Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

A Lid for the Can of Worms. Good Heavens, We'll Freeze to Death! 41

Status
Not open for further replies.
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

It’s this categorical rejecting of all things climate science (well except when it’s about cooling temperatures or arctic sea ice “recovery”) that I find incredibly unscientific.

I don't think there are any people on this forum 'rejecting all things climate science'. Lots of questioning, but let's face it, if you have people claiming that 1000 year old temperature readings are 'data', you deserve some questioning. If you have people claiming that predictive models shouldn't be expected to predict the future, you deserve some questioning. If you have people claiming that anyone who doubts what you say should be silenced, you deserve some questioning.

 
Actually, I find this point the most amusing: Cap and trade was the conservative republican, free-market solution to traditional emissions limits. It was a concept created by the hard-core, free-market, Reagan republicans to get the government out of the business of telling each company how much they could emit. Instead, the companies could trade credits amongst themselves (company to company, no involvement by Wall Street) so that the emissions reductions occurred wherever they could be accomplished most efficiently. But, if exactly the same solution is proposed by the current president or by Democrats, they declare it to be government mandated fascism.


Johnny Pellin
 
rconnor - a very level-headed and reasonable post with lots of references - thank you. I will address some of the science and pseudoscience that you linked to later (work, you know...). However - here's a good rebuttal to your BC Carbon Tax point.

There's something at the end of your post that I wanted to address:
rconnor said:
Look through the comments (yes, sometimes they are a cesspool of dogma and childish banter…read the comments of a Monkton article on WUWT for a great example of this). A lot of times, good arguments about the article with appear in the comments. The communities have some very educated people that will detail counter-points to the article and others will provide a rebuttal to those. You can, sometimes, learn a lot more about the articles strengths and weaknesses by reviewing the comments.
Three of the blogs that you reference (SkS, RC, and Tamino) all have very aggressive moderation approaches, whereby posts that disagree with the blog owner are removed, or in the case of SkS, even changed without the writer's consent. In the end, they are echo chambers without any "good arguments". This intolerance for dissenting opinions is why I would classify all of those blogs as "untrustworthy". I have submitted very reasonable (in my opinion - no claims of fascism or subterfuge, etc) questions (not opinions, just questions) directly pertaining to facts and opinions offered by authors in both SkS and RC. My questions never saw the light of day. Why? Because they were counter-dogma, or at least questioning the dogma.

I can't "learn more about the articles [sic] strengths and weaknesses by reviewing the comments" because counter-arguments are disappeared from the blog.

Sorry - try again.

Love him or hate him, at least Anthony Watts' blog wattsupwiththat.com is very tolerant of a variety of opinions. And he lets some total whackos post there, and they are, rightfully, taken down. His experiments that are complete takedowns of the Principia/Skydragon movement are exactly how science should be done. His demonstration of the fraud perpetrated by Bill Nye during Al Gore's 24 Hrs of Reality "explaining" how CO2 works was also fantastic, real science.

So, who do I trust - blogs that have disappeared my questions (not comments, not diatribes, not threats, etc), or blogs that don't?
 
I'll take that as a swipe against my post JJPellin. Please do not think that I am a republican or in favor of republican policies just because I absolutely abhorr what the democrats are doing. Our ENTIRE government is so far off mark that I truly doubt the ability of the United States to stand as a sovereign nation for more than a few more decades. Boy, do I hope I'm wrong!

I stand by my assertion that our system is fascist. If not, what is it?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
 
Actually, I find this point the most amusing: Cap and trade was the conservative republican, free-market solution to traditional emissions limits. It was a concept created by the hard-core, free-market, Reagan republicans to get the government out of the business of telling each company how much they could emit. Instead, the companies could trade credits amongst themselves (company to company, no involvement by Wall Street) so that the emissions reductions occurred wherever they could be accomplished most efficiently. But, if exactly the same solution is proposed by the current president or by Democrats, they declare it to be government mandated fascism.

Indeed. Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits from, I have always thought that was the whole point, and that's why the usual suspects were, and still are, so much in favor of them.

And when the whole thing collapses, more taxpayer money will be needed to bail out those poor investment bankers who are struggling to feed their habits.
 
Climate model predictions are to give the forcing component of CO2.
They are essentially results expected given all other factors unchanged.
How could they be anything else??

Cajuns post about volcanoes actually refers to studies of the effects of eruptions and how to model them when they occur.
Eruptions certainly change the climate but the event of eruptions cannot be predicted.

