|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-10-09 04:13 AM Original message |
Cap and Fade |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-10-09 04:31 AM Response to Original message |
1. Unhelpful Hansen by Paul Krugman |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-10-09 07:07 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Disagree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-10-09 07:34 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. That analogy doesn't work |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:34 AM Response to Reply #3 |
14. Closer than that ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 04:11 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. But it is the act of paying money that is the equivalent of dieting. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:54 PM Response to Reply #15 |
39. No offence but the act of paying money is *not* the equivalent of dieting ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:52 PM Response to Reply #39 |
66. When you introduce a constraint it is a "diet" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 04:11 PM Response to Reply #14 |
16. Delete dupe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-10-09 10:16 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. Hansens problem with C&T is not that it can't work, but that in practice... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-10-09 11:42 PM Response to Reply #4 |
5. That is an invalid criticism. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 12:31 AM Response to Reply #5 |
7. If you say so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 12:34 AM Response to Reply #7 |
8. Then what is your alternative to living in a society that has a structure? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 02:38 AM Response to Reply #8 |
9. I am not suggesting any alternatives. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 02:58 AM Response to Reply #9 |
10. So your solution for the problem is to recommend impossible policies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 03:31 AM Response to Reply #10 |
11. Nah, I'm warming to your position that nothing can be done. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 03:36 AM Response to Reply #11 |
12. I'm extremely optimistic, under the circumstances. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 04:04 AM Response to Reply #12 |
13. In denial, more like. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 05:13 PM Response to Reply #2 |
18. Depends on your goal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 05:19 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. More smoke? There is little difference in carbon reductions with either policy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-10-09 11:43 PM Response to Reply #1 |
6. Thank you and Mr. Krugman. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 05:01 PM Response to Original message |
17. A 43 percent reduction is failure? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 06:20 PM Response to Reply #17 |
20. You have to look at it from Hansen's POV, we have to reduce 60% in 20 years to stem 2.0C. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 06:23 PM Response to Reply #20 |
21. That is not backed up by science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 06:44 PM Response to Reply #21 |
22. Actually it is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 06:51 PM Response to Reply #22 |
23. It is not science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 06:59 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. If it isn't science then neither is the physics behind nuclear power. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:11 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. A Simple Question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:17 PM Response to Reply #25 |
28. We know the outcome and the risk |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:38 PM Response to Reply #28 |
32. Here is the difference |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:43 PM Response to Reply #32 |
33. The models fit very well the climate, as run *after the fact*, and that is one way to help verify... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:20 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. True but irrelevant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:37 PM Response to Reply #34 |
37. Right, and we can't predict that a nuclear rchain eaction will occur because we don't know |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:54 PM Response to Reply #37 |
40. Exactly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 09:03 PM Response to Reply #40 |
42. You CAN do that with climate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 09:51 PM Response to Reply #42 |
44. I see |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 09:54 PM Response to Reply #44 |
45. How does that red herring address the application of the science as I asked? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 10:56 PM Response to Reply #34 |
48. We don't have the computing power to run millions of combnations. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 12:31 AM Response to Reply #48 |
49. The models are good predictors? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 12:50 AM Response to Reply #49 |
51. Oh, they're not accurate enough at all, they all *all* failed to predict sea ice decline. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 01:12 AM Response to Reply #51 |
53. I told you not to bother linking to that report |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 01:51 AM Response to Reply #53 |
54. What part of "recent and past" don't you get? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:11 AM Response to Reply #54 |
59. Response |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:16 AM Response to Reply #59 |
60. I found an interesting blog posting about predictions. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:03 AM Response to Reply #53 |
58. Here: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:25 AM Response to Reply #58 |
61. Now we are making progress |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:33 AM Response to Reply #61 |
62. Indeed, and they're extremely off on sea level. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:50 AM Response to Reply #62 |
63. Yes, sea level is extremely off |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 03:13 AM Response to Reply #63 |
64. Yes, they are ranges of error, but 2.0C is at the lowest end of the range, given our CO2 ouput. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 03:22 AM Response to Reply #64 |
65. Not for IPCC AR3, which is the model we are looking at |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 12:45 AM Response to Reply #34 |
50. Have you ever built a physics model? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 01:58 AM Response to Reply #50 |
55. Response |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 02:01 AM Response to Reply #55 |
57. To test future projections for climate, you just wait. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:33 PM Response to Reply #32 |
35. At what point did the theories behind nuclear power cross the threshold |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:50 PM Response to Reply #35 |
38. You make an excellent point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 09:15 PM Response to Reply #38 |
43. There is as much tested evidence behind climate science as nuclear |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 10:03 PM Response to Reply #43 |
46. The question is whether what you claim is science is in fact science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 10:25 PM Response to Reply #46 |
47. There is no external support for your position |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 01:00 AM Response to Reply #47 |
52. I have no interest in debating Peak Oil right now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 01:59 AM Response to Reply #52 |
56. Hansen's knows that doubling = 2C guaranteed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Dec-12-09 03:47 PM Response to Reply #52 |
67. It has absolutely nothing to do with Peak Oil, that's another red herring |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:37 PM Response to Reply #32 |
36. I think you've acccidentally hit a very good analogy ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 08:58 PM Response to Reply #36 |
41. That's not what happened |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:13 PM Response to Reply #23 |
26. Noticed that you failed to address the economic arguement for preventive action |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:13 PM Response to Reply #23 |
27. Sure, 2.0C is an arbitrary goalpost. We shouldn't even be above 280 ppm if we want a world that... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:18 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. It isn't arbitrary. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:36 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. 2.0C is not a best estimate, you will not find it in any litratature, it is what G8, MEF, COP15... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Dec-11-09 07:38 PM Response to Reply #29 |
31. Just so we're clear here, we may have already passed a tipping point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon Sep 23rd 2024, 12:38 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC