That's incorrect. The reduction in emissions will be indicated in the change in rate in growth.
A reduction in emissions will be indicated by negative growth. The two things are equivalent.
That's just the nature of an exponentially growing system. I've explained this numerous times and it seems to elude everyone without a genuine desire to understand ie, the alarmists.
Everybody's out-of-step but you ...
Nope. This is a tricky subject that many first year students fail to grasp, you must pay attention to the slope of the graph showing the growth. It's even more difficult when it's exponential growth like we are discussing. I attempted to linearize the graph to make it more understandable by discussing the rate of change in the growth, but that was well over most people heads here.
You remind me of a kid at school who couldn't accept that an object with zero velocity could be accelerating. The teacher tried, then we all tried in different words, but no luck. He just could not get it, nor understand why
we didn't get that an object with zero velocity could not be accelerating.
That would make sense if I had advocated anything. As I haven't, it doesn't.
Previously on
Furcifer :
"Don't forget this is a relatively new area of science. There's so much more to learn it would be foolish and irresponsible to to make any judgement calls now. "
(My emphasis)
Tell me why that's not advocacy for not doing anything now.
That's about whether or not clouds represent a negative or positive feedback! We're talking about reducing emissions. I'm glad I could clear up this misunderstanding, finally.
You use the possibility of a negative feedback from changes in cloud cover as a reason for
not doing anything now, since it would be foolish and irresponsible.
Incorrect. I know without cheap energy there is no industry and growth. It's common knowledge.
Incorrect. There has been industry and growth throughout most of history, even when energy was (in contemporary terms) expensive.
And anyway, you were sounding off on the UK natural gas industry. That's what I was very obviously referring to.
I really couldn't care less about what happened in the UK 50 years ago.
No wonder you're ignorant about it.
I know burning NG instead of coal is better. Then and now.
If natural gas was burned for generation as part of a long-term strategy to minimise total CO
2 emissions, just something to get us though to when enough renewables came online, then it would have been a good idea. As it was, a valuable resource was squandered inefficiently simply because it was cheap at the time. (Price and value are not equivalent, of course.)
That's all there is too it. Your theories on how it should have happened are reactionary and "after the fact".
Actually I made the same argument before the fact. I've never been one for short-term thinking : that's for losers and the too-big-to-fail, to my mind.
No it's a statement of fact. You're simply confused because you don't realize it yet as fact.
You believe it's a fact, but your argument for
why it's a fact starts with "it's a fact". Which is begging the question.
They still can't compete 100 years later. All you're doing is delaying progress 100 years. Think about it. (you can't remove the competition anyways, gasoline came before cars.
And kerosene for lighting before that, which is what established the oil industry and produced gasoline as a rather dangerous waste-product.
Plus you can't assume the technology wouldn't have been abandoned, many have because they are infeasible or "uncompetitive")
You seem to have lost the thread. You raised the hypothetical that the internal-combustion engine had never existed. From that you projected a world in which nothing associated with the ICE (in real history) would have happened. I've been pointing out that this is not a valid assumption.
You need to look at productivity World Wide in the 100 years before and 100 years after the invention of the internal combustion engine and see for yourself. It's amazing. If I find a link I will, if you're in Detroit go to the Henry Ford Museum.
I can easily picture the story presented in the Henry Ford Museum. I would find it simplistic and rather too focussed on the ICE. Not deliberately, but because people generally lack perspective. The up-close dominates their view, and they miss the big picture.
Exponential economic growth did not originate with the Oil Age; in fact it's been going on since the Mongols got civilised.
You claimed I advocated a proposals before, now you're asking me??? Which is it?
I was being ironic. Of course you wouldn't advocate any of these proposals, because it would be foolish and irresponsible to to make any judgement calls now.
Baloney. It should be obvious from the word "proposals", it's verb, verbs are called "action words".
"Proposals" is a plural noun.
You're actually trying to say because they are proposals they haven't been implemented.
Does that actually need saying?
That would be correct. Most things don't happen overnight.
Or at all if they remain proposals. If you recall, you raised these proposals as evidence that actions are already being taken. I see them as evidence of actions which are not being taken. Proposals (like targets, and talk) are cheap.
.)