On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:27 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/15/2015 2:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>> Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible >>>> bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to >>>> increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day >>>> and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. >>>> >>> >>> Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. >>> My question is about complex interactions between these several >>> phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud >>> formation? In what ways? Does temperature? >>> >>> Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a >> perfect model of the atmosphere? >> > > Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before > messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? > > > How is replacing one energy supply with a different energy supply > endangering those people. > If the new energy supply was more efficient than fossil, then you would not need incentives or regulation. Fossil would not be able to compete. Since this is not the case, I have to assume that the new energy supply is less efficient, which means that there will be less energy resources. The loophole in my argument might be fossil fuel subsidising, which sounds like an appallingly bad idea. I am 100% in favor of stopping that. > I assume that isn't the point - after all, if we followed that logic we'd >> still be living in caves. >> > > If progress depended on planet-wide collective action and consensus, we > would surely still be living in caves. We are not living in caves because > people look for realistic solutions to the problems they are faced with. > There is no planetary "we", and I think that's a good thing. In some > dystopian scenarios, survival may not be worth it. > > >> But then what is the point? >> > > The point is to do risk analysis and treat the problem as a trade-off, > because cutting CO2 emissions is far from not having potentially > catastrophic consequences too. > > > Nobody is relying on having CO2 to breathe. So replacing the energy has > no downsides except economic ones. > Which is the same to say that it has no downsides except for human suffering. The economy is just resource allocation. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
