Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites   Post new thread Poll:
Author: Subject: Climate change--what baseline
scholar
Knowledge of Ages
*******


Avatar


Posts: 32400
Registered: 14-10-2004
Location: Illinois
Theme: KF Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline

Mood: pensive

[*] Post 511501 posted on 13-2-2018 at 02:18 Reply With Quote
Climate change--what baseline



Article here, titled "Climate Change Just Got a Little Less Terrible"

The article's main point is that people who believe that man-made CO2 is causing global warming come to very different conclusions depending on the baseline they use for emissions (e.g. how much coal would be burned if it were not restrained by policy actions, how much oil, how much natural gas). Trends have been away from burning coal, and somewhat away from burning oil, and more toward burning natural gas. If the trends continue, coal and oil will put out less CO2, even without policy decisions to push toward that goal.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
JackInCT
Custom User Title
*******




Posts: 1703
Registered: 21-4-2007
Theme: KF Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] Post 511502 posted on 13-2-2018 at 04:37 Reply With Quote


Baseline data is a tool.

Much more important is the widespread differences in human behavior that for no better reason than a whim can "believe" in the most negative, OR the most positive "study", and then translate that belief into action, OR inaction.

A good current example is the drought in South Africa. How bad is bad, & what does the future hold/not hold depends on what media article that you happen to come across, especially one that "predicts" 'the water tap can run dry'. Or to put that headline in another way, 'don't say that you weren't warned'.

There are water restriction usages in place, but I didn't take the time to "research" enforcement mechanisms, and "consequences" for non-compliance.

Doomsday scenarios always make for good press. But history is littered with large scale disasters especially famine, flood, disease, and possibly meteor impacts.

The South African situation puts great stress on its social fabric, especially in a simmering feud between the 'strict' conservationists and the casual compliers, and how one can go about "detecting" what camp any one household falls in. In effect there is some level of vigilante snooping, and if things go downhill, quite possibly "street justice". Nothing tests the 'thin veneer of civilization' like a prediction of a possible looming disaster AKA panic.

I go back to the OPEC created gas shortages of the 70's and what kinds of behaviors/attitudes/etc., that extended shortage created (or perhaps better characterized as brought to the surface). I seem to recall that in some quarters, and it would be impossible to accurately measure (as opposed to just blowing off steam) that there was sentiment for the USA to invade Saudi Arabia. The morality of an invasion for a resource that we didn't own didn't seem to matter to some folks.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
John_Little
Chads-r-us...
*******


Avatar


Posts: 10939
Registered: 20-12-2007
Location: Sarf East Lundun
Theme: KF Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline

Mood: Confused

[*] Post 511503 posted on 13-2-2018 at 09:57 Reply With Quote


You don't need to get all academic about it. The evidence is empirical.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
Post new thread Poll:

Guest Notice
You are a guest, as a guest you can only see a maximum of 3 posts per thread.

If you want to see the rest, please click here to register.