Vatican Encyclical on Climate Change

[nwdiver]

The simple answer is they can't, any more than if the wind tax-credit becomes 20X, or 30X, rather than just 6 times as large as what Exelon is proposing. Robert, I am not sure I understand how nuclear is the "victim of market economics", here? If we assumed an even price for carbon dioxide, and not the inequitable one implied by wind (PTC), and solar (ITC), wouldn't we arrive closer to "market economics"?

.... are you under the impression that nuclear is dying because subsidies are helping its competition? That doesn't seem to be borne out by reality...

Vogtle just got a 1.8B loan

Reading your previous posts you seem incredibly pessimistic on the potential of solar PV... I don't mean to be condescending... I know engineers that have made this mistake... You understand that a smallish 5kW system doesn't produce 5kWh/day.... right? I've spoken to engineers at work that dismissed solar energy for YEARS due to a simple misunderstanding.

"My house uses 1500kWh/mo.... how is a 10kW system going to help?" - Anonymous nuclear engineer co-worker

Well..... a 10kW system produces ~1800kWh/mo on average.... so there's that....

The whole kW vs kWh thing seems to trip A LOT of people up... even people with a technical background.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The discussion of the economics of nuclear vs. solar/wind/etc belongs over in the nuclear thread.

My read of the encyclical's position on nuclear is that it's informed by social justice and nuclear proliferation concerns. The Pope wants to see the third world get fully electrified, and nuclear is not how that will happen.

 

[neroden]

Really!!?? You are going to stop there? Why stop now? I am religious. I am mostly Republican but I tend toward the right end of the Republican spectrum. I think climate change is largely a cyclic phenomenon, one that I am not worried about or in fear of, but to say that I am "easily duped believing fictitious things on multiple levels"

Yep, you are easily duped, and believing fictitious things on multiple levels. YOU JUST ADMITTED IT.

*sigh*. It's not a personal attack. It's said in sorrow, not anger. It's sad that you're letting yourself be duped.

Global warming and ocean acidifation are happening; they've been measured. They're caused by burning fossil fuels (and to a lesser extent by deforestation); so pretty much entirely caused by human activities. Everyone who's bothered to look at the evidence knows this. They're dangerous because they disrupt the viable range for the plants and animals we eat (ocean and land). Also simply a known fact. 99.9% of published papers (and there are tens of thousands of them, all based on actual data) agree.

 

[nwdiver]

Is it because you are not secure enough in your scientific evidence?

We literally know more about Climate Change aka Anthropogenic Global Warming aka AGW than we do about gravity;

Which fact to you think is untrue? 1) CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started 2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise 3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

Citations available upon request :wink:

 

[adiggs]

We literally know more about Climate Change aka Anthropogenic Global Warming aka AGW than we do about gravity;

Which fact to you think is untrue? 1) CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started 2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise 3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

Citations available upon request :wink:

And maybe most importantly, and the part that clinches the deal for me @Chipper, do you believe in an alternative hypothesis strongly enough to test what happens to planet Earth at higher and higher CO2 levels?

Which side of that bet do you really want to be on? I'd much rather act as if AGW is for sure, and go about lowering CO2 and changing how we produce and consume energy, and then later have it turn out that sure enough, we can dig up all the dead dinosaurs we want and burn them, and it won't make a lick of difference to the world, than act as if AGW still isn't proven and not take action, and then later be wrong but its late to do anything than party like its the end of the world.

 

[nwdiver]

And maybe most importantly, and the part that clinches the deal for me @Chipper, do you believe in an alternative hypothesis strongly enough to test what happens to planet Earth at higher and higher CO2 levels?

Which side of that bet do you really want to be on? I'd much rather act as if AGW is for sure, and go about lowering CO2 and changing how we produce and consume energy, and then later have it turn out that sure enough, we can dig up all the dead dinosaurs we want and burn them, and it won't make a lick of difference to the world, than act as if AGW still isn't proven and not take action, and then later be wrong but its late to do anything than party like its the end of the world.

Nature has performed that experiment... we call it Venus.

Exactly... that's what's known as the precautionary principle. We can never be 100% certain of ANYTHING but the consequences of AGW are so high that even if we're 'only' 99.999 % certain the precautionary principle dictates that we MUST act unless CO2 can be shown to NOT cause warming.

 

[abasile]

I appreciated this interview with Katherine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who is also an evangelical Christian:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/fai...are_a_smokescreen_that_mask_the_real_problem/

 

[adiggs]

Thanks for posting that @abasile - that's probably the clearest representation of climate change and changing the discussion in a healthy way that I've ever seen.

 

[ggies07]

I appreciated this interview with Katherine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who is also an evangelical Christian:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/fai...are_a_smokescreen_that_mask_the_real_problem/

Great article, thanks for sharing! I really had not viewed the problem in this way and really liked this part of the article:

So if anybody has a chance to ask any politician a question, the question you want to ask in the primaries coming up, for example, you don’t want to ask, ”Do you believe in climate change?” as if it were a new religion, because they’re going to say no. What you want to say is, “What are your conservative free-market solutions to climate change?” “What are your solutions?”—so you’re reframing the debate. We’re saying, “You are in place to give a solution. You may not be in a position to give us the science, but you are in a position to give a solution. What are your solutions?” Because that’s the question we need to be asking.

 

[nwdiver]

So if anybody has a chance to ask any politician a question, the question you want to ask in the primaries coming up, for example, you don’t want to ask, ”Do you believe in climate change?” as if it were a new religion, because they’re going to say no. What you want to say is, “What are your conservative free-market solutions to climate change?” “What are your solutions?”—so you’re reframing the debate. We’re saying, “You are in place to give a solution. You may not be in a position to give us the science, but you are in a position to give a solution. What are your solutions?” Because that’s the question we need to be asking.

Agreed; Climate Change is a fact.... we need to frame it as such in our discussions... the right questions isn't 'Do you believe in climate change'; it's 'What's your solution?'