Green new deal equals magical thinking

[airdvr 197]

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/A-question-to-ask-about-every-climate-plan

Here’s a question you should ask about every climate change plan

Whenever I hear an idea for what we can do to keep global warming in check—whether it’s over a conference table or a cheeseburger—I always ask this question: “What’s your plan for steel?”

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/A-question-to-ask-about-every-climate-plan

Here’s a question you should ask about every climate change plan

Whenever I hear an idea for what we can do to keep global warming in check—whether it’s over a conference table or a cheeseburger—I always ask this question: “What’s your plan for steel?”

Cross Laminated Timber

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Whenever I hear an idea for what we can do to keep global warming in check—whether it’s over a conference table or a cheeseburger—I always ask this question: “What’s your plan for steel?”

1) Renewable energy to power arc furnaces

2) Direct solar thermal for furnaces

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/A-question-to-ask-about-every-climate-plan

Here’s a question you should ask about every climate change plan

Whenever I hear an idea for what we can do to keep global warming in check—whether it’s over a conference table or a cheeseburger—I always ask this question: “What’s your plan for steel?”

Cross Laminated Timber 

49 minutes ago, billvon said:

1) Renewable energy to power arc furnaces

2) Direct solar thermal for furnaces

The video in airdvr's link talks about molten oxide electrolysis.

[DJL 232]

36 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The video in airdvr's link talks about molten oxide electrolysis.

Yup.  My response was to not use Steel.  The method they're calling for using a lot of power, thus BV's response.

[billvon 2,396]

49 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The video in airdvr's link talks about molten oxide electrolysis.

Electrolysis requires electricity, and creating the molten feedstock requires thermal energy.  Hence options 1 and 2.  Electrolysis is also nice in that you can run it in batches, running only when cheap solar is available.

[brenthutch 383]

On 9/19/2019 at 11:03 AM, DJL said:

I can't find what he's talking about.  He's making is sound like her mother is out there trying to warn the world that her daughter is a troubled psychopath.

I'll let you decide.  Oh BTW still claim "no one is saying that"?

 

[airdvr 197]

I have to say that she's a bit over the top.

[DJL 232]

28 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I'll let you decide.  Oh BTW still claim "no one is saying that"?

What is the "that"? I'll even put in bold the most outlandish portion of her speech:

"My message is that we'll be watching you.

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.

"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.

"There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

"We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

"Thank you."

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

What is the "that"? I'll even put in bold the most outlandish portion of her speech:

"My message is that we'll be watching you.

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.

"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.

"There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

"We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

"Thank you."

Well, at least she didn't claim to have been fighting for CO2 reductions her entire life. Look, I give the kid great credit but Thor Heyerdahl she ain't. Nor is the Malizia II another Kon-Tiki, it's a first class, blue water sailing yacht. I was able to cheer her on but only short of her scolding adults on a world stage. That would have been a great time for her claim of "selective mutism" to kick in. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 9/19/2019 at 1:43 PM, gowlerk said:

Sure, just like the magical thinking of "trickle down" economics. Sometimes policy is aspirational.

If existing, tested and bullet proof technology allowed for the regulation of CO2 in the atmosphere I'm certain we'd use it. We might even use the technology as an economic or military weapon.

For sure, humankind has missed few opportunities to re-engineer our environment if a buck could be made. Sort of, you have to wonder how far into the future lays the ability control the composition of the air we breath.

[brenthutch 383]

Thus far higher CO2 levels have proven to be nothing but beneficial.  I don't see a problem with less deserts and more food.  

[JoeWeber 2,299]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Thus far higher CO2 levels have proven to be nothing but beneficial.  I don't see a problem with less deserts and more food.  

It's the "thus far" bit that inspires a certain level of ill grace when responding to your conclusions. CO2 is spiking and the evidence supports the idea of AGW. Yes, some locations will benefit and others will not. Also, time may or may not be on everyones side. It's definitely on my side although it may not be on Greta's, or your kids, side. 

You know well that it's not a simple less deserts and more food argument. Ecosystems need also be considered. Right now some fisheries in the Bering Sea are in decline because of warming water. True, other rich fisheries will likely open as other areas become accessible just as new deserts will form as others green. We've beat this up again and again. It's all old news.

Seriously, we're now at 411ppm CO2.  Is there a level or rate of increase that would cause you alarm? 

[brenthutch 383]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

It's the "thus far" bit that inspires a certain level of ill grace when responding to your conclusions. CO2 is spiking and the evidence supports the idea of AGW. Yes, some locations will benefit and others will not. Also, time may or may not be on everyones side. It's definitely on my side although it may not be on Greta's, or your kids, side. 

You know well that it's not a simple less deserts and more food argument. Ecosystems need also be considered. Right now some fisheries in the Bering Sea are in decline because of warming water. True, other rich fisheries will likely open as other areas become accessible just as new deserts will form as others green. We've beat this up again and again. It's all old news.

Seriously, we're now at 411ppm CO2.  Is there a level or rate of increase that would cause you alarm? 

