Green new deal equals magical thinking

[DJL 232]

49 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What nuance am I missing in the headline “California Braces for Unending Drought”

Does the article claim that the Drought in California was literally never going to end?  

[brenthutch 383]

11 minutes ago, DJL said:

Does the article claim that the Drought in California was literally never going to end?  

No it literally claims that is what California is bracing for.

[mbohu 77]

The NY Times article headline (the one brenthutch linked) is "California Drought Is Made Worse by Global Warming, Scientists Say"; it says among other things:
"Global warming caused by human emissions has most likely intensified the drought in California by 15 to 20 percent, scientists said on Thursday"

"Even though the findings suggest that the drought is primarily a consequence of natural climate variability, the scientists added that the likelihood of any drought becoming acute is rising because of climate change."

"Some scientists have argued that the ocean and atmospheric factors that produced the ridge have become somewhat more likely because of global warming, but others have disputed that"

"On the question of the effects, scientists have been much clearer. Rising temperatures dry the soil faster and cause more rapid evaporation from streams and reservoirs, so they did not need any research to tell them that the drought was probably worse because of the warming trend over the past century. The challenge has been to quantify how much worse."

Really nothing here that seems in the least extreme or over-hyped. If anything, the article is written in an exceptionally careful and "under-hyped" way.

 

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No it literally claims that is what California is bracing for.

I disagree but I don't fault that point from you.  The article is about them bracing for both the short term affects of what was a seven year drought and acknowledging that they need to prepare for the long term effects of how climate change increases the frequency and severity of weather events.  They also quote someone who hypothesizes that a condition of drought may be there to stay despite short term regional relief but the state announced an official end of that drought early this year.  They're keeping their policies in place, which are that utilities need to provide a longer term usage plan when signs of drought arise.

[billvon 2,379]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

What nuance am I missing in the headline “California Braces for Unending Drought”

This statement in the article that you didn't read:

"Conditions have changed this year. While we’re certainly in a statewide drought, drought conditions have eased.  Some local communities have seen a great easing of their drought effects this year, and will see life return to normal . . . we’re just one dry winter away from returning to where we were."

So the drought had already eased when the article was published.  But the entire state will now have to brace for a drought returning at any time, because as the climate changes, they will come more often and be more severe.

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

because as the climate changes, they will come more often and be more severe.

Or less often and less severe because of climate change, no one really knows.  

[brenthutch 383]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45673-3

“Higher frequencies of drought and extreme rainfall are assumed to be associated with modern climate change. But long-term studies in both hemispheres indicate extreme precipitation patterns were more common prior to the 20th and 21st centuries. Natural variability dominates precipitation patterns so thoroughly that an anthropogenic signal cannot be detected in observed records.”

 

[billvon 2,379]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Or less often and less severe because of climate change, no one really knows.  

No, actually we do.  You may not know, and that's fine.

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

No, actually we do.  You may not know, and that's fine.

Somebody might want to tell Mother Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45673-3

[kallend 1,618]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Or less often and less severe because of climate change, no one really knows.  

Hey, once Trump buys Greenland he will build a big refrigeration unit there and re-freeze the icemelt, thus reversing climate change at a stroke.

[DJL 232]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Somebody might want to tell Mother Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45673-3

From that article (which I haven't read all of) I'm taking it's message to be that short term fluctuations are more directly related to regional issues such as ocean temperature rather than Climate Change, models for Climate Change aren't very good at predicting weather, and as you point out we're still having difficult differentiating between natural causes and things that are caused by AGW.  Doesn't seem too contentious.  We know that the Arctic Circle is seeing record melting and that will affect weather patterns, one of those being the cooler wetter conditions in the US this year.  It's more difficult to say that a years worth of storm systems or dry periods along the equator is a result of climate change.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

22 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Hard to answer, based on your recent posting history my first question would be if you are accurately representing what was written in the article.

You have to ask that as a question?

He's taken the concept of California making the rules on water restriction permanent and represented THAT as 'permanent drought." 
I think the folks in charge have decided that the chances of drought returning are high enough that they don't want to have to go through the process of reinstating the rules (and having to wait for them to go into effect when water supplies are getting short). 

Getting the population used to conserving water, even when not absolutely necessary, is not a bad thing. 

So, of course, he ridicules and demeans it. Along with misrepresenting it. 

[DJL 232]

4 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So, of course, he ridicules and demeans it. Along with misrepresenting it. 

If we did wagers based upon the outcomes we're talking about I bet we'd hear some different tunes.

[brenthutch 383]

17 hours ago, DJL said:

If we did wagers based upon the outcomes we're talking about I bet we'd hear some different tunes.

We sure would.

I say the GND is an unrealistic fantasy dreamed up by a left wing lunatic. Others say it is a blueprint for the future.  If you wish to wager, name your price.(to be fair, read the paper linked to below before placing your bets) (I will also take your money with regard to floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires)

https://www.scirp.org/html/3-2830394_94121.htm

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

Are you SURE you want to take that bet on fires?

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/six-trends-to-know-about-fire-season-in-the-western-us/

[wmw999 2,114]

35 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I say the GND is an unrealistic fantasy dreamed up by a left wing lunatic. Others say it is a blueprint for the future.

I’m guessing your plans for fifty years out, involving millions of people, go exactly according to plan. Because a short-term outlook is best for everything; that way any problem has a simple answer. 

I’ll bet building the Alaska pipeline would have been a piece of cake

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,379]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

We sure would.

I say the GND is an unrealistic fantasy dreamed up by a left wing lunatic. Others say it is a blueprint for the future.  If you wish to wager, name your price.(to be fair, read the paper linked to below before placing your bets) (I will also take your money with regard to floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires)

https://www.scirp.org/html/3-2830394_94121.htm

Sure.

You have said that there has been no more warming since 2016, so we are in a pause.  I will bet you $500 (payable to your favorite charity) that we will see another global temperature record broken in the next 5 years.

You have said that getting significant amounts of power from solar is an unrealistic fantasy.  I will bet you $500 (payable to your favorite charity) that over that same five years, we will see solar-PV grow significantly (say, more than 30%.)

You have said that Tesla is a failing company because, in part, no one wants EV's.  I will bet you $500 (payable to your favorite charity) that over that same five years, we will see EV's grow significantly (say, more than 30%.)

 

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Sure.

You have said that there has been no more warming since 2016, so we are in a pause.  I will bet you $500 (payable to your favorite charity) that we will see another global temperature record broken in the next 5 years.

You have said that getting significant amounts of power from solar is an unrealistic fantasy.  I will bet you $500 (payable to your favorite charity) that over that same five years, we will see solar-PV grow significantly (say, more than 30%.)

You have said that Tesla is a failing company because, in part, no one wants EV's.  I will bet you $500 (payable to your favorite charity) that over that same five years, we will see EV's grow significantly (say, more than 30%.)

 

 

 

I’ll bet that in the next five years we will not see a catastrophic rise in, floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires. (No one really cares about a few hundredths of a degree of warming if it doesn’t hurt anything)

30% of energy from renewables?  Your on! (The growth rate of renewables can’t even match the growth rate of global energy demand)

Tesla is a failing company because it depends on government subsidizes for its existence.  Take away the subsidies, add some competition and Tesla goes down the tubes.  (I made the prediction of Tesla’s failure when I found out Porsche was getting into the EV game)

[brenthutch 383]

I misspoke when I referred to growth rate, I should have just said growth.  The rate of growth is often a meaningless metric.

[brenthutch 383]

I misspoke when I referred to growth rate, I should have just said growth.  The rate of growth is often a meaningless metric.

[billvon 2,379]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’ll bet that in the next five years we will not see a catastrophic rise in, floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires. (No one really cares about a few hundredths of a degree of warming if it doesn’t hurt anything)

30% of energy from renewables?  Your on! (The growth rate of renewables can’t even match the growth rate of global energy demand)

Tesla is a failing company because it depends on government subsidizes for its existence.  Take away the subsidies, add some competition and Tesla goes down the tubes.  (I made the prediction of Tesla’s failure when I found out Porsche was getting into the EV game)

No, I said 30% INCREASE in PV over five years, exactly as I posted.  Not 30% of energy from renewables.  

Will you take the bet?

[brenthutch 383]

30% increase of next to nothing is still next to nothing.  Remember we are talking about the GND.  For solar to do anything to “save the planet” it would have to replace fossil fuels in a meaningful way.

Since everyone agrees that coal is on its way out and solar is ascendant, how about,

“More energy will be produced by solar power than by coal in five years”

Edited August 18, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,379]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

30% increase of next to nothing is still next to nothing.

Ah. So when it comes right down to it, you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.  Why am I not surprised?

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Ah. So when it comes right down to it, you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.  Why am I not surprised?

You must have missed,

how about,

 “More energy will be produced by solar power than by coal in five years”

 

[billvon 2,379]

20 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 “More energy will be produced by solar power than by coal in five years”

Your refusal to put your money where your mouth is is noted.

I don't blame you.  I have a feeling you are a pretty smart guy, and most of the denier BS you post comes out of a desire to remain aligned with your party's agenda.  But you know in your heart that all the things you rail against (i.e. climate science, the effectiveness of renewable energy, the risks of rapid climate change) are actually valid.  So you're wise to not make any bets, because you know you will lose them.