As rconnor said not every event that effects the climate can be predicted.

Now the skeptics may well think this is a get out of jail free card for climate modellers. It is not.
Climate modellers should and do go back and review atmospheric events and model assumptions and correct them.

Where does this idea come from that CO2 emission limitations will destroy the economy??
Since when does conservation of a limited resource become an irresponsible activity??
What effects do skeptics expect if CO2 emissions are curtailed??

One note about increased government. As a society becomes more densely populated each individuals activities causes
effects on other individuals. This is why government gets into your lives as population density increases.
It is inevitable that it does so to preserve fairness. Does government also like this so it can grow and control, of course it does.
We have to always watch for overreach.

To me it is funny how the public is afraid of government control of their lives and give no though to
corporate control of their lives as the fortune 500 steer us into bad behaviors and buy policy with money through
lobbying.





 
Where does this idea come from that CO2 emission limitations will destroy the economy??
-I expect it has to do with the fact that if we make limit CO2 emissions, it will be more expensive to eat, heat/cool houses, transportation will be more expensive, all manufacturing will be more expensive, recreation will be more expensive, industries involved in the energy sector will scale back, large numbers of jobs will be lost, etc etc. I can't think of a single facet of daily life that would not be affected significantly. Can you?

Since when does conservation of a limited resource become an irresponsible activity??
-In what way does anything you have ever posted have anything to do with conservation of a limited resource?

What effects do skeptics expect if CO2 emissions are curtailed??
If we curtail CO2 emissions, we'll have to stop generating most of our electricity, stop travelling or transporting anything anywhere, stop manufacturing anything, stop growing food on a commercial scale, etc etc.
I don't know about you, but those effects seem a bit much.
 
So we want to have goverment regulations that China won't even consiter? I don't think so.

1. consitering the air quality problems China has, they will adopt some regulations, or mandates, to inprove there air quality. There is no doubt of that, the question is when.
2. consitering how much the carbon requirments will slow down any any economy, it is doubtful that China will adopt the level of controls we are asking for in the US.

Enviromental regulations have already limited the timber industry, and jobs therein. The whole question is how much the American public is willing to take before there is a large enough push back.
We already see some of it, but how much more will it take to form a majorty of people who say enough. That's the tipping point question.

Besides the timber industry really should be a part of carbon capture movment, as a large part of the timber is used in applications that won't decay for several decades (judging from the size of present land fills). And those cut tries make room for new trees to grow. I'd think true carbon capture people would want more timber cutting here, vs imported timber. However, I've been wrong before.
 
The BC carbon tax link (esp. the 2013 report on results) is interesting. The charts show that the biggest contribution to decreased carbon usage in BC is from a decrease in the use of home heating oil, presumably to cheaper natural gas (which is apparently not included in the carbon tax - it's not listed in the charts so I assume so) which has been abundant in BC for some decades now. The sales of petroleum transport fuel has however only dropped a few points. I'd argue that it probably has not dropped much at all, given the number of BC plates at the gas stations here in Washington state, but I have no real desire to dig out that data. Just anecdotes from people living in towns close to the border, reported in local news.

Also, while us Yankees are debating the benefits/costs of shipping Canadian coal from our Pacific coast ports and Canadian/Northern tier US oil and gas from Gulf ports via pipelines...the BC government just quietly builds coal shipment terminals and merrily shovels as much of the stuff over to China as the market can bear. From this website: the following quote: "By early 2013, western-based Westshore, Neptune and Ridley Terminals will see over $1 billion invested in improvements to the efficiency and capacity of their terminals. This includes the addition of more than 20 million tonnes in coal handling capacity."

One wonders if the Chinese and other Pacific Rim countries are paying the BC carbon tax for this exported carbon-heavy fuel?
 

Of course they dismiss it, it doesn't fit their agenda. These people are nothing but self-serving autocratic bullies. But yet they continue down the merry road of trying to force penalty and behaviour modification at all levels.

Cranky, you alluded to the "tipping point". I also wonder how much bs people in general are willing to put up with before the whole thing snaps. No singular item is enough to break the camel's back, but you combine the NSA spying, the meddling in the middle east, supporting islamic terrorists to overthrow their own secular government, the atrocity of doing nothing in Benghazi, the oppressive taxation, forcing healthcare insurance or penalties upon the people who can least afford it, etcetera ad nauseum! I have a vivid image of Scotty from the old Star Trek in my mind - "I can't hold her Captain, she's breaking up". Time will tell.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
 
TenPenny said:
Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits...

