Australian Politics Forum - The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15644
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #90 - Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm

lee wrote on Nov 25^th, 2021 at 2:38pm:

That's not what it said. Don't paraphrase you are hopeless at it. If it was virgin forest there has never been afire there. Roll Eyes

Definition of "virgin forest"? How about 'not cleared by Man'....

Quote:

"Rare' is not the same as "never happens"

Yet increasing frequency, caused by AGW, of the formerly rare event, is what we are talking about.

Quote:

And yet you can't cite one paper showing this harm. Theorising isn't evidence.

The tobacco industry is collapsing under the weight of evidence, same for the filth fossil industry.

Quote:

And yet you haven't cited where I denied climate or even global warming. As opposed to AGW and especially CAGW

"Climate denier" is my short-hand for AGW denier and has always been my usage in this debate, as you well know.

(like "fossils" means...you know...)

Quote:

And yet you can't cite one paper that shows this harm

Statistical studies show nothing.

Tell that to the authorities who are closing down tobacco, and banning fossil ICEs in congested traffic areas in high density cities.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 60412
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #91 - Nov 26^th, 2021 at 1:15pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:20pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 21^st, 2021 at 12:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 10:48pm:

In other words:

Blah Blah Blah.

Duck brain's intelligence doesn't run to anything more than this. And this was an effort for him.

I had a bet with myself

And who won? With schizophrenia, you are never alone...

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:20pm:

..that you wouldn't understand even this.

Looks like I won

.

Lucky ducky!!

Bbwian - you are dethroned!! tsk, tsk Roll Eyes

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 62252
Here
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #92 - Nov 26^th, 2021 at 1:37pm

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 1:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:20pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 21^st, 2021 at 12:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 10:48pm:

In other words:

Blah Blah Blah.

Duck brain's intelligence doesn't run to anything more than this. And this was an effort for him.

I had a bet with myself

And who won? With schizophrenia, you are never alone...

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 6:20pm:

..that you wouldn't understand even this.

Looks like I won

.

Lucky ducky!!

Bbwian - you are dethroned!! tsk, tsk Roll Eyes

Blah Blah Frank Blah.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21500
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #93 - Nov 26^th, 2021 at 2:29pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

Definition of "virgin forest"? How about 'not cleared by Man'....

How about "not shown"? Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

Yet increasing frequency, caused by AGW, of the formerly rare event, is what we are talking about.

So where exactly is it "increasing"? Data? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

The tobacco industry is collapsing under the weight of evidence, same for the filth fossil industry.

Where is the fossil fuel "collapsing" Data?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

"Climate denier" is my short-hand for AGW denier and has always been my usage in this debate, as you well know.

Nope. a new age revisionist. So what "evidence" is there of AGW? Peer-reviewed of course. Not climate models they rely on the underpinning assumptions. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

(like "fossils" means...you know...)

Fossils are climate? Oh dear.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 12:52pm:

Tell that to the authorities who are closing down tobacco, and banning fossil ICEs in congested traffic areas in high density cities.

I haven't queried things you have said on tobacco. Strawman .

Exactly how many of the world's authorities have banned ICE vehicles. Not "will ban" "currently banned" Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15644
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #94 - Nov 27^th, 2021 at 11:01am

lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2021 at 2:29pm:

I haven't queried things you have said on tobacco. Strawman

.

Good - so you have credibility on tobacco at least

Quote:

Exactly how many of the world's authorities have banned ICE vehicles. Not "will ban" "currently banned"

Like tobacco in the past, fossil ICE bans will take time to implement. However:

"Countries with proposed bans or implementing 100% sales of zero-emissions vehicles include China, Japan, the UK, South Korea, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, the 12 U.S. states that adhered to California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program"

Bye bye fossils.....

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21500
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #95 - Nov 27^th, 2021 at 12:20pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Good - so you have credibility on tobacco at least

Wow. That didn't take you long did it? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 11:01am:

Like tobacco in the past, fossil ICE bans will take time to implement. However:

"Countries with proposed bans or implementing 100% sales of zero-emissions vehicles include China, Japan, the UK, South Korea, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, the 12 U.S. states that adhered to California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program"

So the answer is NONE. Thank you. They may be targets. But politics means targets move. A stroke of the pen. Wink

Poor petal An AGW agnostic who labels others deniers. Grin

And no data for you mental perambulations. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15644
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #96 - Nov 27^th, 2021 at 1:59pm

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 12:20pm:

So the answer is NONE. Thank you. They may be targets. But politics means targets move. A stroke of the pen.

Oh dear, not only are you an AGW denier, you deny reality itself... as if governments will reverse all these plans; you are beginning to look like the knight in the Monty Python spoof.

Quote:

Poor petal An AGW agnostic who labels others deniers

Addressed above.

Quote:

And no data for you mental perambulations.

Still unconcerned by your missing limbs?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21500
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #97 - Nov 27^th, 2021 at 2:35pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

Oh dear, not only are you an AGW denier, you deny reality itself..

Oh dear. So much for being a climate agnostic. One who doesn't know whether it is true or not. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

as if governments will reverse all these plans; you are beginning to look like the knight in the Monty Python spoof.

Once governments actually get to look at the cost of increasing the grid for the much greater demand, there will likely be a huge drop-off. Wink

But perhaps MMT can fix it. After all the proponents are part of those that doesn't know how the economy really works. Grin

.

.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15644
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #98 - Nov 28^th, 2021 at 10:55am

lee wrote on Nov 27^th, 2021 at 2:35pm:

Oh dear. So much for being a climate agnostic. One who doesn't know whether it is true or not.

Which is more in touch with reality? Agnostic or denier?

If AGW is real, obviously the agnostic is closer to reality than the denier who will eventually be forced to accept reality.
If AGW is not real, the agnostic will have no trouble accepting reality if it is proved that AGW is not real (highly unlikely possibility).

Quote:

Once governments actually get to look at the cost of increasing the grid for the much greater demand, there will likely be a huge drop-off.

There you go again, banging on about the cost. There is no cost apart from opportunity costs, if AGW is real and we have no choice but to close filthy fossils (...and central banks have to buy the fossil industry, to save the global financial system - not to mention civilization itself).

And apart from AGW, a clean healthy atmosphere which will be regained when filthy fossils are closed is....priceless.

Quote:

But perhaps MMT can fix it. After all the proponents are part of those that doesn't know how the economy really works.

MMTers are the only ones who can take a pragmatic approach to macroeconomic reality; certainly the NYT editor who made the comment that "no-one really knows how the economy works" was referring the the various stripes of economic orthodoxy in which no two orthodox economists will agree on anything.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21500
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #99 - Nov 28^th, 2021 at 11:40am

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 10:55am:

Which is more in touch with reality? Agnostic or denier?

And yet you haven't shown me to be an AGW denier. So really you are just a semi-normal pro-AGWer, but without the guts to admit it. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 10:55am:

There you go again, banging on about the cost. There is no cost apart from opportunity costs, if AGW is real and we have no choice but to close filthy fossils (...and central banks have to buy the fossil industry, to save the global financial system - not to mention civilization itself).

Oh dear if it is real? OK. IF it is real - how bad is it? Please show a peer-reviewed study that shows the amount of change entirely due to changing GHG's. We know it is not runaway AGW. Wink

Oh noes. Now that evil CO2 is an existential threat to civilisation. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 10:55am:

MMTers are the only ones who can take a pragmatic approach to macroeconomic reality; certainly the NYT editor who made the comment that "no-one really knows how the economy works" was referring the the various stripes of economic orthodoxy in which no two orthodox economists will agree on anything.

There you go again banging on about MMT again. But it apparently is a magic cure-all.

So do MMT'ers all agree on every aspect of economic theory or do they differ? Wink

BTW- Did you know it was an economist who decided 2C increase was bad? The IPCC decided on 1.5C because it wasn't changing fast enough.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 28^th, 2021 at 11:45am by lee »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15644
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #100 - Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 11:40am:

And yet you haven't shown me to be an AGW denier. So really you are just a semi-normal pro-AGWer, but without the guts to admit it.

