[mike777]

The posts are currently buzzing with plans to force reductions in gas emmissions at almost any cost. But ought to be buzzing much more with plans to reduce the temperature,or how to thrive at a higher temperature. Not at all costs but efficiently and cheaply.

As David Deutsch puts it, to embark on an open ended journey of creation and exploration whose every step is unsustainable until it is redeemed by the next.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-September-24, 14:23, said:

The posts are currently buzzing with plans to force reductions in gas emmissions at almost any cost. But ought to be buzzing much more with plans to reduce the temperature,or how to thrive at a higher temperature. Not at all costs but efficiently and cheaply.

Comment 1: The best way that we know of to reduce the temperature is not to force it to rise to begin with. Its a little late for this by now, but at least we can stop making things worse

Comment 2: The cheapest and most efficient way for me to deal with higher temperatures is to say "***** the rest of you. I am rich and I can afford a honking big air conditioner. God most have hated you when you decided that you should be born in Bangladesh"

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-24, 14:27, said:

The cheapest and most efficient way for me to deal with higher temperatures is to say "***** the rest of you. I am rich and I can afford a honking big air conditioner. God most have hated you when you decided that you should be born in Bangladesh"

hear hear, well said

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting news about a minor factor (properly referred to as a "forcing" in climate-speak) that the models discount in global temperature projections...

New Scientist?

From that article:

Our star's subtle influence
A link between Earth's oceans and its upper atmosphere shows one way in which the sun might have a subtle affect on our climate. A disruption known as a sudden stratospheric warming event coincided with the bitter European winter of 2009/2010.

Kind of like your home heating doesn't depend on the furnace setting.....much.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-September-26, 15:27, said:

Kind of like your home heating doesn't depend on the furnace setting.....much.

This sounds like an excellent suggestion. We could turn the Sun's furnace setting up to 5 by relocating to Mercury or down to 1 by relocating to Pluto; actually Pluto is probably a little too close to be considered a 1, perhaps we could try using Eris instead.

[PassedOut]

Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds

Quote

Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.

The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.

As we've seen in British Columbia and other places, a carbon tax does not hurt an economy. On the other hand, the climate change caused by carbon emissions does cost both money and lives. Therefore, the right course of action is to put a carbon tax in place.

[Daniel1960]

Of course, if we position ourselves precarious on the day/night border of mercury, we could experience rather temperature temperatures. Granted, we would need to be somewhat nomadic to stay ahead of the rotation.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2012-September-27, 07:20, said:

Climate change is already damaging global economy, report finds


As we've seen in British Columbia and other places, a carbon tax does not hurt an economy. On the other hand, the climate change caused by carbon emissions does cost both money and lives. Therefore, the right course of action is to put a carbon tax in place.

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-September-27, 07:57, said:

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

http://modeledbehavi...e-elasticities/

[dwar0123]

Daniel1960, on 2012-September-27, 07:25, said:

Of course, if we position ourselves precarious on the day/night border of mercury, we could experience rather temperature temperatures. Granted, we would need to be somewhat nomadic to stay ahead of the rotation.

Pretty sure mercury is tidally locked(same side faces the sun at all times)

True, due to having no atmosphere, there is no mixing of temperatures between the day and night side, however having no atmosphere there is no ambient temperature. In the sun, you are instantly dead, not in the sun you are as cold as you are on the moon when there is no sun.

There is no in-between.

[Gerben42]

Why are we not being honest with countries like Bangladesh and Tuvalu and say: Sorry, we don't care that you will suffer most from climate change. You can make a zillion scenarios saying CO2 output peaks in 2015 or 2020 or 2030. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

Most countries are on a 4- or 5-year plan and no politician is going to act on what is way beyond their career. Some will take some feel-good measures that help a little but no one is going to hurt their own economy for the benefit of the World. OK maybe the German government but they are only pretending and in fact moving the wrong way...

World energy demand will be increasing for some time from now, and in 2100 we WILL have a couple of degrees more of global warming. The best thing to do is to try to deal with the consequences the best we can.

[cherdano]

billw55, on 2012-September-27, 07:57, said:

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

Are you claiming that a carbon tax won't reduce CO2 emissions? If so, we have found a 100% efficient, tax, GREAT!
Oh wait, didn't you say that a carbon tax will cost jobs? If so, I assume that's because it has an economic effect.
Mysterious how it can have an economic effect without reducing the every activity it is taxing.

Or are you saying that CO2 emissions won't affect climate change? That would be a very strange thing to say, since it would contradict the scientific consensus on this question. But oh wait, this is the watercooler.

[Gerben42]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-27, 09:45, said:

Pretty sure mercury is tidally locked(same side faces the sun at all times)

True, due to having no atmosphere, there is no mixing of temperatures between the day and night side, however having no atmosphere there is no ambient temperature. In the sun, you are instantly dead, not in the sun you are as cold as you are on the moon when there is no sun.

There is no in-between.

I'm sorry to be pedantic but in fact Mercury is NOT tidally locked but instead it's in a 3:2 resonance, which means that the terminator moves around the planet with basically walking speed.

The best way to colonize Mercury is in fact to build railway tracks around the planet and put a city on the tracks, moving with the sunrise.

[dwar0123]

Gerben42, on 2012-September-27, 10:33, said:

Why are we not being honest with countries like Bangladesh and Tuvalu and say: Sorry, we don't care that you will suffer most from climate change. You can make a zillion scenarios saying CO2 output peaks in 2015 or 2020 or 2030. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

Most countries are on a 4- or 5-year plan and no politician is going to act on what is way beyond their career. Some will take some feel-good measures that help a little but no one is going to hurt their own economy for the benefit of the World. OK maybe the German government but they are only pretending and in fact moving the wrong way...

World energy demand will be increasing for some time from now, and in 2100 we WILL have a couple of degrees more of global warming. The best thing to do is to try to deal with the consequences the best we can.

As energy demand is increasing and most of that supply is going to be coal based, I worry more about what the world will look like in 200 years than 90 years.

We will have at least a couple of degrees by 2100, I accept that, it will be bad but not the end of the world, well not for many, not yet.

Climate is a very slow moving, impossible heavy train rumbling down the tracks to an uncertain future. If we sent it off on a set of tracks that go off a cliff will we see it with enough certainty early enough to stop it?

2 degrees by 2100 is the consequence of what we have done. What is the consequence of what we will do(increased demand from China, India) by 2200, another 2 degrees? 4 degrees?

This stuff lingers on timescales that we humans do not think in, what does this mean for the temperature in 2500?

[Gerben42]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-27, 11:06, said:

As energy demand is increasing and most of that supply is going to be coal based, I worry more about what the world will look like in 200 years than 90 years.

We will have at least a couple of degrees by 2100, I accept that, it will be bad but not the end of the world, well not for many, not yet.

Climate is a very slow moving, impossible heavy train rumbling down the tracks to an uncertain future. If we sent it off on a set of tracks that go off a cliff will we see it with enough certainty early enough to stop it?

2 degrees by 2100 is the consequence of what we have done. What is the consequence of what we will do(increased demand from China, India) by 2200, another 2 degrees? 4 degrees?

This stuff lingers on timescales that we humans do not think in, what does this mean for the temperature in 2500?

Don't worry, the world will survive and life will survive. Moreover, humanity will survive, even though the majority probably won't. The Earth is too far away from the Sun to become like Venus. But at some point the fighting over resources like water and food will start, that won't be pretty. In a 6-degree world, think about 2 billion Indians living in a dry country after the Himalaya glaciers are gone.

[dwar0123]

Gerben42, on 2012-September-27, 11:20, said:

Don't worry, the world will survive and life will survive. Moreover, humanity will survive, even though the majority probably won't. The Earth is too far away from the Sun to become like Venus. But at some point the fighting over resources like water and food will start, that won't be pretty. In a 6-degree world, think about 2 billion Indians living in a dry country after the Himalaya glaciers are gone.

