Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[lynnvinc]

Running computer programs is not “experimentation”. It’s just running programs.

So scientists should throw out their computers. Does that include hand calculators too?

Perhaps you should worry about the poor more than you do. When Obama succeeds in making their utility bills “skyrocket” as he has promised, there is not the slightest reason to believe the poor will in any way be relieved of that burden, and given his track record, every reason to disbelieve it. Jobs will be lost as well, and there’s no doubt about that either.

The Congress has the option of voting for the “Fee & Dividend” legislation, that would put a fee on fossil fuels, but also give much of the money raised from that back to the people. See - citizensclimatelobby.org/ and for actual bills (which are not as good as the “Fee & Dividend” idea, but better than "Cap&Trade): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_dividend & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act ,

Obama is only doing what is in his power. It is up to our legislators to also do what they can that will not have a negative effect on the poor. They are the ones who are exceedingly evil and bad and wrong. Not Obama on the AGW issue.

As for scientists using computer models for projecting AGW, they also run those models backwards over actual data to see if they are accurate, and tweak them as new data/theories/factors emergy. So far they have proven pretty accurate. Even those in the 1980s (with very low computer power and much less knowledge about AGW) pretty well predicted the actual state of affairs re the climate of today.

In a natural experiment, like AGW, they simply do not have 2 earths – one as control, and one for injecting GHGs – nor do they have the many millennia, even centuries, even decades to do a complete time-series experiment to see how the “experiment” turns out. Plus it would be highly evil to do such an experiment just to see what portion of humanity would be wiped out by AGW.

I don’t think it is wise or moral to withhold our moral promptings and do experiements on factors considered to greatly harm human lives as done in Nazi Germany. Tho I can see where some would be intrigued with running the AGW experiment to its hilt just to see how much harm it actually does…I guess the horror movie fans, for one.

 

[lynnvinc]

Consensus? When did that become part of the scientific method?

How about actual verification through measurement?

The “proof” of global warming was the slight increase from 1980 to 1996 (16 years), but the steady to falling global temperatures from 1997 to 2013 (16 years) is too short of period to read a cycle?

I guess people just see whatever they want to see in the data that makes them feel good:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

I’d rather see it correctly and feel bad about it – which I do. Only then is there hope of striving to solve them problem in least harmful ways.

And was I surprised to find we can actually mitigate climate change in ways that are good and helpful, and actually better for us (never mind AGW) than had we not mitigated.

But first we must have the courage to face the truth, perhaps feel bad about our participation in the harms for a while, then roll up our sleeves and get on with doing our best to mitigate the problem.

God is with us always. We should never fear facing the truth and doing the right thing. And it is most certainly right to mitigate climate change even if it were not happening, because the measures also mitigate a host of other problems (not to mention it is wrong to play Russian roulette with others’ lives, esp with 19 of the 20 chambers loaded).

 

[SamH]

I guess people just see whatever they want to see in the data that makes them feel good:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

I’d rather see it correctly and feel bad about it – which I do. Only then is there hope of striving to solve them problem in least harmful ways.

And was I surprised to find we can actually mitigate climate change in ways that are good and helpful, and actually better for us (never mind AGW) than had we not mitigated.

But first we must have the courage to face the truth, perhaps feel bad about our participation in the harms for a while, then roll up our sleeves and get on with doing our best to mitigate the problem.

God is with us always. We should never fear facing the truth and doing the right thing. And it is most certainly right to mitigate climate change even if it were not happening, because the measures also mitigate a host of other problems (not to mention it is wrong to play Russian roulette with others’ lives, esp with 19 of the 20 chambers loaded).

Cool graph, I make them all the time in Exel.

So what exactly will the President’s “Climate Plan” have on the numbers you presented?

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are quite high subsidies for fossil fuels. I found that out from my Republican congressional office some 15 years ago…unless you think Republicans are a bunch of liars

And that is just regular subsidies and tax-breaks. If you factor in military and such support for oil, incl wars that protect our oil interests, the cost of gasoline would probably skyrocket.

Then if you were to internalize all the externalities (harms caused by fossil fuels) and compensate all those harmed on into the future, we’d probably be paying at least $100 per gallon of gasoline and $3 per KWH of electricity generated by coal. Depending on what price you put on a human life.

As they say, “you break it, you buy it (or pay for it).”

The only “subsidy” oil companies get is the depletion allowance, which is an accelerated depreciation on expenditures, sort of like what farmers get for building a new specialty barn, or what cattlemen get for buying a new bull.

You seem to be assuming that wars like, say, Afghanistan where there’s no oil, and Iraq, whose oil we really didn’t use, are to be factored in to make the costs seem higher than they really are.

Citing deaths in, say, coal mining, as part of “costs” is just silly. Might as well say the cost of a cotton T-shirt needs to be multiplied several times because of Brown Lung disease, or that the cost of a loaf of bread ought to be multiplied because of the occasional elevator or farm death AND ALSO the very significant cost of fossil fuel needed to raise the grain to make the bread. Might as well throw in the costs of the Civil War while you’re at it (adjusted upwar for inflation, of course) which was, to a large extent, about whether slavery would or would not spread into what is now the “bread basket” of the U.S. Might be $1000/loaf if you count every imaginable or imagined (name removed by moderator)ut.

But what will be measurable for sure is the additional cost of utilities, bread and everything else to poor people. Job losses will be measurable too, and are already mounting up. And there is not the least possibility that this administration will ameliorate that. Congress can’t be blamed because Obama has a veto in his own hands and an effective additional one in the Senate in the hands of Harry Reid.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So scientists should throw out their computers. Does that include hand calculators too?

.

No. But computer programs are only as good as the goals and biases of the builders of them. Your argument is like saying the IRS did not target conservative 401C4 applicants, but only designed the programs used to investigate applicants.

 

[estesbob]

So scientists should throw out their computers. Does that include hand calculators too?

The Congress has the option of voting for the “Fee & Dividend” legislation, that would put a fee on fossil fuels, but also give much of the money raised from that back to the people. See - citizensclimatelobby.org/ and for actual bills (which are not as good as the “Fee & Dividend” idea, but better than "Cap&Trade): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cap_and_dividend & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Clean_Energy_and_Security_Act ,

Obama is only doing what is in his power. It is up to our legislators to also do what they can that will not have a negative effect on the poor. They are the ones who are exceedingly evil and bad and wrong. Not Obama on the AGW issue.

As for scientists using computer models for projecting AGW, they also run those models backwards over actual data to see if they are accurate, and tweak them as new data/theories/factors emergy. So far they have proven pretty accurate. Even those in the 1980s (with very low computer power and much less knowledge about AGW) pretty well predicted the actual state of affairs re the climate of today.

In a natural experiment, like AGW, they simply do not have 2 earths – one as control, and one for injecting GHGs – nor do they have the many millennia, even centuries, even decades to do a complete time-series experiment to see how the “experiment” turns out. Plus it would be highly evil to do such an experiment just to see what portion of humanity would be wiped out by AGW.

I don’t think it is wise or moral to withhold our moral promptings and do experiements on factors considered to greatly harm human lives as done in Nazi Germany. Tho I can see where some would be intrigued with running the AGW experiment to its hilt just to see how much harm it actually does…I guess the horror movie fans, for one.

GIGO

 

[SamH]

As for scientists using computer models for projecting AGW, they also run those models backwards over actual data to see if they are accurate, and tweak them as new data/theories/factors emergy. So far they have proven pretty accurate. Even those in the 1980s (with very low computer power and much less knowledge about AGW) pretty well predicted the actual state of affairs re the climate of today.

In a natural experiment, like AGW, they simply do not have 2 earths – one as control, and one for injecting GHGs – nor do they have the many millennia, even centuries, even decades to do a complete time-series experiment to see how the “experiment” turns out. Plus it would be highly evil to do such an experiment just to see what portion of humanity would be wiped out by AGW…

So which scientist predicted the last 17 years of no increases?

 

[styrgwillidar]

…So scientists should throw out their computers. Does that include hand calculators too?..

No, but we have a saying in experimentation-- You Don’t Eat the Menu. Simulations are nice, computers are nice. They are tools but as someone else said, Garbage In Garbage Out, if the simulation and models behind it are faulty the result will be faulty. If reality doesn’t match what the models/computer simulations predict-- it’s not reality that’s incorrect.

And all these green efforts are burning up resources and using different yardsticks on what their life-cycle cost are. Hence why wind farms aren’t economically viable without government money, not to mention the destruction of wildlife/habitat.

spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed

knoxville.craigslist.org/pol/3746100243.html

ETA: BTW, may have been mentioned earlier but, starting the graph in 1970 vice 1900 or 1500 or 0 or 1870 BC is a bias in and of itself. You’ve assumed 1970 as a baseline- why? that’s not even getting into the flaws in the measuring systems themselves.

 

[lynnvinc]

Cool graph, I make them all the time in Exel.
So what exactly will the President’s “Climate Plan” have on the numbers you presented?

Well, assuming it gets thru without being blocked (and it drops the “fracking is okay” idea), and assuming it inspires vast hordes of Americans to actually mitigate climate change down to 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80% reductions in their GHG emissions, instead of just paying more money for their energy & products without any thought to mitigating AGW, and assuming it spurs tech innovations in drawing down CO2 (there are some promising ones on the horizon), and assuming this new U.S. leadership in mitigating climate change inspires many other peoples in many other countries to do likewise (oddly enough, they still look up to us), it might just have some effect of reducing the harms that otherwise would happen – cutting the losses. Unfortunately there are already many harms in the pipes with what we’ve emitted so far, and we will not be able to reduce by 60 or 70% overnight (it’s taken me 2 decades). So the upshot would be like slowing down the Titantic, so the ultimate damage is less and it perhaps does not sink.

And mitigating AGW will also have an effect of strengthening our economy, putting money in our pockets, and mitigating a host of other problems – like local pollution, acid rain, ocean acidification, resource depletion, etc.

It might even help strengthen families – by moving closer to work & schools when and where feasible, there is more family time, less stress and stress-related fights, less auto-pollution-related illnesses, less car maintenance and expenses (so less fights over money – which is a biggy), etc.

Mitigating AGW is a win-win-win-win situation. Failing to mitigate is a lose-lose-lose-BIG-LOSE situation.

 

[lynnvinc]

No, but we have a saying in experimentation-- You Don’t Eat the Menu. Simulations are nice, computers are nice. They are tools but as someone else said, Garbage In Garbage Out, if the simulation and models behind it are faulty the result will be faulty. If reality doesn’t match what the models/computer simulations predict-- it’s not reality that’s incorrect.

And all these green efforts are burning up resources and using different yardsticks on what their life-cycle cost are. Hence why wind farms aren’t economically viable without government money, not to mention the destruction of wildlife/habitat.

spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed

knoxville.craigslist.org/pol/3746100243.html

ETA: BTW, may have been mentioned earlier but, starting the graph in 1970 vice 1900 or 1500 or 0 or 1870 BC is a bias in and of itself. You’ve assumed 1970 as a baseline- why? that’s not even getting into the flaws in the measuring systems themselves.

Why are you picking 1970, since I believe the computer models go back many more decades. I think the 1970s or perhaps 1960s is about when AGW started taking off…tho it took them until 1995 before 1st studies could discern the warming at 95% confidence.

Also, as mentioned the models are based on the laws of physics AND a tremendous amount of actual data and observations (they run them back in time to make sure they are accurate), and they take into account many factors…just as soon as the computer power has become available and the factors are understood and quantifiable.

Their predictions over the past 30 years have been pretty much dead on, so the models do “hold water.” However, you should really talk to the climate scientists themselves – they are a very open and forthcoming lot. Their science goes well above my head, but I understand the gist of it. And luckily one does not have to be a rocket scientist to install LED lights.

 

[SamH]

Well, assuming it gets thru without being blocked (and it drops the “fracking is okay” idea), and** assuming **it inspires vast hordes of Americans to actually mitigate climate change down to 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80% reductions in their GHG emissions, instead of just paying more money for their energy & products without any thought to mitigating AGW, and **assuming it spurs tech innovations **in drawing down CO2 (there are some promising ones on the horizon), and **assuming this new U.S. leadership **in mitigating climate change inspires many other peoples in many other countries to do likewise (oddly enough, they still look up to us), it might just have some effect of reducing the harms that otherwise would happen – cutting the losses. Unfortunately there are already many harms in the pipes with what we’ve emitted so far, and we will not be able to reduce by 60 or 70% overnight (it’s taken me 2 decades). So the upshot would be like slowing down the Titantic, so the ultimate damage is less and it perhaps does not sink.
.

And if ifs and buts were candy an nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas.

So the actual law being passed and followed does nothing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, assuming it gets thru without being blocked (and it drops the “fracking is okay” idea), and assuming it inspires vast hordes of Americans to actually mitigate climate change down to 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 80% reductions in their GHG emissions, instead of just paying more money for their energy & products without any thought to mitigating AGW, and assuming it spurs tech innovations in drawing down CO2 (there are some promising ones on the horizon), and assuming this new U.S. leadership in mitigating climate change inspires many other peoples in many other countries to do likewise (oddly enough, they still look up to us), it might just have some effect of reducing the harms that otherwise would happen – cutting the losses. Unfortunately there are already many harms in the pipes with what we’ve emitted so far, and we will not be able to reduce by 60 or 70% overnight (it’s taken me 2 decades). So the upshot would be like slowing down the Titantic, so the ultimate damage is less and it perhaps does not sink.

And mitigating AGW will also have an effect of strengthening our economy, putting money in our pockets, and mitigating a host of other problems – like local pollution, acid rain, ocean acidification, resource depletion, etc.

It might even help strengthen families – by moving closer to work & schools when and where feasible, there is more family time, less stress and stress-related fights, less auto-pollution-related illnesses, less car maintenance and expenses (so less fights over money – which is a biggy), etc.

Mitigating AGW is a win-win-win-win situation. Failing to mitigate is a lose-lose-lose-BIG-LOSE situation.

How about this? How about if you and others of like mind reduce your energy use (you say you have, and I don’t doubt you on that)? That’s a lot more likely to produce the results you want than China or India following anything the U.S. does. While Obama increases the costs of everything, China adds a new coal fired plant every week. Nobody is going to follow our example, especially when they see poor people in this country dying in the cold or of the heat for lack of the money to adequately cool or heat their homes, and particularly when they see jobs lost, industries destroyed.

You are wanting families to be forced to move closer to where they work? And what, then, are they going to do with the houses they already own? And what are they going to do if they change jobs, either voluntarily or involuntarily? Move again? Industries and businesses are no longer concentrated in central cities. They’re just as spread out as populations are.

 

[SamH]

How about this? How about if you and others of like mind reduce your energy use (you say you have, and I don’t doubt you on that)? That’s a lot more likely to produce the results you want than China or India following anything the U.S. does. While Obama increases the costs of everything, China adds a new coal fired plant every week. Nobody is going to follow our example, especially when they see poor people in this country dying in the cold or of the heat for lack of the money to adequately cool or heat their homes, and particularly when they see jobs lost, industries destroyed.

You are wanting families to be forced to move closer to where they work? And what, then, are they going to do with the houses they already own? And what are they going to do if they change jobs, either voluntarily or involuntarily? Move again? Industries and businesses are no longer concentrated in central cities. They’re just as spread out as populations are.

All for some computer models that have failed to accurately predict short and long term weather and climate.

 

[Raskolnikov]

So which scientist predicted the last 17 years of no increases?

None, probably because the last 17 years of no increases didn’t happen. Temperature and CO2 concentrations have both been rising since 1996, since 98, since 2005, etc. Ocean temperatures and concentrations tell this best because unlike the air, they rise steadily rather than bouncing around a lot. And the slope is consistently upward. I’ll post the research if you’d like; didn’t both to here, as I think you and I both know you’d probably just ignore it.

 

[Raskolnikov]

How about this? How about if you and others of like mind reduce your energy use (you say you have, and I don’t doubt you on that)? That’s a lot more likely to produce the results you want than China or India following anything the U.S. does. While Obama increases the costs of everything, China adds a new coal fired plant every week. Nobody is going to follow our example, especially when they see poor people in this country dying in the cold or of the heat for lack of the money to adequately cool or heat their homes, and particularly when they see jobs lost, industries destroyed.

You are wanting families to be forced to move closer to where they work? And what, then, are they going to do with the houses they already own? And what are they going to do if they change jobs, either voluntarily or involuntarily? Move again? Industries and businesses are no longer concentrated in central cities. They’re just as spread out as populations are.

Your critique would imply we should try for a multilateral plant that would require China, India, et al. to reduce their pollution rates. It is not, however, a very doing argument for doing nothing at all.

Personally, my own opinion is, and always has been, that all forms of pollution should be handled by imposing a tax/fine/whatever you want to call it equivalent to the estimated cost of the pollution (most probably determined by the cost of removing the pollutant or compensating those effected by it). In other words, I’m wholly in favor of letting companies pollute as much as they want, as long as they pay the bill for it, finance the CO2 sequestration filters and such, to undo the equivalent of what they do. Economically, this is more important than just putting a cap on something or making a rule against it.

And as for commuters to work, nobody of course should be forced to for anything, but I see no reason they shouldn’t have to pay for causing excessive pollution. Again, in keeping with the theme, I think a tax-incentive program would work best: tax people who drive unnecessarily fuel inefficient vehicles (and please, don’t tell me such vehicles are usually necessary; the vast majority of SUV-drivers do not drive SUVs because they need to haul 80 lbs of cinder blocks to work every day). There are even ways being considered to tax them according to how much they drive. People who drive fuel efficient vehicles should then be rewarded by tax credits.

Such a plan would encourage not only more environmentally sound behavior, but also more fiscally responsible behavior (I’m sorry, but unless you really do haul 80 lbs of cinder blocks to work every day, driving a Ford Excursion is generally just a lousy decision, a horrendous waste of money).

In any case, I even worthy criticism of a bad plans a bad defense of a lack of a plan.

 

[Raskolnikov]

All for some computer models that have failed to accurately predict short and long term weather and climate.

And how many computer models have successfully perfectly predicted the stock market? None. Most aren’t even close. And yet, every major brokerage in the world still uses the highest tech computers they can, and hires the best modellers to write the most intricate algorithms they can come up with to describe the system. Obviously it isn’t for nothing. Just because the computer models don’t predict things close to perfectly doesn’t mean they aren’t a lot better than nothing.

And some models have in fact been successful. Here’s a good example:climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf

Prediction of climate response to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

A less esoteric description here: e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your critique would imply we should try for a multilateral plant that would require China, India, et al. to reduce their pollution rates. It is not, however, a very doing argument for doing nothing at all.

Personally, my own opinion is, and always has been, that all forms of pollution should be handled by imposing a tax/fine/whatever you want to call it equivalent to the estimated cost of the pollution (most probably determined by the cost of removing the pollutant or compensating those effected by it). In other words, I’m wholly in favor of letting companies pollute as much as they want, as long as they pay the bill for it, finance the CO2 sequestration filters and such, to undo the equivalent of what they do. Economically, this is more important than just putting a cap on something or making a rule against it.

And as for commuters to work, nobody of course should be forced to for anything, but I see no reason they shouldn’t have to pay for causing excessive pollution. Again, in keeping with the theme, I think a tax-incentive program would work best: tax people who drive unnecessarily fuel inefficient vehicles (and please, don’t tell me such vehicles are usually necessary; the vast majority of SUV-drivers do not drive SUVs because they need to haul 80 lbs of cinder blocks to work every day). There are even ways being considered to tax them according to how much they drive. People who drive fuel efficient vehicles should then be rewarded by tax credits.

Such a plan would encourage not only more environmentally sound behavior, but also more fiscally responsible behavior (I’m sorry, but unless you really do haul 80 lbs of cinder blocks to work every day, driving a Ford Excursion is generally just a lousy decision, a horrendous waste of money).

In any case, I even worthy criticism of a bad plans a bad defense of a lack of a plan.

Maybe CO2 ought to be regarded as a pollutant, and maybe it oughtn’t. The graphs are all over the place on the CO2 levels over time, but many, if not most, point out that CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past than now. It is natural for the atmosphere to have some presence of CO2. So, is it a pollutant or unnatural at this level? I truly don’t think anyone knows for sure, but since it has been higher in the past, one is inclined to doubt that it is.

How big a fine do you want farmers to pay? Row crop farmers use a lot more fuel than the average commuter does. Do you think the costs of the fines will be reflected in the price of food? Hard for me to think they won’t.

Ranchers don’t use a lot of fuel, but there is really no substitute for a full-size pickup. You don’t need the carrying capacity every day, but you do need it frequently. Do you want ranchers to pay a fine for that and pay more for your food? Or do you want to make an exception?

Are oranges from Florida out of the question for residents of Chicago, or are truckers going to be exempted from the fines?

And we’re not going to get China to do anything China doesn’t want to do. Right now, China, India and other developing countries are interested in industrializing, not in making American environmentalists feel better.

 

[lynnvinc]

And if ifs and buts were candy an nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas.

So the actual law being passed and followed does nothing.

Bec it fails to take into account that human nature is fallen, and added to that our culture has taught us to be greedy, lazy, mean, selfish, and pretty much bad…even to the extent of harming our own selves bec of wrong and evil thinking.

So you’re probably right – nothing good will come of it, bec people are NOT good. Only God is good, and who cares about God anymore.

But at any rate, I applaud Obama for trying. And I will continue to strive and do my best, even tho it is less than a drop in the bucket. Where there is life there is hope…and hope for everlasting life.

 

[lynnvinc]

How about this? How about if you and others of like mind reduce your energy use (you say you have, and I don’t doubt you on that)? That’s a lot more likely to produce the results you want than China or India following anything the U.S. does.

I sincerely hope and pray China and India do not follow the U.S., which would mean total disaster, but would take a better path, one of energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy. And it seems they are more open to that path than the U.S. is.

However, for villages that do not yet have electricity, I think it is totally unfair for us to tell them not to get it. Their children, if the family were to get a single light and a table fan to keep the mosquitos off, should have the opportunity to study and hope to go to college just like our children. It’s good those countries are interested in wind and solar power. They (at least India) are already fairly energy efficient, with CF and LED bulbs, etc.

Some are even making their own verticle-axis wind-generators out of 55 gal drums…bec of the very frequent and long current cuts.

 

[SamH]

Bec it fails to take into account that human nature is fallen, and added to that our culture has taught us to be greedy, lazy, mean, selfish, and pretty much bad…even to the extent of harming our own selves bec of wrong and evil thinking.

So you’re probably right – nothing good will come of it, bec people are NOT good. Only God is good, and who cares about God anymore.

Actually I thought passing the law would prove that people were evil by taking advantage of the poor and helpless making their lot in life worse while further enriching the wealthy and powerful at their expense.