Er... you say the AGW science, as presented by the IPCC is flawed. By definition, an AGW denier.

OTOH, agnosticism is merely an admission that the relevant (scientific) claims are beyond one's own expertise, to make a determination, nothing to do with courage. ...though I can understand your frustration with my AGW agnosticism, since it means you can't attack me re the validity of AGW science, which you have already decided is flawed.

Quote:

Oh dear if it is real? OK. IF it is real - how bad is it?

Dunno, don't particularly care; what I want is clean healthy air to breathe, and free electricity (based on sun and wind) which will transform the global economy and eradicate poverty (while we wait for the possible mastery of nuclear fusion technology).

And like I said previously, if runaway AGW IS real, the transition to renewables will represent the greatest win for the environment and ecology in history, along with global poverty eradication.

Quote:

Please show a peer-reviewed study that shows the amount of change entirely due to changing GHG's. We know it is not runaway AGW. Wink

You know that do you? Good for you , I'm concerned with more important issues like a healthy atmosphere and free electricity (from sun and wind).

OTOH, if run-away AGW is real (as recent weird global climate events suggest, along with glaciers disappearing at higher than expected rates (so the IPCC says, I admit I haven't checked the claims of the IPCC, can't be bothered as you should know by now, because AGW deniers will just claim the IPCC research is wrong), if all that is real, we all have to deal with it.

Quote:

Oh noes. Now that evil CO2 is an existential threat to civilisation.

So the IPCC says; a 2.7 degree C. increase on global temp over pre-industrial levels by 2050, caused by CO2 emissions...game over. (I know it's a bad rap for 'innocent' (non-poisonous) CO2, but there it is).

Quote:

There you go again banging on about MMT again. But it apparently is a magic cure-all.

We will see. Orthodox economists are hanging onto the market-based 'price-signalling' cabon tax solution to manage the transition from fossils to renewables, but such an approach might prove to be too slow....and too conflicted, with nations pointing fingers at one-another (causing an uncomprehending Alok Sharma to shed tears at Glasgow...)

Quote:

So do MMT'ers all agree on every aspect of economic theory or do they differ? Wink

Professors Mitchell, Wray, and Randall released the first MMT tertiary level textbook last year. Any disagreement among lay commentators on social media can be ignored, unlike the disagreement among professional mainstream economists who are disagreeing at the highest levels of
academia.

Quote:

BTW- Did you know it was an economist who decided 2C increase was bad? The IPCC decided on 1.5C because it wasn't changing fast enough.

No, I didn't know that...one might say, so what?

In any case, mainstream economists can be ignored, because they don't know how the economy works, least of all the climate.

OTOH, MMT allows an empirical discovery of the sweet spot - ie, to achieve the best balance between the efficiency of resource allocation in markets driven by private sector greed, and desirable social outcomes via public sector policy choices (only possible when the public sector is not forced to tax or borrow from a reluctant private sector).

What I know is poverty cannot be eradicated in 'invisible hand' market economies ALONE.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:59pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21500
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #101 - Nov 28^th, 2021 at 3:20pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

Er... you say the AGW science, as presented by the IPCC is flawed. By definition, an AGW denier.

ONLY if the IPCC is correct. Computer models don't tell anything. There are too many parameters. They don't do clouds well, a new paper on aerosols, if true, shows that the modellers have that wrong as well.

But you are such an agnostic you defer to them. Grin

AKA as "Appeal to Authority". Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

OTOH, agnosticism is merely an admission that the relevant (scientific) claims are beyond one's own expertise, to make a determination, nothing to do with courage. ...though I can understand your frustration with my AGW agnosticism, since it means you can't attack me re the validity of AGW science, which you have already decided is flawed.

I have decided it is flawed based on my own research. Computer models all the way down.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

Dunno, don't particularly care; what I want is clean healthy air to breathe, and free electricity (based on sun and wind) which will transform the global economy and eradicate poverty (while we wait for the possible mastery of nuclear fusion technology).

