So we can fear monger all we want into forcing change in the west with alternative energy. But you can’t change how fossil fuels make things much easier and affordable in the rest of the world which is where a lot of the pollution exists at this point (India and China). To go through the amount of energy it takes to become a 1st world nation you need massive amounts of energy that is cheap to acquire and cheap to use. And right now that is fossil fuels. Alternative energy is a luxury.
Hopefully someday the tech becomes more affordable for poor countries and can supply enough energy for them to get through an Industrial Age.
Also note that much of the pollution in India and China is created in the process of manufacturing goods which are then exported to the west, so it’s not like you and I have no influence at all.
Currently Dollars only serve the Chinese government as a way to put pressure on the competition (USA). They are still eating their own food and living in their own technology based buildings built from their local resources by their local workforce. America doesn't help keep Chinese from poverty, because China isn't incapable of it in the first place. If anything, the political pressures just created perverse incentives there.
Because solar energy is not cheapest form of 24/7 energy source.
Baseload is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over some timespan. Providing that baseload with solar or wind is not as cheap as hydro, coal, natural gas or nuclear.
Solar is cheapest in a similar way that fish is the cheapest food on an island.
If you only look at the days when catches are high then it is the cheapest method to produce food. If fish are your primary source of food, and every day you don't get enough you will have to eat expensive imported food, you food cost over the year can be quite high for a primary fishing nation. The fish will still be cheapest, but as a strategy it is somewhat expensive or carry a high risk of starvation.
Nations will build as much solar/wind as there is peak demand, because it is the cheapest energy when it produce. Nation will also build coal, oil and gas power plants in order to be there when those solar and wind aren't producing. Economically that is the cheapest way to produce a stable energy grid. Environmentally it is far from the best. Falling solar and wind prices reinforces this model.
When the sun is out. And when you’re blanketing literally 6 SQUARE MILES of beautiful Oregon ground[1] at a time with PV panels, it starts to look a lot less cheap.
Climate modeling isn't pop sci, it's physics. Predicting the correct outcome of complex systems is hard or impossible and depends on a lot of assumptions and interactions that you have to properly account for, this stuff gets more refined over time. The general direction of the predictions hasn't changed though so ignoring that would still be unwise.
The bad process began before we even conceived a notion of a global climate, and continues only because we're used to it. But continuing it still will change the global environment forever
I don't really see how it's unfalsifiable. If you predict a certain outcome in the future and this doesn't come true then your prediction was wrong.
The question is, are we really focusing on the right things here? Predicting trends is probably better than predicting outcomes.
As you correctly alluded to, expecting accurate predictions for complex systems is actually too much to ask for and that's why I think it's important to look at the general direction that the models point to. Are these predicted trends from the 70s different from the predicted trends now? If they aren't, what arguments do we have to reject 50 years of modelling?
Perhaps for models of the future, but for historical predictions of the current climate, prior models have been astoundingly accurate, and if anything overly conservative in their predictions.
What evidence do you have that leads you to believe that the models used now will have less predictive power than those of the past which had high predictive power?
While getting to truth may be very helpful, most models just simulate observed facts and effects, to see if it is useful and can be validated. The point is not to predict, but to see how much variance different models can display, what one might learn from it and to evolve new models from that.
What is comfortable or not shouldn't be a factor. In fact most climate scientists would search for any and all redeeming factors. It is concerning how insignificant they all seem to be. Major contrary findings would make great news, get prizes and grants.
Timelines are indeed less useful and accurate, than levels of temperature and descriptions of accumulated and latent effects. Prediction is too hard and a sidetrack from all that is established peer-reviewed science so far.
No reason to believe these models are different ( it is not about the models, it is about the people building them ).
> that is not based on what actually happens?
That is not what I said. These models are used to say things about the future, so by definition they are an assumption about what actually happens.
I will try to explain my point by a fictitious example :
Researcher A is building model for global temperature supposedly correlated with compound X. Model shows that within 100 yrs the temperature will plateua and then drop off to pre-industrial levels.
The model will be considered faulty and will be tweaked until it does feel comfortable : that is, aligns with one's assumptions.
Models are crystalizations of one's assumptions, there is no truth.
Of course you use the intuition of experts within that field when building models, that's a given. I don't see what is wrong with that, that's how all models are built.
But what is it that you're trying to say about climate models? State your own assumptions please, I don't want to keep playing this guessing game.
Ah, you didn't mention base load or scale, just "coal is cheaper". Thank you for clarifying.
It's becoming clear that (see links that I posted upthread, and the replies) that _any_ blanket statement of "_x_ energy is cheaper" is going to be wrong in some cases, at present. And things are changing year by year.
This. And to be honest, luxury solution discussions and their waste of public discussion bandwidth are part of the problem. Financially support the building of thorium reactors in china and india- is part of the solution. Solar at home- is nice, but not part of the solution - as most of the carbon cost in the west has been carted off into the east.
Hopefully someday the tech becomes more affordable for poor countries and can supply enough energy for them to get through an Industrial Age.