‘Why is there no Congressional Climate Calculation Office that scores how much carbon proposed legislation will save, and how much it will lower 2100 temperatures?’
It’s carbon dioxide! Carbon is a solid. Why is it nobody in the climate lunacy can speak in whole molecules?
Answer to question. Because neither is possible. There is a continuous exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and plants and oceans. CO2 vents into the atmosphere from the oceans, from plant decay and other natural sources as well as from burning fossil fuels. It is reckoned 50% of fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by vegetation’s and oceans within twelve months.
Given this, it is impossible to calculate net ‘saving’ by reduction in fossil fuel use because of the other unobservable, unmeasurable, uncontrollable factors. During the 2020 economic shutdown which resulted in CO2 emissions reduction on the scale we are told is needed to stop global warming, the monitoring station at Mauna Loa observatory showed no change to atmospheric CO2 concentration, meaning atmospheric concentration is not sensitive to Human caused CO2.
So we cannot even measure the reduction in atmospheric CO2 from Manmade sources when we reduce them.
There is no way then to ‘predict’ what actual reduction in CO2 there will be in 2100 and in any case no mathematical formula which can produce a number for the concomitant temperature reduction based on the putative CO2 reduction.
The Mean Global Temperature Anomaly data has shown no increase in rate of warming since 1996, and an eleven year slight decline to date. The ‘scientists’ say the rate is in fact increasing, just the heat is being consumed by the oceans, somehow bypassing temperature measuring equipment.
So not only can we not monitor or measure C02 reduction, we cannot measure temperature reduction - there is no way way of knowing if observed temperature reduction is real or, according to ‘scientists’, possibly false due to insufficient sensitivity of the global temperature measuring system.
So we are to proceed on a course of action with no way to monitor progress or know when we have achieved the target and on the basis it will be without significant cost but deliver enormous but unquantifiable benefit to future generations - if anyone has survived deindustrialisation.
It’s all fake of course, a scam for grifters, ideologues and the political elites.
Having used CO2 to destroy the fossil fuel industry, they are now demonising methane in order to destroy agriculture. Anyone who does not see a plan is not paying attention.
On climate change scoring: I have long predicted that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere only stops rising if 50% or more the planet's human population dies in a 5 year period.
I won't live to see it, but we can pass all the climate change laws we want to in the US and Europe, and CO2 levels will still breach 1000 ppm by the end of this century. A hard lesson is going to be learned when all these windmills and solar farms need complete capital replacement. We really haven't seen that horizon yet because most of the builds have occurred in the last 20 years, but will start showing up in the power bills in another 10 years.
I think drawing conclusions about charter schools' differential behavior during the pandemic in places like D.C. and Los Angeles (or wherever, specifically Educational Realist teaches) is going to be silly. The parents are still deeply committed Democrats as are the actual teachers in the schools, and they are all still under the thumb of the local and state government mandates the entire time.
I have been reading Cowen's blog since 2004-2005- his audience has changed in those intervening years, and it started when he began first writing for the NYTimes and then Bloomberg. He isn't the same writer or thinker any longer- not terribly thoughtful, and not terribly courageous either these days. Most of his pokes at today's majority audience are both silly and ineffectual. See his critique the other day about the "Inflation Reduction Act".
“Tyler goes so far as to deliberately take a poke at his audience now and then.”
You can be playing to trope by taking pokes at your audience from time to time. I think Tyler’s audience is looking for the self-styled, erudite reader who thinks outside the box just enough but never strays too far out of proper lanes.
‘Why is there no Congressional Climate Calculation Office that scores how much carbon proposed legislation will save, and how much it will lower 2100 temperatures?’
It’s carbon dioxide! Carbon is a solid. Why is it nobody in the climate lunacy can speak in whole molecules?
Answer to question. Because neither is possible. There is a continuous exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and plants and oceans. CO2 vents into the atmosphere from the oceans, from plant decay and other natural sources as well as from burning fossil fuels. It is reckoned 50% of fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by vegetation’s and oceans within twelve months.
Given this, it is impossible to calculate net ‘saving’ by reduction in fossil fuel use because of the other unobservable, unmeasurable, uncontrollable factors. During the 2020 economic shutdown which resulted in CO2 emissions reduction on the scale we are told is needed to stop global warming, the monitoring station at Mauna Loa observatory showed no change to atmospheric CO2 concentration, meaning atmospheric concentration is not sensitive to Human caused CO2.
So we cannot even measure the reduction in atmospheric CO2 from Manmade sources when we reduce them.
There is no way then to ‘predict’ what actual reduction in CO2 there will be in 2100 and in any case no mathematical formula which can produce a number for the concomitant temperature reduction based on the putative CO2 reduction.
The Mean Global Temperature Anomaly data has shown no increase in rate of warming since 1996, and an eleven year slight decline to date. The ‘scientists’ say the rate is in fact increasing, just the heat is being consumed by the oceans, somehow bypassing temperature measuring equipment.
So not only can we not monitor or measure C02 reduction, we cannot measure temperature reduction - there is no way way of knowing if observed temperature reduction is real or, according to ‘scientists’, possibly false due to insufficient sensitivity of the global temperature measuring system.
So we are to proceed on a course of action with no way to monitor progress or know when we have achieved the target and on the basis it will be without significant cost but deliver enormous but unquantifiable benefit to future generations - if anyone has survived deindustrialisation.
It’s all fake of course, a scam for grifters, ideologues and the political elites.
Having used CO2 to destroy the fossil fuel industry, they are now demonising methane in order to destroy agriculture. Anyone who does not see a plan is not paying attention.
If your readers can't handle you saying something they disagree with occasionally, you probably don't want those people as readers, anyway.
On climate change scoring: I have long predicted that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere only stops rising if 50% or more the planet's human population dies in a 5 year period.
I won't live to see it, but we can pass all the climate change laws we want to in the US and Europe, and CO2 levels will still breach 1000 ppm by the end of this century. A hard lesson is going to be learned when all these windmills and solar farms need complete capital replacement. We really haven't seen that horizon yet because most of the builds have occurred in the last 20 years, but will start showing up in the power bills in another 10 years.
I think drawing conclusions about charter schools' differential behavior during the pandemic in places like D.C. and Los Angeles (or wherever, specifically Educational Realist teaches) is going to be silly. The parents are still deeply committed Democrats as are the actual teachers in the schools, and they are all still under the thumb of the local and state government mandates the entire time.
I have been reading Cowen's blog since 2004-2005- his audience has changed in those intervening years, and it started when he began first writing for the NYTimes and then Bloomberg. He isn't the same writer or thinker any longer- not terribly thoughtful, and not terribly courageous either these days. Most of his pokes at today's majority audience are both silly and ineffectual. See his critique the other day about the "Inflation Reduction Act".
“Tyler goes so far as to deliberately take a poke at his audience now and then.”
You can be playing to trope by taking pokes at your audience from time to time. I think Tyler’s audience is looking for the self-styled, erudite reader who thinks outside the box just enough but never strays too far out of proper lanes.
Alex Tabarrok on the other hand…