all of the lag.
You are right but I was also thinking in terms of overnight for the solar power. If you follow battery technology much you know there are some potential developments that would improve them immensely.
And what evidence do you have for that? Why would you assume it will continue at that rate forever? After all there is certainly evidence for much different rates of SLR in the past. But at 25 feet above the current sea level he's got well over 100 years before it's a problem unless something extraordinary happens.
That's right, if you can't fight the message with facts then mod it down.
If you knew anything about what climate scientists actually do you would know they are doing all of those things.
Hansen's 1988 projections used a climate sensitivity of 4.2 C which wasn't an unreasonable value to use at the time. Current estimates put the value from 2 - 4.5 C with the value most likely around 3 C. Using a sensitivity of 3 C in Hansen's 1988 model would put his projections, particularly using Scenario B, more in line with what actually happened. At the bottom of this post they discuss Hansen's 1988 model in light of the data up to 2010 and here they give a more detailed discussion of Hansen's model specifically.
Put a price on carbon including the carbon that goes into producing and delivering imports. Then the high carbon/low regulation producers don't have an advantage over domestic producers.
At the rate the cost of solar photovoltaic cells are dropping it will soon be cheapest way to produce electricity. Then all we need is a way to store enough energy to get us through the intermittent nature of solar power.
I've never heard of that happening to a credit union. I doubt the members would stand for it in most cases. Why would they want their cost of banking going up?