Your correct on that last part. In my industry we are seeing it with the emissions controls they want mandated. The next level if ever approved is estimated to cost close to 1trillion dollars just in research and development costs for the engine makers. There are only 4 companies that make them and none of them can afford that much cash. Then you have the added costs to the consumers. Figure on about a 10 to 15 percent increase in costs across the board if it ever was approved.
Btw these figures are from the engine makers not the government and the proposed standard is what CARB wants.
SD70M-2DudeOption 1: Man-made global warming is true, you believe this and act. End result is a cleaner planet (positive). Option 2: Man-made global warming is false, but you believe it to be true and act. End result is still a cleaner planet (even/positive).
I think the truth is somewhere between 1 and 2. Mankind is responsible for some portion of global warming, but not all of it (as some seem to believe). Even if mankind is only responsible for 5% of the change, it is still wise to take action to minimize that.
But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
SD70M-2DudeOption 1: Man-made global warming is true, you believe this and act. End result is a cleaner planet (positive). Option 2: Man-made global warming is false, but you believe it to be true and act. End result is still a cleaner planet (even/positive). Option 3: Man-made global warming is true, but you believe it to be false and do not act. End result is accelerated global warming (mostly negative, depending on where you live).
I agree with your Options #1 and #3, but I think Option #2 is faulty. That has been the point I have tried to make over the last few posts about the risk of taking action that proves to have not been necessary.
There are two problem with Option #2. This is the first problem: You will not end up with a cleaner planet if manmade global warming is false and you act on it anyway. This is because if the MMGW premise is false, there will be nothing that needs be be cleaned up. The premise is that too much CO2 is the danger. If it turns out that there is not too much CO2, there was no danger, and thus nothing gained in reducing the CO2.
The second problem with Option #2 is that it totally ignores the lost money spent on reducing CO2 when it was not necessary.
I would re-write Option #2 as this:
Man-made global warming is false, but you beieve it to be true and act. End result is nothing gained in terms of "cleaning the planet", and a huge waste of money and resources that that will set back the lives of several generations as they struggle to pay for the waste of the bad choice.
I think the bad consequences of Option #2 are similar if not worse than the bad consequences of Option #3. That is why we need to think and study much more carefully before running off in a panic toward Option #1. It may turn out to be Option #2.
Euclid SD70M-2Dude The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false. Well, it would certainly avoid a lot of harsh criticism from the climate change boosters.
SD70M-2Dude The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.
Well, it would certainly avoid a lot of harsh criticism from the climate change boosters.
Opposite point. As applied to global warming Pascal's Wager plays out like this:
Option 1: Man-made global warming is true, you believe this and act. End result is a cleaner planet (positive).
Option 2: Man-made global warming is false, but you believe it to be true and act. End result is still a cleaner planet (even/positive).
Option 3: Man-made global warming is true, but you believe it to be false and do not act. End result is accelerated global warming (mostly negative, depending on where you live).
Option 4: Man-made global warming is false, you believe this and do not act. End result is nothing changes (even).
Note that the only negative result comes from not believing and not acting, while both believing scenarios end with positive or at the very least even. With more time one could add a lot more detail to these scenarios but I'm trying to be quick, gotta head out the door soon.
As for negative consequences of believing in man-made global warming (aka the scientific consensus), yes there will be strife and job losses in certain areas but the overall benefit to worldwide society as a whole outweighs that, as I posted earlier.
And I don't think that coal mining or oil/gas production will ever disappear completely, even if the world were powered entirely by solar panels we would still need coal for steelmaking, and hydrocarbons for chemical, plastic and fertilizer production.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70M-2DudeThe point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.
“The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.”
Some wisdom there. Glad you spoke up.
Paul of Covington SD70M-2Dude, what's a reasonable man like you doing in this conversation?
SD70M-2Dude, what's a reasonable man like you doing in this conversation?
I started out in the peanut gallery, but then everyone else ran onstage and I felt lonely.
Also some postings here reminded me of a logic problem called Pascal's Wager (which more recently was adapted into the Atheist's Wager) which I was going to post about before being sidetracked by my own writings.
The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.
What I don't understand is, to the extent that we together do affect the world's climate, Who says we can have any material impact on the world's climate going forward by making such-and-such a change?
