The Environment

4skers89 said:
The film was interesting because of what the guy found out about solar, wind and how biofuel plants are the thing now.  If you look at the equation for CO2 emissions, it uses energy unit per person, CO2 per energy unit, etc... but the first term is P (population) so it's hard to ignore if climate change theory is to be believed. 

Activists say global warming is backed up by SCIENCE which means people created a bunch of models.  COVID is a good example of the reliability of models.
Click to expand...
Amazing that you managed to both put forth how population matters based on  a mathematical model for CO2 emissions and implied models are worthless in the same post.

twisted-up.jpg


 
4skers89 said:
The film was interesting because of what the guy found out about solar, wind and how biofuel plants are the thing now.  If you look at the equation for CO2 emissions, it uses energy unit per person, CO2 per energy unit, etc... but the first term is P (population) so it's hard to ignore if climate change theory is to be believed.  I do think there is a lot of groupthink on global warming and one prominent environmentalist has came out and apologized for his role in creating the hysteria. Activists say global warming is backed up by SCIENCE which means people created a bunch of models.  COVID is a good example of the reliability of models.  I almost went to graduate school under a professor whose decades worth of work was discredited due to a mathematical error in his early papers.  That was a far more rigorous field that could be backed up by math, climate SCIENCE is not.  Recently Al Gore made a comment about the ozone hole scare being a trial run for global warming.  That was a blast from the past and people started asking whatever happened to the ozone hole?  Turns out it hadn't really changed and they suspect countries (China) are still using the old freon.  Trump was right to pull out of the Paris agreement.  All countries should be held to the same standards since it's a global problem. If all countries can't abide by the same standards then it must not be that big of an issue.  Alarm bells go off when activists contend that wealth redistribution is necessary to solve climate change.  We need to dial back the hysteria and consider the options.  Activists tend to advocate the most difficult and painful solutions and like most on the left, are historically wrong.  I'm a proponent of nuclear energy which solves the problem.  I think that's a good test for activists.  If they reject a reasonable solution then maybe climate change isn't that severe. The problem with population control is something you hear anytime you watch the news- economy grew by ... which means either population grew or consumption increased.  Some countries use immigration as a lazy way to grow their economy.  If economies aren't growing, neither are investments, on average.  I'm a conservative and there is a finite amount of fossil fuels which are irreplaceable in construction, farm and large transportation equipment.  If there is a reasonable way to conserve fossil fuel with an alternate power source for cars and trucks then I'm all for it.  The alternative needs to be honestly evaluated and all factors considered.  I think the film made the point about solar when you figured out the amount of energy required to produce them you might as well just used the conventional energy in the first place.  It's kind of like recycling.  It doesn't conserve resources when all things are considered and it's only benefit being it makes people feel better since they believe they are doing something good.
Click to expand...
You need to learn to break up you're arguements into paragraphs. 

It also seems you really don't understand how data modeling works or why they're used. Models try to predict outcomes based on assumptions.

In the case of COVID, models were created which assumed stay at home orders (or none), mask use (or none), or any other variety of factors. We can easily see where countries or states implemented mitigation efforts, their case counts went how models predicted they would. The reverse is true for areas that implemented few efforts. 

You also cited climate change as a 'theory', as if to say it's questionable. A 'theory' in science is not what you think it means. My favorite scientific 'theory' is The Theory of Gravity. I'm also a big fan of Germ Theory. 

Honestly, there's so much wrong with your post that are so inaccurate it's not worth the time since your mind won't be changed. 

 
RedDenver said:
Amazing that you managed to both put forth how population matters based on  a mathematical model for CO2 emissions and implied models are worthless in the same post.

twisted-up.jpg
Click to expand...
That looks painful so I'll help you out.  The equation is a simple one of how much CO2 is being produced.  Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity.  The models predicts how earth reacts to the CO2 produced which is not so simple.

 
4skers89 said:
That looks painful so I'll help you out.  The equation is a simple one of how much CO2 is being produced.  Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity.  The models predicts how earth reacts to the CO2 produced which is not so simple.
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Do you understand that the Kaya Identity is itself a mathematical model? It's trying to mathematically describe the factors that contribute to CO2 emissions.

And there's nothing magical about that equation that makes it the correct model to describe what's actually happening. That requires data and experiments to provide supporting evidence. For example, swap out population P in that model with any other variable and the math still works out because the equation is simply a circular identity: F=P*(G/P)*(E/G)*(F/E). For example, if instead of population I used number of cars C, then the equation still works mathematically: F=C*(G/C)*(E/G)*(F/E)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Do you understand that the Kaya Identity is itself a mathematical model? It's trying to mathematically describe the factors that contribute to CO2 emissions.

And there's nothing magical about that equation that makes it the correct model to describe what's actually happening. That requires data and experiments to provide supporting evidence. For example, swap out population P in that model with any other variable and the math still works out because the equation is simply a circular identity: F=P*(G/P)*(E/G)*(F/E). For example, if instead of population I used number of cars C, then the equation still works mathematically: F=C*(G/C)*(E/G)*(F/E)
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


Sorry I was wrong, I can't help you.

 
Climate change has cost the government $350 billion — here’s what it will cost you

Climate change has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $350 billion over the past decade, according to a report released last year from nonpartisan federal watchdog the Government Accountability Office. By 2050, that figure will be $35 billion per year. Costs include clean up and disaster assistance from flooding and storms, which are set to increase under rising temperatures.
Click to expand...


Climate impacts 'to cost world $7.9 trillion' by 2050

New US report says that climate change could cost nearly $500 billion per year by 2090

 
I’ve been critical of why the UN and experts are listening to a 17!year old kid. But, this is where she can do good....raising money for the cause. 
 


 
Back
Top