This applies to any glacier fed river system, once they melt the water will run when the water comes down rather then when the glaciers melt.

For China's rivers, the three gorges dam may be able to take the place of the glaciers, delaying the water until the growing season. In theory India should be able to do the same.

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2012-September-27, 10:56, said:

Are you claiming that a carbon tax won't reduce CO2 emissions? If so, we have found a 100% efficient, tax, GREAT!
Oh wait, didn't you say that a carbon tax will cost jobs? If so, I assume that's because it has an economic effect.
Mysterious how it can have an economic effect without reducing the every activity it is taxing.

Or are you saying that CO2 emissions won't affect climate change? That would be a very strange thing to say, since it would contradict the scientific consensus on this question. But oh wait, this is the watercooler.

A carbon tax probably would reduce CO2 emissions to some extent.

I am highly confident that a global cessation of CO2 emissions would affect climate change. An incremental reduction in the output of one nation is a different matter, and might have no measurable effect at all. For me this is analogous to the discussion of the role of our military. I do not think we should be the world's police force. Likewise, I do not think we should take up responsibility for the world's environmental problems without the cooperation of other major contributors to said problems.

And yes, in theory a carbon tax could quite simply have an economic effect without reducing emissions, i.e. if the emitters just decide to pass on the entire cost as higher prices. Of course in reality, this is unlikely. Probably, they will manage the cost in multiple ways, including both price increases and emissions reductions. Ideally, I would hope that the fossil fuel industry would recover some of the cost by cutting that part of their public relations budget devoted to impugning alternate energy sources. Maybe that's wishful thinking.

Gerben42, on 2012-September-27, 10:33, said:

World energy demand will be increasing for some time from now, and in 2100 we WILL have a couple of degrees more of global warming. The best thing to do is to try to deal with the consequences the best we can.

Agree with the principle of adaptation, as I stated at greater length in earlier posts. Although we can, and should, also help reduce the problem in practical ways. First in line for me is replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear plants, and changing most vehicles over to electric rather than gas.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2012-September-27, 12:27, said:

Although we can, and should, also help reduce the problem in practical ways. First in line for me is replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear plants, and changing most vehicles over to electric rather than gas.

I'm with you there. But how would you effect those changes in the absence of a carbon tax?

[billw55]

There are various ways, but basically by giving incentives for building nuclear. Which isn't that hard, industry would be happy to build them, if the political obstacles are lessened. The political obstacles in turn come from negative public opinion; so perhaps a sustained pro-nuclear information program is a starting point.

France is the model. They generate a majority of electricity from nuclear, have had no major accidents, and (as I understand) have a generally positive public attitude toward nuclear. Or has this changed since Fukushima?

[onoway]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-27, 08:52, said:

http://modeledbehavi...e-elasticities/

One of the things which nobody seems to be looking at in terms of how much fuel usage drops (or not) is what options are available for people who need to get from point a to point b. Even in the cities the public transportation systems are often inconvenient and expensive for anyone living outside core areas, and rural people living even on main transportation arteries are pretty much out of luck.

Canada and the US are BIG countries and that seems not to be occurring to anyone. I would guess that both suffer from the same lack of options. I live close to the Yellowhead highway which is a major artery crossing the middle of Canada and cannot get to Saskatoon ( normally a 3 hour drive) for a day trip, but HAVE to spend the night there if I travel by bus. Bus service for me to get to Edmonton would cost me almost three times what it costs me to drive, and that doesn't consider the inconvenience of having to find and rent a vehicle when I get there, nor having to leave sometime after midnight going in either direction. I'd be delighted to take the train but to do so means first travelling 5 hours in the wrong direction before I could start west again. Also, it only runs a couple of times a week.

So to ask people if they are using less fuel is a bit of a silly question unless you also ask what options they have to do what they need to do without using their vehicles.