I think regarding the environment it's more important to act on things like water table pollutants and the like.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong? I read this article. At that time I didn't even know that National Review is what you would call a right-wing publication. I considered discussing but the polemical style let me refrain from doing so. As long as all possible measures are wheighed for at least short term material/economic neutrality there is no way discussing it. The neutrality or gain will be gathered by future generations. The same is with the proof for the three asked questions. Proof will not be available during our generation. To answer these question there is enough evidence. My impression of this article was, judging its tone, it wasn't meant to be discussed but to provide buzzwords to the own clientele. Quote Euclid: I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk. The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary. Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better. That is the risk I am talking about. It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof. Let me put it this eay, I don't see a risk investing money without having proof that the problem exists. For me the current evidence is enough to act. If our successors realize it wouldn't habe necessary do you thing it will bother us. We are dead for a long time then. With short term evolutions I would react like you. But waiting for proof in this case might take us over the point of no return. We have started are efforts to reduce CO2 und other emissions in the 1990 (power plants and industry in the late 1970s). I don't see that I had that my life has been worse. I see the fear of job losses. We have now more jobs in renewable energies than we had in the whole coal mining and generating industry in 1990. I already mentioned the 770,000 employes in the US reneable energy industry.Regards, Volker P.S.: Perhaps we should agree that we disagree totally
Euclid If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong?
I read this article. At that time I didn't even know that National Review is what you would call a right-wing publication.
I considered discussing but the polemical style let me refrain from doing so. As long as all possible measures are wheighed for at least short term material/economic neutrality there is no way discussing it. The neutrality or gain will be gathered by future generations.
The same is with the proof for the three asked questions. Proof will not be available during our generation. To answer these question there is enough evidence.
My impression of this article was, judging its tone, it wasn't meant to be discussed but to provide buzzwords to the own clientele.
Quote Euclid: I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk. The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary. Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better. That is the risk I am talking about. It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof.
Let me put it this eay, I don't see a risk investing money without having proof that the problem exists. For me the current evidence is enough to act.
If our successors realize it wouldn't habe necessary do you thing it will bother us. We are dead for a long time then.
With short term evolutions I would react like you. But waiting for proof in this case might take us over the point of no return.
We have started are efforts to reduce CO2 und other emissions in the 1990 (power plants and industry in the late 1970s). I don't see that I had that my life has been worse.
I see the fear of job losses. We have now more jobs in renewable energies than we had in the whole coal mining and generating industry in 1990. I already mentioned the 770,000 employes in the US reneable energy industry.Regards, Volker
P.S.: Perhaps we should agree that we disagree totally
Volker: A word to the wise. The National Review and Weekly Standard are relatively moderate as right wing journals go.
One thing the folks opposed to climate change mitigation tend to omit when they bring up cost as a barrier is the enormous deferred costs if we fail to act. Our Defense Department is aware of what global warming will cost just to its facilities and the damage to our national security. Property insurance corporations are also aware.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclid Miningman Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism. Posted this earlier on the "Climate Change" thread. Time to re-post! Minningman, Thanks for adding a little perspective to what stopping manmade climate change will really require of us. Notice that when I question the risk of cost for something that might not be needed, how easily concern about cost is dismissed by the proponents. They are able to scoff at the concern about cost and how it is nothing compared to the risk of posed by climate change. This is because nobody talks about the cost because it would take the steam out of the cause. Like the fast salesman, proponents only talk about cost by saying the if we don’t act now, it will cost more in the future. So the risk is presented as a bargain opportunity. Average Americans are lead to believe that all they have to do is say they care about stopping climate change and that is the end of their contribution. Yet if we are swept down this road by full agreement, the cost will be like nothing the world has ever seen before. We will recognize the greatest of all possible crises, and petition world government to take the quickest emergency action possible to fix it. There is not enough money in the universe to pay for that. No American on the climate change bandwagon would be willing to live with the kind of personal sacrifice that climate change dogma actually requires. Their support is only symbolic.
Miningman Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism. Posted this earlier on the "Climate Change" thread. Time to re-post!
Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism.
Posted this earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.
Time to re-post!
Minningman,
Thanks for adding a little perspective to what stopping manmade climate change will really require of us.
Notice that when I question the risk of cost for something that might not be needed, how easily concern about cost is dismissed by the proponents. They are able to scoff at the concern about cost and how it is nothing compared to the risk of posed by climate change.
This is because nobody talks about the cost because it would take the steam out of the cause. Like the fast salesman, proponents only talk about cost by saying the if we don’t act now, it will cost more in the future. So the risk is presented as a bargain opportunity.
Average Americans are lead to believe that all they have to do is say they care about stopping climate change and that is the end of their contribution. Yet if we are swept down this road by full agreement, the cost will be like nothing the world has ever seen before.
We will recognize the greatest of all possible crises, and petition world government to take the quickest emergency action possible to fix it. There is not enough money in the universe to pay for that.
No American on the climate change bandwagon would be willing to live with the kind of personal sacrifice that climate change dogma actually requires. Their support is only symbolic.
For the sake of continuing this arguement let's say that the both of you are wrong and the scientific consensus is right, and global warming is human-caused. Not trying to insult, just want to take the other side of the debate.
What will future generations think of us then, when in 300 years they look back at history and see that we had a chance to slow (or even stop) the warming trend and did little or nothing about it? All because we were too wrapped up in arguements about belief vs science, because that's really what this is all about.
It's a shame that Al Gore snatched it up already, because "inconvenient" really is the perfect word to describe this situation. Reducing man-made greenhouse gas emissions requires actions that will hurt a lot of people in the short-term, believe me I realize that (many friends would lose their jobs if coal and oil/gas production end), but when weighed against the future of entire nations (who will be drowned by sea level rise or turned to desert by warmer temperatures and different weather patterns) the short-term pain outweighs the long-term gain. That is of course as long as we are willing to think on a global scale, instead of wanting to shut our doors and not work together.
If we fail to take action then I imagine that we will be viewed the way we view the Treaty of Versailles, where self-interest and doing things the way we had always done them before won out over a chance to change and truly rebuild & integrate a continent together, with disatrous results in the future.
But if we in the West decide to ignore those who will be most affected (Much of North America and Europe may well benefit from moderate global warming, except of course for low-lying areas rising sea levels will flood) then yes, the costs of changing our behaviour to reduce emissions outweigh the benefits.
And I am not American (Canadian, duh eh), but do consider myself a rider on the "climate change bandwagon" if that is what we are calling it, though not a particularly vocal one (in my social circles it makes for awkward conversation, not worth it in person). I believe we are making steps in the right direction with regard to cleaner technologies, but we still have a long way to go. I do not own an electric car, but do not drive a massive lifted F350 like everyone else in my neighborhood either, instead I have a smaller more fuel-efficient vehicle. I have a gas furnace in my house, but also a wood stove, and I turn the thermostat down when I can. I also only buy LED lightbulbs now, which are more expensive up front but last longer and use less power.
These actions reduce my bills, while at the same time reducing my emissions. I do not change vehicles often (run 'em till they die) but in the future I might consider an electric car, that is if batteries that can reliably ignore the Canadian winter are invented. I also might consider putting solar panels on the roof or a small wind turbine in the yard if it proves cost-effective, and the prices for those have been coming down over time, and if I move to a rural area or want to be independant of the grid Tesla's home battery packs are looking promising.
The point is that I try not to be biased, and instead look at things more objectively and financially. I suspect that many of my fellow citizens see things similarly, and that the transistion will continue as the new alternatives become cheaper.
We will just have to wait and see what the future holds, and as one of the younger participants on this forum I will most likely get to see a lot more of it.
Who's that, Norm?
Deleted already answered by jcburns
jcburns Agreed. I'm hoping folks will stay on topic, refrain from ad hominem attacks, and just plain try not to be mean. Then we can maybe even move on to polite, cordial...nice?
Agreed. I'm hoping folks will stay on topic, refrain from ad hominem attacks, and just plain try not to be mean. Then we can maybe even move on to polite, cordial...nice?
Wanna explain how we can do that when one poster keeps talking down and demeaning the rest of us?
Norm
It's not religious. It's not fundamentalist. It's not exaggerated. And the folks talking about it aren't panicking. It's has nothing to do with world government or sovereignity. Socialeconomic progress hasn't been halted by the laws passed, which aren't particularly draconian (many are voluntary.)
So, yeah, other than all of that, top notch analysis!
EuclidIf this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong?
VOLKER LANDWEHREuclid: So there most certainly is a risk in fixing the problem if it turns out that the problem was not real. Were should be the risks?
Were should be the risks?
Money. This is the most important concern to many.
Volker,
I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk. The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary. Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better. That is the risk I am talking about. It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof.
Euclid We have already cleaned up coal burning emissions that we know are harmful because of their toxicity.
Not only the USA had to limit toxic emissions and many other countries were much less stringent. And you can't see the emissions completely differently. Take coal and gas fired power plants: If you change to gas you have a lot less CO2 but simultanously less SOx and NOx.
Euclid So there most certainly is a risk in fixing the problem if it turns out that the problem was not real.
Were should be the risks? The last 2,000 years the CO2 content moved between about 270 ppm 300 ppm. Since about 1900 the content has risen to 400 ppm.
All measures in the future will not get the CO2 content down to 300 ppm again. So I can't see a risk as we had it before.Regards, Volker
Norm48327 Euclid The question is asked: “What will replace coal?” I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption. Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills. There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity. It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage. There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half. You can contribute by permanently unplugging your computer and returning to the dark ages before the internet. Please do.
Euclid The question is asked: “What will replace coal?” I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption. Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills. There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity. It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage. There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half.
The question is asked: “What will replace coal?” I would say that what will replace coal is a reduction in electric consumption. Consumers are just now starting down the fast road of eye-popping electric bills. There is a lot of elasticity in electric consumption, and consumers are not going to just sit still and pay hundreds of dollars per month for electricity.
It is hard to substitute for electricity, but not hard to reduce its usage. There will be big shifts in power production requirements as the entire consumer base suddenly cuts their electric usage in half.
You can contribute by permanently unplugging your computer and returning to the dark ages before the internet. Please do.
Where does this stuff come from.... It's totally uncalled for.
Euclid VOLKER LANDWEHR Why don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media? Obviously, there are two opposing sides to this argument. A fair minded person would listen to both sides. So I post something from the side that you disagree with, and you immediately reject it because it comes from the side you disagree with. If the opposite side can’t be in the debate, how can their views be considered? If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong? http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440844/climate-change-solutions-economic-cost-outweighs-environmental-benefits
VOLKER LANDWEHR Why don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media?
Obviously, there are two opposing sides to this argument. A fair minded person would listen to both sides. So I post something from the side that you disagree with, and you immediately reject it because it comes from the side you disagree with. If the opposite side can’t be in the debate, how can their views be considered?
If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440844/climate-change-solutions-economic-cost-outweighs-environmental-benefits
Nuts to the Left .... Nuts to the Right
The middleground is unexploded ordnance from all the nut shots.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
VOLKER LANDWEHRWhy don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media?
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid said: "And also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary?" Volker said: "Nothing is at stake. You get a better environment, crude oil keeps longer for uses it is essential for. If nothing is don't the earth will become a unlivable planet sometime according to today's evidence."
Euclid said:
"And also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary?"
Volker said:
"Nothing is at stake. You get a better environment, crude oil keeps longer for uses it is essential for. If nothing is don't the earth will become a unlivable planet sometime according to today's evidence."
Getting a cleaner environment by spending money on fighting climate change assumes that CO2 is damaging the environment. We have already cleaned up coal burning emissions that we know are harmful because of their toxicity. The issue with CO2 is not a matter of toxicity. It is its complex role in the greenhouse climate effect. That role is the core of the debate. So there most certainly is a risk in fixing the problem if it turns out that the problem was not real. We will have spent the money, but it won’t result in a cleaner environment.
EuclidAnd also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary?
Nothing is at stake. You get a better environment, crude oil keeps longer for uses it is essential for. If nothing is don't the earth will become a unlivable planet sometime according to today's evidence.
EuclidA lot of people say that even if we can’t prove the climate change theory, we should take action just in case it is true, because if we wait, it may be too late to take action.
We will note if a proof is found. That might be our grand-grand children but it is possible that is never proof beyond resonable doubt. So in my opinion we have to do something.
Why don't you try to find an article from a nutreal source and not a right-wing media?
As of 2015 in the USA 770,000 people were employed in the renewably energy sector. So there are not just jobs lost but gained too.
If you hold on to technologies too long you might be left behind. Siemens once invented the Fax but sold the patents to Japanese interests because they didn't want to destroy their Telex business.
If you see measures only under poitical and economical viewpoints I can't help you.
If that were the majority in the world one only could beg that the evidence might be wrong.Regards, Volker
schlimmOK. I was referring stricktly to Euclid's several posts on spherical earth. It seemed to me (and possibly others) he had the history wrong (bad revisionist history). I threw in the No Nothing Party bit as a poor inside joke. It was a nativist party (see Wanswheel's post) in the mid 19th century. See CSSHegewisch's post for the connection to current politics. It was rather convoluted.
Ok I'll accept that, but can you see how others who aren't in on the joke can take your comment and misunderstand it?
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
SaturnaliaGranted, but a key thing about climate change theorists is that they generally use models rather than experiments and observation.
Climate models didn't fall from the sky. They were developed over tenth of years from available data. They are checked steadily against the known climate data line especially the best known last 125+ years.
And they are not accurate but it the best we have.
I wrote it before, all climate models were used to simulate the last 125 years without manmade influences. Only when they included the latter it worked.
SaturnaliaMy point is that yes there is a significant amount of support for the theory of climate change, but there's a difference between science fact and science theory.
Sure there is a difference. But in this case mankind might never see proof without reasonable doubt. Only ever better evidence. When I look at the potential consequences I think it is time to act.
And you are right CO2 is not the only manmade influence on global warming.
SaturnaliaThe problem now, is that the developed world has reached the end of what can easily be cleaned up. As with the Clean Power Plan, futher cuts are generally limited by the intersection of new technology and costs, for small gains in pollution. Europe, Canada and the US have pretty much reached the end of point-source pollution controls, in terms of the gains they can net us.
I think we are not at the end. We can reduce CO2 polution further but perhaps with economical compromises. Denmark is currently at 59% renewables in power generation. Germany is behind with 30% but both countries aim for 100%. Back-ups for sunless dead calm days is necessary as long as there are noth enough storage plants. And that is lignite coal currenly here, the dirtiest way to do it. It should be gas power plants. So there is a lot that can be done.
SaturnaliaAnyways, sorry for being incredibly long-winded, but in terms of this debate, yes it is politcal, and yes we all fall into it, because it is unavoidable. It's governence, and people fight about that stuff.
In principle the climate change debate is a science debate. It got a political debate because governments took the lead in the necessary actions. The difference between Europe and the USA is that in Europe it is supported by all large, relevant camps.Regards, Volker
Saturnalia Again, I go back to all of these daily weather models which are never fully correct. Most follow a trend, and there is serious agreement between climate models. What I question is the level to which people claim fact over theory or incomplete flushing out of the data.
Again, I go back to all of these daily weather models which are never fully correct. Most follow a trend, and there is serious agreement between climate models. What I question is the level to which people claim fact over theory or incomplete flushing out of the data.
Which probably never will be fully correct - Edward Lorenz found this out in the early 60's when trying to restart a really simple weather simulation. He entered values from a printout hoping to duplicate an earlier run, but the printout only had 3 significant figures versus the six stored in memory. Within a short while, the restarted simulation was diverging rapidly from the original simulation.
But beyond cutting, to the parts of the equation vastly overlooked when it comes to climate change: First and foremost, pavement. Look, I'm a civil engineer in training. We LOVE pavement. And humans, we love our structures. But woah, have we not built either in a sustainable fashion since probably the 1920s. There are very few studies really taking a close look at the heat sink effects of our cities. This is a problem, because obviously, a significant portion of the global temperature increase is due to this effect. How much of the global temperature increases over the last 80 years have been due to urban expansion? We don't have anywhere close to a good answer, but how are we to "solve" climate change, without considering all the factors? Mainstream climate change believers talk all day about CO2, but hardly ever anything else.
But beyond cutting, to the parts of the equation vastly overlooked when it comes to climate change:
First and foremost, pavement. Look, I'm a civil engineer in training. We LOVE pavement. And humans, we love our structures. But woah, have we not built either in a sustainable fashion since probably the 1920s. There are very few studies really taking a close look at the heat sink effects of our cities. This is a problem, because obviously, a significant portion of the global temperature increase is due to this effect. How much of the global temperature increases over the last 80 years have been due to urban expansion? We don't have anywhere close to a good answer, but how are we to "solve" climate change, without considering all the factors?
Mainstream climate change believers talk all day about CO2, but hardly ever anything else.
Land use has a huge efect on surface temperatures as well as the local weather. In parts of Manhattan, the heat emitted from the buildings exceeds the energy from the sun in that same area. Pavement is an excellent example as the normally dark surface does lead to local warming - during the Governator administration there was talk about requiring more reflective roofing and pavement.
In the meantime, the cost of natural gas is now high enough that coal is becoming competitive again.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.