Yep, there's no question about it; this had to have been the brainchild of a bunch of free-trade, Right-wing Republicans.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Why, because bleeding heart liberal democrats never had an idea that didn't originate from Karl Marx? See, the pointless label nonsense cuts both ways.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
 
The Australian tax was critically flawed from the get go. Whatever you think about zdas' across the board massive tax for gasoline I don't think anyone would argue that it wouldn't 'work', that is, raise money and reduce consumption of gasoline. The reason that it works is that the wiggle room is small. There would of course be unintended consequences as well.

The Australian tax had so money get-out clauses that in the end it was both expensive to the economy and fairly ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions, not exactly a smart combination.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
I don't advocate that massive motor fuel tax, I'm just saying that as much as people bitch about $4/gallon gasoline it hasn't changed anyone's behavior because it is still a very small part of the average person's budget (even if you factor the fuel surcharge that is implicitly added to every product, the inflation that that adds is really quite tiny). Consumption would become price sensitive in the US at about twice the current price. A 100% jump over a short period would devastate the world economy, and would be a very bad thing. Small annual changes starting 40 years ago would have led to prices that impacted choices, but that ship sailed empty and there is no way to bring it back.

One of the big indicators of this is public transit. Public transit proposals were regularly voted down in places like Denver, CO because people didn't see the problem that was being fixed. When downtown parking costs started rising rapidly, people started noticing that the cost of their daily commute was becoming too large a portion of their disposable income and started yelling for light rail, but it was still voted down two more times before it was finally funded. Had gasoline prices tracked inflation that system would have been funded 20 years earlier, the suburbs of Denver would not extend to Colorado Springs on the south and Wyoming on the north, and the packed highways would not have been necessary. But motor fuel price was increasing at a very small fraction of the CPI and in constant dollars actually got less expensive with time. Doubling the tax on motor fuel (from about $0.70 to around $1.40 would only raise the price around 18% and would cause a brief downward blip in consumption, and might get a number of politicians thrown out of office, but would provide no long-term change in behavior.

Motor fuel was expensive in Australia (around $6 USD/US gallon, compared to around $3.50 the U.S.), but when I asked people why they take public transit the answer was either "too much traffic" or "parking too expensive". No one complained that the price of motor fuel was a significant factor. Even a $23 AUD/tonne of CO2 tax is too small to change behavior. I was encouraged to see the Labor/Greens coalition (that felt like the Greenies owned policy making) tossed out. The first moves of the Liberals looked good to an outsider and the level of outrage in the mainstream media over dissolving the department responsible for keeping people frightened is a good indicator that he's moving in the right direction.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
 
JohnRBaker
Quote (TenPenny)

Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits...

Yep, there's no question about it; this had to have been the brainchild of a bunch of free-trade, Right-wing Republicans.

You think all the Wall St types are free trade right wing Republicans? If they are, why are they sucking off the teat of government bailouts?

I think they're mostly sociopaths who do whatever they can to get the most money in their own pockets, whether it's ethical, legal, moral, or not, and the ones who know what they are doing suck up to whoever they think will be controlling the flow of government largesse, no matter what party they come from.

 
I actually think both sides are attempting to suck money out of my pocket. Is that another tax or just a fee to help pay for the war of 1812?

What we need is a much smaller goverment that can't afford giveaways. There are thousands of ways the goverment can trim there money need. They just don't want to.

On the other hand, if you don't like what corporations are doing, don't buy from them.

 
Looks like gasoline consumption is falling since 2005.

actually, the drop in gasoline consumption began in 2008, correlating nicely to the global financial crisis. vehicle registrations show the same correlation. The cause is likely tied to under or unemplyment, not to fuel cost.
 
With respect to automobiles there's another trend that's even more scary, at least here in the states. Less and less 16 year olds are even getting drivers licenses let alone cars. More and more families are living in urban environments where auto ownership and even driving is less important than it once was. Of course, this runs head-first into the requirement that people must show a government issued (and in many states this does NOT include student ID's) photo-ID to both register to vote and when you actually show-up to vote. The assumption has always been that every voting-age American just naturally has a drivers license. Wrong assumption, and it's trending in the wrong direction...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor