The Carbon Budget - Civilization's Epic Fail

[MrMrdevincamus]

Agree with that, I know and love many people who are passionately on the other side of this issue, and we are all really on the same side- we want the best for all concerned.

But how to achieve that- the one invariable common thread with them is that they believe the 'solutions' are all great ideas anyway- regardless of the 'problem'- so there is simply no motive to question whether there is one

The same was true for global cooling, the problem can be anything, only the 'solutions' remain the same, a transfer of wealth and power from private to public hands.



I truly regret to disagree with you here, we only very recently advanced passed this, and there is nothing to stop us sliding back, into a medieval energy poverty, relying on sun and wind to determine where and when we can be productive- and this is very much happening already in parts of the once modern world. Fossil fuels gave the ordinary citizen unprecedented opportunity for personal determination of wealth,freedom and mobility, almost overnight, and that is still very much a threat to a certain political class calling the shots here.

I recently returned from a trip to several countries in western Europe. To me the blight on the once beautiful landscape by massive turbines is heartbreaking, but I'll accept that's subjective, some claim to like them

But the energy rationing is like nothing I've ever seen in the 'developed' world, particularly in France, main streets without a single surviving business, and no development allowed on outskirts to replace them either. Logging is stripping once lush forests absolutely within walking distance of towns, which were littered with huge wood piles for burning, sometimes in driveways that once would have had cars in them

We lost power 3 times in different hotels, on a still hot day, & had to pick only cold items from menus...
Most frightening of all is that people seemed to accept all this as the 'new normal'.

Oh wow! Its been twenty five years since I have been to Germany France or England etc. Man the slide there is not a good thing at all. The reason is I feel that way other than the people suffering is that as the population grows more uncomfortable the more easily they are open to the idea of war. Do you think the problem in Germany is caused by wage stagnation etc creating a 'poor' middle class, or something else? Here in Appalachia reminders of the old ways are everywhere and I think this area would have less a problem going back to them. Ok I will burn wood, my home has a fireplace, every other house in this rural area still has a garden, so that wont be too tough, and I will bike to the market, but I refuse to eat possum!

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I remember Jimmy Carter's freeze on gas prices.
Rationing was done by waiting in long long long long lines.
I prefer the free market approach.

I do too love the free market. But how is that possible today? Every country it seem subsidizes everything and so the market is not really free is it? At heart I am an isolationist to the point that I would agree to isolate the entire western hemisphere. Its not the best if ideas but the only one where we will be able to live via our own laws and constitution without being drained by global war and corruption like unfair carbon credits and shucking that agreement that Trump wisely divested us from you know the Kodomoaotatoalachooaidia agreement? My speeling might be a little off (lol)>

; {>

 

[Revoltingest]

I do too love the free market. But how is that possible today? Every country it seem subsidizes everything and so the market is not really free is it? At heart I am an isolationist to the point that I would agree to isolate the entire western hemisphere. Its not the best if ideas but the only one where we will be able to live via our own laws and constitution without being drained by global war and corruption like unfair carbon credits and shucking that agreement that Trump wisely divested us from you know the Kodomoaotatoalachooaidia agreement? My speeling might be a little off (lol)>

; {>

I'm a pragmatist.
Whether something is "free" or not isn't the issue...it's one option relative to another.
So I prefer to ration gas by price than by more wasteful (eg, waiting in lines) or
oppressive (eg, quantity rationing) means.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh wow! Its been twenty five years since I have been to Germany France or England etc. Man the slide there is not a good thing at all. The reason is I feel that way other than the people suffering is that as the population grows more uncomfortable the more easily they are open to the idea of war. Do you think the problem in Germany is caused by wage stagnation etc creating a 'poor' middle class, or something else? Here in Appalachia reminders of the old ways are everywhere and I think this area would have less a problem going back to them. Ok I will burn wood, my home has a fireplace, every other house in this rural area still has a garden, so that wont be too tough, and I will bike to the market, but I refuse to eat possum!

; {>

Wage stagnation yes but the larger factor being ever growing government I would say

It's a good point on Appalachia, they would be among the last survivors of any hardship I think! and likewise where I live in Michigan, there is a tradition of living simply, frugally off your own resources. But it's way colder up here and I've seen some of the similar effects of energy poverty. The air used to be so clean we never had to wash our windows, everyone used cheap plentiful propane, wood fires were used largely for nostalgic atmosphere. As soon as wood became a subsidized renewable energy source, and the price of propane rocketed, chainsaws buzz all summer and the smoke permeates everything. I see more people cycling and walking- not for recreation, but in snow and bitter temperatures. The 'cash for clunkers' scam and rising gas prices put essential 4 wheel drive vehicles beyond the reach of many people.

I grew up with a coal fire keeping the house warm, and at my grandparents- a wood fire was the only way to heat water for washing/bathing. They ate very little other than what they grew and caught themselves, and it was a good life but very hard.

So it's not the end of the world for some, but for those of us who can barely grow a tomato plant or gut a fish... we're scr***ed!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm a pragmatist.
Whether something is "free" or not isn't the issue...it's one option relative to another.
So I prefer to ration gas by price than by more wasteful (eg, waiting in lines) or
oppressive (eg, quantity rationing) means.

why would you want to ration gasoline? did we loose a war?

 

[Revoltingest]

why would you want to ration gasoline? did we loose a war?

In the wonderful world of academic economics, the term "ration" simply
refers to any method for allocating the resource. It's broader than common
usage of "rationing". Damn economists with their goofy arcane lingo!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In the wonderful world of academic economics, the term "ration" simply
refers to any method for allocating the resource. It's broader than common
usage of "rationing". Damn economists with their goofy arcane lingo!

right, 'methods' like rationing..!

why would a free market need 'economists'?

 

[Revoltingest]

right, 'methods' like rationing..!

why would a free market need 'economists'?

For one thing, there are always limits on freedom.
Much thought (more than is done) should go into limitations.
The benefit/cost ratio should be both high & maximized.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

For one thing, there are always limits on freedom.

Often because of people like 'economists' providing justifications for 'rationing' of freedom, don't you think?

Much thought (more than is done) should go into limitations.
The benefit/cost ratio should be both high & maximized.

I agree there, and what better than a free market, to maximize benefit/cost?

 

[Revoltingest]

Often because of people like 'economists' providing justifications for 'rationing' of freedom, don't you think?

Pols will do what pols will do.
Economists aren't the cause.....pols will just hire the economists who provide the justification.

I agree there, and what better than a free market, to maximize benefit/cost?

Oh, bliss!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Pols will do what pols will do.
Economists aren't the cause.....pols will just hire the economists who provide the justification.

True that, the method of economic science is no different than most other fields, start with the conclusion and work backwards. repeat until undeniable

Oh, bliss!

Indeed, and that doesn't make it impossible. I have a slogan for your campaign team:

'Don't call it a dream, call it a plan!'

 

[Revoltingest]

True that, the method of economic science is no different than most other fields, start with the conclusion and work backwards. repeat until undeniable

No, economics (on a large scale) is different because nothing can be disproven.
They cannot conduct experiments.which compare alternatives because there
are uncontrolled complexities.

I've mentioned before that a friend, an avowed socialist, was earning his PhD in
economics. He discovered that small changes in assumptions of his models
yielded strikingly different results. He realized that he was learning much about
the mathematics, but nothing about economics. So he quite the program.

Are there economists who really understand economics? They'd be the
ones making reliable recurring precise predictions borne out by reality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, economics (on a large scale) is different because nothing can be disproven.
They cannot conduct experiments.which compare alternatives because there
are uncontrolled complexities.

Does this stop anthropomorphic climate change being declared undeniably scientific?

I've mentioned before that a friend, an avowed socialist, was earning his PhD in
economics. He discovered that small changes in assumptions of his models
yielded strikingly different results. He realized that he was learning much about
the mathematics, but nothing about economics. So he quite the program.

So again then, there would be no such thing as an economist, (or climastrologer) if they all recognized likewise. These programs, by design, filter out anyone respectiing an objective scientific approach, it ain't hard to do.

Are there economists who really understand economics? They'd be the
ones making reliable recurring precise predictions borne out by reality.

I think there are certainly people who understand economics better than others, better than myself which is not saying much

And yes, they'd be the ones seeing their predictions realized... but moreover, they'd be the ones who actually demonstrated this, by putting their own money where there own opinions were, i.e. not merely academics playing on the carpet with their models, but people in the real world, playing with the real thing.

[/quote]

 

[Revoltingest]

Does this stop anthropomorphic climate change being declared undeniably scientific?

I'm not a climatologist, so I can't speak to the cromulence of those models.
But GW is demonstrable.
Still I venture my opinion that climate modeling is more amenable to computer
modeling than economics, which is more chaotic on the larger scale.

So again then, there would be no such thing as an economist, (or climastrologer) if they all recognized likewise. These programs, by design, filter out anyone respectiing an objective scientific approach, it ain't hard to do.

Climatology is very new as a science capable of long range prediction.
It's predictive value is far from thoroughly tested.

I think there are certainly people who understand economics better than others, better than myself which is not saying much

And yes, they'd be the ones seeing their predictions realized... but moreover, they'd be the ones who actually demonstrated this, by putting their own money where there own opinions were, i.e. not merely academics playing on the carpet with their models, but people in the real world, playing with the real thing.

A problem with economics is that there are differing views.
And politicians will simply cherry pick the ones they like.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not a climatologist, so I can't speak to the cromulence of those models.
But GW is demonstrable.

how so?

Still I venture my opinion that climate modeling is more amenable to computer
modeling than economics, which is more chaotic on the larger scale.

More fairly, they are not models, but simulations of desired outcomes. we can't model Earth's climate, it's arguably the most complex system we know of in the universe. The levels of resolution for a start, molecules V cents- whole different league.

Climatology is very new as a science capable of long range prediction.
It's predictive value is far from thoroughly tested.

But the models have been tested, 70+ of them used by the IPCC, all but one, wildly exaggerated warming over the last couple of decades. How many predicted record low tornado and hurricane activity in the US? How many predicted Earth's largest ice cap expanding quite steadily over that period?

They could not be any more demonstrably useless, in predicting anything but the goals of their programmers.

A problem with economics is that there are differing views.
And politicians will simply cherry pick the ones they like.

True, as with any academic science

 

[Revoltingest]

how so?

Statistics can be gamed, although I think that's not the problem.
We can see confirmation of noticeable planetwide warming at the higher latitudes, eg, melting Greenland glaciers, eroding Alaska coastline.

More fairly, they are not models, but simulations of desired outcomes.

While you have the inside track to their secret motives, I do not.
So I don't presume that desired outcomes are driving the science.
But I do see politicians blindly believing outcomes....but that is
happening in both the pro & anti camps.

we can't model Earth's climate, it's arguably the most complex system we know of in the universe.

I disagree completely. The physics & chemistry aren't as complex as global economic
behavior. The limiting factor so far has been computing power. That is rapidly changing.
The climatological equivalent of finite element analysis engineers use will yield ever
increasingly accurate & testable predictions.
Economic predictions will still be sabotaged by chaotic behavior driven by sporadic events,
eg, war, terrorism, regime change.

The levels of resolution for a start, molecules V cents- whole different league.
But the models have been tested, 70+ of them used by the IPCC, all but one, wildly exaggerated warming over the last couple of decades. How many predicted record low tornado and hurricane activity in the US? How many predicted Earth's largest ice cap expanding quite steadily over that period?
They could not be any more demonstrably useless, in predicting anything but the goals of their programmers.

I agree that the models have been highly flawed so far.
This is inexorably changing IMO.
I base this on similar rapid development in other fields
driven by computing & algorithmic technology.

True, as with any academic science

Some more than others.
We shouldn't lump all branches of science in one large deplorable basket.

 

[siti]

I think there are certainly people who understand economics better than others, better than myself which is not saying much

For once Guy I actually agree with you!

And yes, they'd be the ones seeing their predictions realized... but moreover, they'd be the ones who actually demonstrated this, by putting their own money where there own opinions were, i.e. not merely academics playing on the carpet with their models, but people in the real world, playing with the real thing.

Oh dear! In what sense is money "the real thing"? That is precisely the fallacy that has lead humanity to disaster (repeatedly). Money is not "the real thing" at all - its a dreamworld fantasy about a future that may never happen. I mean that's what money is - a promise of some real thing (commodity, food...whatever) in the future. But what happens if those "real things" don't eventuate or if a lot of people decide to take their "promises" back at face value at the same time? (Clue: 2008).

Anyway, those accomplished "dreamers" who dare to dream big with their own "promises" have unquestionably brought humanity to where it is now - the best educated, most knowledgeable, longest lived, (potentially at least) best fed, best housed, (potentially at least) healthiest and definitely most pampered humans in the entire history of our species - but at what (real) cost? My guess is that my generation will not be paying it...but it will, like all promises, have to be either made good or reneged on sooner or later - and when humanity wakes up and realizes that there is ten times more (dream) money in its accounts than there is (real) stuff to be had...well then I suppose carbon emissions will collapse by themselves...the "market" will - as it is claimed it generally does - "correct" itself and (perhaps) the environment along with it - but it will not be pretty and I am guessing there will be many casualties - not a few in some of the countries you sneeringly listed in an earlier post - but who cares about a few million Africans, Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders - right?!!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh dear! In what sense is money "the real thing"?

I wonder if you could really look a starving African in the eye and tell them that? have you ever been to a 3rd world country? It may not be very important to you, you may consider it terribly 'common' to even worry about such things

But it is literally life and death for millions and their loved ones around the world, still living in those low carbon medieval economies I listed, which never got to enjoy the industrial revolution and massive growth in wealth and standards of living you so take for granted


2008 was hard for me, when people stop buying, employing, investing, this is fear of the future, not the past.

We saw the reverse of the 2008 shock in 2016, when the future suddenly looked brighter, optimism has returned, the wheels are turning again- this makes little real difference to the wealthy elite either way, because they never ran out of food, clothes, shelter

it's the poorest people who desperately needed this to happen

 

[siti]

have you ever been to a 3rd world country?

Have you? I have lived in a third world country for 18 years (and counting). And the poor people in it generally couldn't give a crap about Trump and his "Windy City" Tower (if you catch my drift) - what concerns them is the concrete need for food and clothes and in some cases shelter today, not dream world money in the bank. Of course its true that they do dream of having what "we" westerners take for granted, but they'll happily forego most or all of it for a decent meal or two every day. And when they do get a bit more every now and again when the going is relatively good for the rest of us, do you suppose they raise their palms to heaven and sing "thank Trump for that"? Well I can tell you they do not. Neither do they, by and large, vote for capitalism when they have the chance. Because they already know which side of the inequality divide they will be on no matter how well the economy does and no matter hard they work. Only the relatively well-to-do middle class harbors the dream of becoming wealthy from their own industry - and a few do become wealthy, but most will die still chasing the dream because the dream keeps moving the goal posts - it has to or we'd all be satisfied and there would be little incentive for industriousness. But therein lies the problem - lifting the dream means we lift our expectations, lifting our expectations means we have to lift our output, lifting our output means we have to lift our productivity, lifting our productivity means we lift more carbon from the ground into the atmosphere...there is no question that this is a vicious circle and that there is no conceivable end - like the ouroboros, consuming its own tail. As long the whole thing keeps growing in step with the rate of consumption, fine and dandy, but when the snake's appetite outstrips its ability to put on weight we'll really be in the piggies. And the earth's climate will then readjust itself - bearing in mind that it will have a much smaller population of hairless apes to sustain.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Statistics can be gamed, although I think that's not the problem.
We can see confirmation of noticeable planetwide warming at the higher latitudes, eg, melting Greenland glaciers, eroding Alaska coastline.

and Antarctic sea ice was at record extents just a couple of years ago, so it's just kicked in?

some stats can be gamed much more easily than others, like land based weather stations engulfed by urban development during the lifetime of their records, if they were not showing a significant rise, we'd really have something to worry about

the closest thing we have to reliable data is the satellite record, which show no statistically significant increase

While you have the inside track to their secret motives, I do not.
So I don't presume that desired outcomes are driving the science.
But I do see politicians blindly believing outcomes....but that is
happening in both the pro & anti camps.

it's hardly secret, IPCC 'expert reviewers' like 'women for climate justice' and various green industry investors and activist groups, openly declare their 'solutions' as desirable goals in and of themselves, many openly admit that exaggerating threats is justified, if that's what it takes to achieve these noble goals.

I disagree completely. The physics & chemistry aren't as complex as global economic
behavior. The limiting factor so far has been computing power. That is rapidly changing.
The climatological equivalent of finite element analysis engineers use will yield ever
increasingly accurate & testable predictions.
Economic predictions will still be sabotaged by chaotic behavior driven by sporadic events,
eg, war, terrorism, regime change.

As in your economics PhD example, they both suffer the inherent instability of any model that relies 100% on feedback loops, not direct empirical cause and effect, tiny tweaks can spit out any result you like.

There is no empirical link between a couple extra molecules CO2 in 10000 air, and significant heat trapping- the Ordovician ice age had 10 times our CO2 'pollution'. Our GH effect is primarily driven by water vapor, as is any computer simulation that claims to predict significant warming. Our CO2 contribution cannot trap nearly enough itself, not even climastrologers claim this, only journalists and politicians

I agree that the models have been highly flawed so far.
This is inexorably changing IMO.
I base this on similar rapid development in other fields
driven by computing & algorithmic technology.

I can guarantee you that they will always make the same prediction they always have, that climate disaster is about 10-20 years away unless we start handing over wealth and rights immediately. Because 5 is implausible and 30 is too long to care- 10-20 has the maximum desired scare effect. that's the only practical calculation going on here.

Meanwhile the current average is a couple of degrees cooler than it was when the same prediction was made 20 years ago

A stopped watch is right twice a day as they say, but there is no reason to expect this to ever happen

Tell me what you are most afraid of, what do you think will happen if politicians allow citizens access to cheap energy and personal mobility?