I will be alarmed when something alarming is happening. I base my position on evidence, logic and reason, not emotion.  Right now that only thing that is putting my children's future at risk, are the hairbrained fantasies being promogulated by the warmist community.  

[billvon 2,396]

Just now, brenthutch said:

I will be alarmed when something alarming is happening. I base my position on evidence, logic and reason, not emotion.  Right now that only thing that is putting my children's future at risk, are the hairbrained fantasies being promogulated by the warmist community.  

And sea level rise, and stronger storms, and more wildfires, and water shortages, and droughts, and ocean acidification..  Of course, if your kids live in Denver, and are well off, then they have few worries.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I will be alarmed when something alarming is happening. I base my position on evidence, logic and reason, not emotion.  Right now that only thing that is putting my children's future at risk, are the hairbrained fantasies being promogulated by the warmist community.  

You're a DZO, right? You don't make decisions based on possibilities? I mean, surely you don't wait until bounces become a banality before taking action.

You believe in science, right? Is there a CO2ppm number or rate of increase that would concern you?

[brenthutch 383]

But of course we all no that sea level rise is on or about the same rate it has be since the end of the last ice age, storms are no stronger, there are no more wildfires, no more droughts, and ocean acidification is another fantasy dreamed up by the same guys who failed with their polar bear predictions.  It cracks me up when you show the latest prediction as proof, only to fail and fail again.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

But of course we all no that sea level rise is on or about the same rate it has be since the end of the last ice age, storms are no stronger, there are no more wildfires, no more droughts, and ocean acidification is another fantasy dreamed up by the same guys who failed with their polar bear predictions.  It cracks me up when you show the latest prediction as proof, only to fail and fail again.

O.K., I'll take that as a no. Interestingly, you make the point here that all is unchanged but make no mention of deserts being lost and food production increasing. 

[billvon 2,396]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

But of course we all no that sea level rise is on or about the same rate it has be since the end of the last ice age, storms are no stronger, there are no more wildfires, no more droughts, and ocean acidification is another fantasy dreamed up by the same guys who failed with their polar bear predictions.  It cracks me up when you show the latest prediction as proof, only to fail and fail again.

Nope.  Sea levels were rising, on average, .06in/yr in the last century.  Since 1993 they've been rising .12in/yr - roughly double the rate.  And that rate is increasing.

Quote

storms are no stronger,

Nope.  Storms are getting stronger.  From the journal Climate Dynamics:

"the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased at a rate of ~25–30 % per °C of global warming after accounting for analysis and observing system changes. "

Quote

there are no more wildfires

Wrong again.  From the NYT, quoting a Trump adminstration report:

"A warmer world makes for a more combustible country. That’s the conclusion in the most comprehensive assessment of the effects of climate change on the United States, released by the Trump administration just weeks after the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history. 

The report says the continued release of greenhouse gases from cars, factories and other sources will make fires more frequent, including very large fires that burn more than 12,400 acres. And wildfire risk in the United States won’t just be a Western problem.

 . . .A recent study cited by the report estimated the total acres burned in western forests under current climate conditions and in a model without human-caused warming. It found that half as much forest area would have burned between 1984 and 2015 in a world not warmed by climate change."

So your beliefs do not really match reality, even if you really, really want to believe them.  Perhaps more research and less magical thinking would serve you well.

[brenthutch 383]

"in a model" no need to go further.  The most devastating wildfire in recent history had none of the fingerprints of AGW.  No drought, no unusually high temps, no unusually high winds.  The only thing that was unpresented was the unprecedented hyperbole..

[billvon 2,396]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

"in a model" no need to go further.  

Nope.  Read it again.  That is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  

I know that facts rarely fit into your political agenda, but they're not going to go away just because you hope they do.

[kallend 1,623]

38 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  Read it again.  That is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  

I know that facts rarely fit into your political agenda, but they're not going to go away just because you hope they do.

Maybe he has a Sharpie. 

[brenthutch 383]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Nope.  Read it again.  That is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  

I know that facts rarely fit into your political agenda, but they're not going to go away just because you hope they do.

"A recent study cited by the report estimated the total acres burned in western forests under current climate conditions and in a model without human-caused warming. It found that half as much forest area would have burned between 1984 and 2015 in a world not warmed by climate change."

But the MODEL claims that wildfires would be halved if not for climate change.  Therefor we would need to see above average drought and high temperatures for that claim to be valid.  But we don't and it isn't.  The most devastating fire in recent history was on the heals of one of the wettest springs in history and temperatures were in the 70s.

[brenthutch 383]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You're a DZO, right? You don't make decisions based on possibilities? I mean, surely you don't wait until bounces become a banality before taking action.

You believe in science, right? Is there a CO2ppm number or rate of increase that would concern you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU

Yes but I don't charge an extra $5.00 per jump to pay for carbon offsets or bear patrol or tiger repelling rocks

[brenthutch 383]

https://www.climategate.nl/2019/09/84293/

Hundreds of scientists agree, THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGANCY