Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[SB Shock]

I think that's awesome! Do you have resolution to 0.1 degrees? Can you show a change in temperature over time based on a 5 year average?

The Wichita data is only measured to the nearest degree. Good suggestion - I will add a 5 year trendline to the data as I work through it.

[jdshock]

Well, my original question was about the threat, you gave malaria, drinking water, and clean air on the 3rd world.

I said those issues are there independent of climate change.

You had two comments in a row where you said that you have no problem with people changing their own behavior. I wanted to stop the conversation to explain why that is not a feasible strategy and you won't convince any liberals with that mindset.

But if its a market externality, why can the government fix the problem by manipulating the market?

Because that is how you resolve externalities. As an example, if Firm A does $100 worth of damage to air quality, but it doesn't affect their bottom line, they will never include that $100 in their cost calculations. To resolve that, the government has to force the calculation somehow. That typically involves a tax of some sort.

I used air quality as the example, but it works with any externality. If your business causes major traffic delays that impact the city, you don't recognize it (or at least all of it) in your bottom line. If your business dumps waste into a local pond, destroying the fish, you've caused a dollar-amount of damage, but you aren't a fishing business so it doesn't affect your income. The local government would tax you to offset that damage.

Global warming is the textbook example of an externality because no business is going to include it in their bottom line. First of all, global warming, at least in the short term, is going to affect very few businesses. Second, if CO2 emitters cause global warming, they are not uniquely harmed by global warming because it's not like global warming makes oil more difficult to access. It's just not a calculation that businesses would ever make.

[wufan]

The Wichita data is only measured to the nearest degree. Good suggestion - I will add a 5 year trendline to the data as I work through it.

If it is only measured to the nearest degree, it doesn't have the right resolution to show that the temperature is increasing by 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade. That's the claim I'm really interested in.

[im4wsu]

Don't know how Trump didn't get this censored, but this map shows an 8 to 10 degree increase in the next 80 years. That would mean instead of 107, it would be 115-120. In Kansas.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...temp-large.jpg

What was the prediction from 80 years ago? 50 years ago? 30 years ago?

The weathermen cannot see tomorrow, but these prognosticators can see 80 years and people believe it?

[CBB_Fan]

3. Most of the claimed areas affected are 3rd world countries where they have always struggled to survive against the climate/weather/natural habitat anyway.

I think you have misleading ideas of what it is like to live in outside America and how dramatic change in one area can affect others, as well as what it would take to fix the problem. Look up "Syria before and after" in Google. If you want, do the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. These areas are not subsistence farming just to survive. They had cities. People had jobs. They took out mortgages to buy houses, sent their kids to college. They farmed with tractors. They went to work in a car or took a bus; they had highways. It isn't like they were one bad crop season from death or fighting off the local manhunting tiger. Over half of Syria lived in an urban area, a city, where standards were not far from the Western world.

And what happened when Syria fell? Did it stay localized? No. It might have been a primary factor for Brexit and Trump's election, activating nativist fears in both countries. Syrian refugees and the migrant crisis became THE issue in the Western World. And Syria is a tiny, insignificant country whose population is somewhat tolerated by neighboring countries (Saudi's claim they've taken 2.5M refugees, the west only counts 500,000).

You seem to think the issue is the areas are just shitty and making them like us will make them less shitty. But things like capitalism and freedom are very high on the Hierarchy of Needs. They might make it nicer to live in Syria around 2005, but they'll do nothing for people now dying of hunger by thousands. To get to the point where that means something people need have their basic needs solved: food, water, shelter. And once the institutions protecting that fail, it is extremely expensive and difficult to fix.

Which is exactly why the focus is in preventing these collapses by reducing the rate of climate change and solving water issues while they are issues and not catastrophes.

And no, the problem isn't simply Western lifestyle and the solution won't end it. There is economic consensus on the solution, and it is simple: a revenue neutral carbon tax. The revenue neutral part of that means that the increase is offset with corporate and income tax cuts. This is a market-based solution that does not need additional spending to work, and is expected to raise GDP and create jobs with a very small increase in the price of goods (0.1%). In other words the solution is to tax smarter, not harder.

You would not be forced to go biking or buy a Prius. You wouldn't have to replace your lightbulbs. Any additional cost at the pump would be offset by income tax savings. The Western lifestyle survives (or even improves).

Step 2 is a focus on water and water exchange programs. If Iran runs out of water, it won't care that Russia's farming got a bit easier. While you won't have to make changes, they will. Unless they reduce, reuse, and recycle their water they will run out and it will happen far faster than a runaway heat spiral. Reverse osmosis desalination plants with low energy costs (2 kWh/m3) and exchange programs between coastal and land-locked countries are needed to ensure the supply of food and water worldwide.

Step 3 is carbon sequestration, rather than more lifestyle changes or shutting down fossil fuel production. Basically taking the carbon out of the atmosphere.

These steps cost will cost you nothing, force you to do nothing, and prevent social collapse that WOULD effect you. Iran collapsing be far worse than Syria, and a Pakistan/India water conflict could start a literal world war.

[wufan]

What was the prediction from 80 years ago? 50 years ago? 30 years ago?

The weathermen cannot see tomorrow, but these prognosticators can see 80 years and people believe it?

I'm not following the computer models, but the actual change in temperature was about 1.5 F over the last 130 years, but the expected increase is 9 degrees in the next 80 if we do nothing.

[ShockerPrez]

You had two comments in a row where you said that you have no problem with people changing their own behavior. I wanted to stop the conversation to explain why that is not a feasible strategy and you won't convince any liberals with that mindset.



Because that is how you resolve externalities. As an example, if Firm A does $100 worth of damage to air quality, but it doesn't affect their bottom line, they will never include that $100 in their cost calculations. To resolve that, the government has to force the calculation somehow. That typically involves a tax of some sort.

I used air quality as the example, but it works with any externality. If your business causes major traffic delays that impact the city, you don't recognize it (or at least all of it) in your bottom line. If your business dumps waste into a local pond, destroying the fish, you've caused a dollar-amount of damage, but you aren't a fishing business so it doesn't affect your income. The local government would tax you to offset that damage.

Global warming is the textbook example of an externality because no business is going to include it in their bottom line. First of all, global warming, at least in the short term, is going to affect very few businesses. Second, if CO2 emitters cause global warming, they are not uniquely harmed by global warming because it's not like global warming makes oil more difficult to access. It's just not a calculation that businesses would ever make.

Well, I suppose that you are correct. I do not trust giving the governent power to monetize and tax carbon emmissions. This will do nothing except lead to additional corruption, more poverty and higher energy costs for Americans.

I think that if the majority of people believe in the cause, they will punish businesses that abuse and pollute by choosing not to use those products or services. But will always be against any scheme that funnels more cash to governments, who have not proven they can solve problems. And more times than not, do more harm than the existing problem.

[ShockerPrez]

I think you have misleading ideas of what it is like to live in outside America and how dramatic change in one area can affect others, as well as what it would take to fix the problem. Look up "Syria before and after" in Google. If you want, do the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. These areas are not subsistence farming just to survive. They had cities. People had jobs. They took out mortgages to buy houses, sent their kids to college. They farmed with tractors. They went to work in a car or took a bus; they had highways. It isn't like they were one bad crop season from death or fighting off the local manhunting tiger. Over half of Syria lived in an urban area, a city, where standards were not far from the Western world.

And what happened when Syria fell? Did it stay localized? No. It might have been a primary factor for Brexit and Trump's election, activating nativist fears in both countries. Syrian refugees and the migrant crisis became THE issue in the Western World. And Syria is a tiny, insignificant country whose population is somewhat tolerated by neighboring countries (Saudi's claim they've taken 2.5M refugees, the west only counts 500,000).

You seem to think the issue is the areas are just shitty and making them like us will make them less shitty. But things like capitalism and freedom are very high on the Hierarchy of Needs. They might make it nicer to live in Syria around 2005, but they'll do nothing for people now dying of hunger by thousands. To get to the point where that means something people need have their basic needs solved: food, water, shelter. And once the institutions protecting that fail, it is extremely expensive and difficult to fix.

Which is exactly why the focus is in preventing these collapses by reducing the rate of climate change and solving water issues while they are issues and not catastrophes.

And no, the problem isn't simply Western lifestyle and the solution won't end it. There is economic consensus on the solution, and it is simple: a revenue neutral carbon tax. The revenue neutral part of that means that the increase is offset with corporate and income tax cuts. This is a market-based solution that does not need additional spending to work, and is expected to raise GDP and create jobs with a very small increase in the price of goods (0.1%). In other words the solution is to tax smarter, not harder.

You would not be forced to go biking or buy a Prius. You wouldn't have to replace your lightbulbs. Any additional cost at the pump would be offset by income tax savings. The Western lifestyle survives (or even improves).

Step 2 is a focus on water and water exchange programs. If Iran runs out of water, it won't care that Russia's farming got a bit easier. While you won't have to make changes, they will. Unless they reduce, reuse, and recycle their water they will run out and it will happen far faster than a runaway heat spiral. Reverse osmosis desalination plants with low energy costs (2 kWh/m3) and exchange programs between coastal and land-locked countries are needed to ensure the supply of food and water worldwide.

Step 3 is carbon sequestration, rather than more lifestyle changes or shutting down fossil fuel production. Basically taking the carbon out of the atmosphere.

These steps cost will cost you nothing, force you to do nothing, and prevent social collapse that WOULD effect you. Iran collapsing be far worse than Syria, and a Pakistan/India water conflict could start a literal world war.

The reason those great bastions of civilization are collapsing because of climate change?

Might you consider an alternative...

Islamic extremist governments.

[CBB_Fan]

The reason those great bastions of civilization are collapsing because of climate change?

Might you consider an alternative...

Islamic extremist governments.

Syria had its worst drought in 900 years. It did not have its most Islamic government in 900 years. Syrian's Islamic population didn't suddenly become angry over the Muslim president they've had for 10+ years or the Islamic ruling party it had for 50+ years. The Islamic government didn't take out 75% of the farms and 85% of the livestock.

So, if living conditions changed and the government didn't, government wasn't the cause. The massive drought that devastated food production and drove millions of Syrians is a much more probably factor for civil unrest than a government that remained stable throughout. And if Syrians were angry towards the government, it was for being the wrong type of Muslim (Shiite, specifically Alawite) and NOT being extreme/conservative enough. In almost every Middle-East nation the government is more liberal/Western than the populace.

In short:

Syria had a drought. Iran is using up its aquifers and abusing its renewable freshwater. India has 20% of the world's population and 4% of its water, and combined with Pakistan faces upcoming water shortages.

None of that is because of "Islamic extremist governments." Each could be because of climate change. And yes, countries collapse when they have more people than food or water to sustain them.

[ShockerPrez]

Syria had its worst drought in 900 years. It did not have its most Islamic government in 900 years. Syrian's Islamic population didn't suddenly become angry over the Muslim president they've had for 10+ years or the Islamic ruling party it had for 50+ years. The Islamic government didn't take out 75% of the farms and 85% of the livestock.

So, if living conditions changed and the government didn't, government wasn't the cause. The massive drought that devastated food production and drove millions of Syrians is a much more probably factor for civil unrest than a government that remained stable throughout. And if Syrians were angry towards the government, it was for being the wrong type of Muslim (Shiite, specifically Alawite) and NOT being extreme/conservative enough. In almost every Middle-East nation the government is more liberal/Western than the populace.

In short:

Syria had a drought. Iran is using up its aquifers and abusing its renewable freshwater. India has 20% of the world's population and 4% of its water, and combined with Pakistan faces upcoming water shortages.

None of that is because of "Islamic extremist governments." Each could be because of climate change. And yes, countries collapse when they have more people than food or water to sustain them.

The drought was mis-managed by the existing government on many levels, in addition to population increases. ISIS is causing havoc in that country right now.

But a drought in one country run by a murdering dictator followed by a civil war is not going to convince me that we need to curb our progress.

[CBB_Fan]

The drought was mis-managed by the existing government on many levels, in addition to population increases. ISIS is causing havoc in that country right now.

But a drought in one country run by a murdering dictator followed by a civil war is not going to convince me that we need to curb our progress.

1. The humanitarian crisis in Syria started before ISIS became a major factor there or Assad began his crackdown. Syria had 2.5 million refugees before its civil war, 1.5 million internal from the drought and 1 million fleeing from Iraq. And no one is claiming that ISIS isn't a problem, the point is that the drought created a chaotic situation that allowed them to thrive and sparked tensions.

2. You are exactly the type of person that should be concerned about more and greater Syrias happening. If you think a few Syrian refugees are a problem then the scenarios I described should be taken as existential threats. There isn't a place on this planet capable of handling tens or hundreds of millions of Muslim refugees.

3. I told you what I would do. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, water-exchange and desalination programs, and sequestration. There is absolutely nothing in that 3 step solution that curbs our progress; a carbon tax would increase GDP, disposable income, and jobs. At the end of the day you could change absolutely nothing about your lifestyle and would probably have more money in the bank.

[SB Shock]

If it is only measured to the nearest degree, it doesn't have the right resolution to show that the temperature is increasing by 0.1-0.2 degrees per decade. That's the claim I'm really interested in.

It means your confidence intervals are going to be larger. That one of the problems with the government database dealing with historical data. Resolution, missing data (decades in fact for Kansas). More detail in newer data, less in older data. Just in this dataset, the missing period between 1920-1950 is a huge problem, because this was a significant warm period for Kansas.

I have found a 1942 U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau report that has Kansas MEAN temperatures from 1888 to 1940 for different cities including Wichita. So I need to find the mean temperatures from 1941-Present. This does have the data in tenths of degree.

[SB Shock]

The drought was mis-managed by the existing government on many levels, in addition to population increases. ISIS is causing havoc in that country right now.

But a drought in one country run by a murdering dictator followed by a civil war is not going to convince me that we need to curb our progress.

China sure isn't going to curb their progress. If you look at their CO2 emmisions and their trendline, doesn't matter what reductions the U.S. and EU makes - China and India will offset that with their own increases + more.

[Aargh]

The climate is changing. It always has and it always will. Global warming exists. CO2 emissions (in my opinion after checking the science) contributes to that. Whether the increased atmospheric CO2 is offsetting a cyclical cooling trend or contributing to a naturally-occurring warming trend is unknown. I don't think there is adequate science to determine naturally-occurring warming and cooling cycles.

Climate change occurs slowly. Some areas become less inhabitable. Other areas become more inhabitable. Populations will move from less inhabitable locations to more inhabitable locations. There are two problems with that.

1) The people relocating tend to be refugees. Wars are fought over limited resources, particularly when those are food and water.

2) The places where those refugees attempt to relocate are already populated. The added demand for resources in those areas will create conflicts.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the relocating refugees are accustomed to violence and conflict to get what they want. It's easy for them to resort to those tactics in areas that are not accustomed to such actions. We call those people terrorists.

Global warming would not be much of a problem if the planet were not overpopulated with humans, who have a disturbing trend of maintaining reproduction rates that are not sustainable in the long run. We just have too many people, too many living in borderline survivable areas, and a global attitude that encourages additional reproduction.

Some great American civilizations have been destroyed by climate change that was certainly not attributable to human activity.

Unregulated burning of coal to provide the energy levels the population of Earth requires would go a long ways toward solving the overpopulation problem.

[jdshock]

Unregulated burning of coal to provide the energy levels the population of Earth requires would go a long ways toward solving the overpopulation problem.

Am I misreading this? Do you mean because people would die?