You have unicorns in your garden. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

And like I said previously, if runaway AGW IS real, the transition to renewables will represent the greatest win for the environment and ecology in history, along with global poverty eradication.

Runaway AGW is not real. It is based on the unreal RCP (nowSSP)8.5. Even the IPCC says that is highly unlikely.

"SSP5-8.5 very high GHG emissions (highly unlikely):
CO2 emissions triple by 2075 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

I'm concerned with more important issues like a healthy atmosphere and free electricity (from sun and wind).

Ah yes Free as in the government pays for it. Wink

BTW - You mentioned earlier about rooftop solar. You didn't respond as to whether the government would install/replace them for free also.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

OTOH, if run-away AGW is real (as recent weird global climate events suggest, along with glaciers disappearing at higher than expected rates (so the IPCC says, I admit I haven't checked the claims of the IPCC, can't be bothered as you should know by now, because AGW deniers will just claim the IPCC research is wrong), if all that is real, we all have to deal with it.

And yet you have provided no reference for these "global wierdings". I even quoted excerpts from IPCC AR6 chapter11 to you.

"Floods - In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies, and large modelling uncertainties.

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.5.4

Droughts - There is medium confidence in the ability of ESMs to simulate trends and anomalies in precipitation deficits and AED, and also medium confidence in the ability of ESMs and hydrological models to simulate trends and anomalies in soil moisture and streamflow deficits, on global and regional scales

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.6.3.6"

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_11.pdf

You did mention German Floods and I responded with earlier dates to show it has happened before. And also China - read up on the Great China Flood 1931.

You can't be bothered to look because you want to say stuff without correction. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

So the IPCC says; a 2.7 degree C. increase on global temp over pre-industrial levels by 2050, caused by CO2 emissions...game over. (I know it's a bad rap for 'innocent' (non-poisonous) CO2, but there it is).

You are conflating things. The National Determined Contributions could lead to a temperature risee of 2.7C BY 2100

https://unfccc.int/news/full-ndc-synthesis-report-some-progress-but-still-a-big-...

And the "catastrophic" part wasn't in the IPCC report. That was the UN chief.thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

Professors Mitchell, Wray, and Randall released the first MMT tertiary level textbook last year. Any disagreement among lay commentators on social media can be ignored, unlike the disagreement among professional mainstream economists who are disagreeing at the highest levels of academia.

So they don't all agree. Thanks for that. Much like orthodox economists. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

No, I didn't know that...one might say, so what?

It puts the 1.5C to 2.7C in a new light. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

OTOH, MMT allows an empirical discovery of the sweet spot

How many years and how many economies to find this alleged sweet spot?

Cheap reliable electricity is the biggest factor. Not renewables.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15644
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #102 - Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 3:20pm:

ONLY if the IPCC is correct. Computer models don't tell anything. There are too many parameters. They don't do clouds well, a new paper on aerosols, if true, shows that the modellers have that wrong as well.

But you are such an agnostic you defer to them.
AKA as "Appeal to Authority".

No, I am the agnostic, I defer to no-one on AGW; I have been at pains to make that clear. But if they are correct....

Quote:

I have decided it is flawed based on my own research. Computer models all the way down.

OK.

Quote:

You have unicorns in your garden.

And that comment shows you can't or won't debate the issue of clean atmosphere and the 'cost' of achieving it.

Quote:

Runaway AGW is not real. It is based on the unreal RCP (nowSSP)8.5. Even the IPCC says that is highly unlikely.

"SSP5-8.5 very high GHG emissions (highly unlikely):
CO2 emissions triple by 2075 "

hooookaaaay.....so just as I thought, very tricky to tie down...

Quote:

Ah yes Free as in the government pays for it. Wink

Actually, free.... as in the required government-managed mobilization of available resources; money is immaterial for a currency-issuer.

Quote:

BTW - You mentioned earlier about rooftop solar. You didn't respond as to whether the government would install/replace them for free also.

