Paul Krguman on climate change

I went through a long drawn out explanation on the physics of CO2. In every reply, you spat out ideology. If you can't accept the physical properties of CO2, why would I waste my time in a more difficult explanation of statistics?

I will simply direct you here: https://www.khanacademy.org/

Start watching statistics videos.

 

The subject has everything to do with risk assessments. In the case of CFC, "A one percent decrease in stratospheric ozone is accompanied by about a two percent increase in biologically damaging ultraviolet radiation (1)." You're not measuring all of the costs so that you can make an informed decision. How much is avoiding skin cancer worth to you?

In the matter of CO2, risk assessments are needed to make an informed decision. When one prices in trillions of dollars worth of damaged caused by global warming, the cost of action is a much cheaper alternative.

You haven't proved anything about CO2. We haven't implemented cap in trade on a national or international level like we did with CFCs.

 

And if we go with the EPA's restriction global temperatures will fall according to their predictions 0.02C which isn't even measurable. Since the global average is in tenths of a degree the average rounding error is 0.025C.

Risk assessment over!

 

That's all you have are statistics. I want the experiment that shows how much heat is in 120PPM of CO2. Where is that?

 

A risk assessment involves discovering risks, finding the probability of those risks, and calculating the costs of those risks. In the case of CFC gasses, we have cheaper products on one hand, but we have a very probably risk of damaging the ozone layer on the other hand. We could translate that into probabilities of skin cancer over time, and thus we discover costs associated with such a risk. At this point and time, we can construct a more complete picture on the economics of CFC gas usage.

It'll take a nation wide policy on cap and trade to touch CO2 usage. And I don't think it would take much arm twisting to get others to follow.

 

We already went over the physics of CO2. You got to see a lab demonstration of the gas. If you want to calculate it, do a search on radioactive forcing for co2.

 

Uh where did you post that because I can tell you its bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The CO2 in a bottle experiment is just an example of the stupidity that exists in this debate..

Here is a hint the experiment has absolutely nothing to do with CO2's IR properties. You would get the same result if you used Argon which is transparent to long wave radiation.