I must have missed that. Here is one of many proposals:

"[i]The South Australian Government is fulfilling its promise to provide more affordable, reliable and secure energy by launching a solar battery subsidy scheme which is offering $100 million in State Government subsidies for up to 40,000 South Australian households to install battery storage in their homes."

Another scheme involves a private company installing solar plus battery, paid for by the company up front, and paid off by the householder (don't know the details)

Replacement via means testing, perhaps? (eg low income households' systems replaced for free).

But not everyone has suitable location available for solar (trees, shade from buildings etc).

Personally I prefer nationalization of the grid, and free electricity up to a reasonable (metered) limit.

Quote:

And yet you have provided no reference for these "global wierdings". I even quoted excerpts from IPCC AR6 chapter11 to you.

I know the IPCC is indicating the need to act, to avoid climate (AGW-based?) catastrophes of the sort we have seen in the last decade. The UN is very concerned; Guterres turned up at Glasgow.

Quote:

"Floods - In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies, and large modelling uncertainties.

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.5.4

Flooding of course isn't only related to high river flows; local heavy rainfall - as seen in Germany and China this year - is also a factor

Quote:

Droughts - There is medium confidence in the ability of ESMs to simulate trends and anomalies in precipitation deficits and AED, and also medium confidence in the ability of ESMs and hydrological models to simulate trends and anomalies in soil moisture and streamflow deficits, on global and regional scales

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.6.3.6"

"Medium confidence"? Does that mean we can take a chance and do nothing?

Quote:

You did mention German Floods and I responded with earlier dates to show it has happened before. And also China - read up on the Great China Flood 1931.

You can't be bothered to look because you want to say stuff without correction.

I'm more than willing to be corrected, especially on issues that concern me. As for AGW, I'll let you fight it out with the IPCC.

Quote:

You are conflating things. The National Determined Contributions could lead to a temperature risee of 2.7C BY 2100

And the "catastrophic" part wasn't in the IPCC report. That was the UN chief.

OK; but 2.7C by 2100 would be catastrophic, right?

Quote:

So they don't all agree. Thanks for that. Much like orthodox economists.

Did you miss "layman" as opposed to "professor"?

I see some argument over the JG on social media, among people who are not professors of MMT.

Quote:

It puts the 1.5C to 2.7C in a new light.

Not when we have the possibility to run the global economy on free sun and wind.

Quote:

How many years and how many economies to find this alleged sweet spot?

Starting with the implementation of the above-poverty Job Guarantee, the sweet spot can be achieved more or less immediately, because public funding ceases to be the problem; coordination of public and private sector choices re resource mobilization becomes the problem...all the while, poverty has been eradicated overnight (in rich countries like Oz, at least).

Quote:

Cheap reliable electricity is the biggest factor. Not renewables.

Question: when will renewables plus storage be cheaper than NEW coal?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-12/is-renewable-power-cheaper-than-coal-nuclear-malcolm-turnbull/11495558

"Malcolm Turnbull says renewables plus storage are cheaper than coal and nuclear for new power generation. Is he correct?". ABC fact-check verdict: "Fair Call"

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:38pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21500
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #103 - Nov 28^th, 2021 at 7:21pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

And that comment shows you can't or won't debate the issue of clean atmosphere and the 'cost' of achieving it.

It is not my concern. This is an environment forum not an economics forum. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

hooookaaaay.....so just as I thought, very tricky to tie down...

The available science doesn't show it. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

I know the IPCC is indicating the need to act, to avoid climate (AGW-based?) catastrophes of the sort we have seen in the last decade.

And yet you can't cite ONE attributed to AGW/CC.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

The UN is very concerned; Guterres turned up at Glasgow.

The UN not the IPCC? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

Flooding of course isn't only related to high river flows; local heavy rainfall - as seen in Germany and China this year - is also a factor

The local heavy rainfall was 4 inches to 6 inches over 1 days. That is not really heavy, merely persistent.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

"Medium confidence"? Does that mean we can take a chance and do nothing?

No we pay billions in MMT to make it better. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

OK; but 2.7C by 2100 would be catastrophic, right?

Why? Is it nighttime temperature, daytime temperature. average temperature? What catastrophe would arise?
Edit: Average Global temperature. We do not live in the average globe. The poles are supposed to warm faster followed by the temperate zones. Unfortunately the Antarctic isn't playing from that hymnbook.

You mentioned Glaciers earlier - a new paper says they started melting at the start of the 20th century. That is well before AGW. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

Did you miss "layman" as opposed to "professor"?

No. You said "unlike the disagreement among professional mainstream economists who are disagreeing at the highest levels of academia.". I merely took that to mean even MMTers are not in total agreement. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

Not when we have the possibility to run the global economy on free sun and wind.

And yet it has not been achieved in any modern manufacturing society. But you want Africa to be the test bed. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

Starting with the implementation of the above-poverty Job Guarantee, the sweet spot can be achieved more or less immediately, because public funding ceases to be the problem; coordination of public and private sector choices re resource mobilization becomes the problem...all the while, poverty has been eradicated overnight (in rich countries like Oz, at least).

All this based on what? Inflation free spending? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 5:28pm:

Question: when will renewables plus storage be cheaper than NEW coal?

That depends on how cheap the storage is. 900 million dollars for 30 minutes isn't good. Wink

Malcolm Turnbull? He is now a physicist? Grin

BTW - "Geen" hydrogen -made from solar which is about 30% capacity factor, Wind about 35% capacity factor making hydrogen at 40% efficiency? not likely.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 28^th, 2021 at 8:10pm by lee »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15644
Gender: male

Re: The COP26 Failure And More Blah, Blah, Blah
Reply #104 - Nov 29^th, 2021 at 3:20pm

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2021 at 7:21pm:

It is not my concern. This is an environment forum not an economics forum'

Maybe, but as you know, I think it should be an economics matter, and a free electricity matter, and not a CO2 emissions matter. So I guess we don't have much left to debate, if you insist it's an "environment" matter, and yet are not concerned by the matter of a clean healthy atmosphere, somewhat contradicting yourself, by limiting "environment" to concerns around CO2 emissions.

So only a few remaining points of concern for me, while you continue with your 'anti - anti - (!) CO2 emissions' crusade.

Quote:

No we pay billions in MMT to make it better.

No, we mobilize resources as required, to "make it better". Money is immaterial for a currency issuer.

Quote:

I merely took that to mean even MMTers are not in total agreement

Well, you misunderstood; Bill Mitchell has written the 1st MMT textbook, released last year. Laypeople and students will learn, as this textbook becomes established in tertiary education schools.

Quote:

And yet (100% renewables) has not been achieved in any modern manufacturing society. But you want Africa to be the test bed

What I want is the BIS (central bank of central banks) to fund the green infrastructure build around the globe, including Africa. All continents have access to most of the materials required.

Quote:

All this based on what? Inflation free spending?

Correct

. .....remembering that for a currency-issuer, the inflation constraint is a resource-availability issue, not a money-availability issue. Get it now?

Quote:

That depends on how cheap the storage is. 900 million dollars for 30 minutes isn't good.

"Snowy Hydro 2.0 will store so much energy that — technically at least — it could supply two gigawatts of power for days. "

Impressive, (even though the number of days is not specified), especially since it too will be connected to the Pilbara which boasts an average 10 hours of sunshine per day, annually

And pumped hydro storage is by far the less resource intensive ("cheapest") long-term renewables storage.

Quote:

Malcolm Turnbull? He is now a physicist?

No, but like Howard he is an AGW believer (unusual among Coalition leaders) , thereby uniting with my support for a clean healthy atmosphere.

Quote:

BTW - "Green" hydrogen -made from solar which is about 30% capacity factor, Wind about 35% capacity factor making hydrogen at 40% efficiency? not likely.

Irrelevant; eg efficiency of an ICE is c.20%, and we have lived with that for a century.

Back to top

IP Logged