ornerynorsk
Industrial
Take that, Mr. Gore.
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.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski 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
- Thread starter ornerynorsk
- Start date
- Status
Take that, Mr. Gore.
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.
CajunCenturion
Computer
@ewh - That is a very interesting study. Thanks for sharing.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Cajun
The time interval between vertical bars on that chart is 50000 years. I don't think its useful for comparison.
For my question the resolution would need to be something like 10 years. The issue is that the climate changed
dramatically in a single 100 year period and this type of event is not identifiable from such a long range
chart. It is entirely possible that if you had the higher resolution there would only be very rare instances where
the temp climbed as much over a 100 year span. Or they could have been regular, we don't know about that far back.
We do know something of the last several thousand years, and no I do not believe I have cherry picked data because that
is all we have. Are there temp reconstructions that are known with the same low expected error for any other periods?
If so are there dramatic warming events in 100 year slices.
As far as the data showing CO2 follows temperature that is a well known phenomena. But there were no SUVs back then to
cause the CO2 to go first. What mechanism would first release CO2 without warming.
The result is that the record may only record temp first events because that is all that could happen.
The time interval between vertical bars on that chart is 50000 years. I don't think its useful for comparison.
For my question the resolution would need to be something like 10 years. The issue is that the climate changed
dramatically in a single 100 year period and this type of event is not identifiable from such a long range
chart. It is entirely possible that if you had the higher resolution there would only be very rare instances where
the temp climbed as much over a 100 year span. Or they could have been regular, we don't know about that far back.
We do know something of the last several thousand years, and no I do not believe I have cherry picked data because that
is all we have. Are there temp reconstructions that are known with the same low expected error for any other periods?
If so are there dramatic warming events in 100 year slices.
As far as the data showing CO2 follows temperature that is a well known phenomena. But there were no SUVs back then to
cause the CO2 to go first. What mechanism would first release CO2 without warming.
The result is that the record may only record temp first events because that is all that could happen.
Let me get this straight. The data before industrialization is worthless because the only pre-industrialization driver for increasing CO2 was warming. Therefore the only data that matters is the last 150 years or so. [I have to wonder why are the climate scientists spending so much taxpayer money investigating ice cores that go back a bit before 1863].
I don't understand. It sounds like you are saying that "of course CO2 in the ice records was lagging, but conditions have changed" and my Land Rover has introduced a previously unknown, unseen dynamic of CO2 rising without preliminary warming so we just can't know how horrible it will be, but dang it will be horrible unless Goldman Sachs can get a handle on it. That is a totally new argument to me and I'm having trouble getting my head around it. Could you elaborate please?
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"
I don't understand. It sounds like you are saying that "of course CO2 in the ice records was lagging, but conditions have changed" and my Land Rover has introduced a previously unknown, unseen dynamic of CO2 rising without preliminary warming so we just can't know how horrible it will be, but dang it will be horrible unless Goldman Sachs can get a handle on it. That is a totally new argument to me and I'm having trouble getting my head around it. Could you elaborate please?
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"
Ok. Sure. I'll buy that. But that's not the question at all. These are the questions:
1) By how much?
2) And how much of the warming is due to other causes?
3) And how much of the warming will be eliminated by letting the same nitwits who crashed the US economy in 2008 create a Carbon Derivatives Market?
Until we can get a clear answer to the last question, we should not be implementing policy framed around carbon trading. There's a lot of argument about the modeling, but I've never once seen a model that supports the policy alluded to in #3. Even if the world is being warmed in some part by carbon, that still doesn't mean we jump to #3.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
Zdas
""The data before industrialization is worthless""
Never said that...
Any data that has low enough error variance related to modern warming will do.
I don't think the data past 2000 yr ago has this feature but I dunno, I am not a climatologist.
Yes your land rover is the sole cause of the whole mess....jis kiddin..
""previously unknown, unseen dynamic of CO2 rising without preliminary warming""
Yup this is what I said, but again I am not a climatologist, it was just a thought related to drawing inferences about
the chicken and egg conclusion from looking at the graph cajun linked.
I really don't think you guys would be a tiny bit happier if carbon was just plain taxed so really the paranoia about wall street
making out is irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW Carbon trading was considered the free market alternative to just taxing carbon. Those who could innovate their processes to
reduce emissions could do so as far as their capabilities allow and profit from their work.
But if you want just a straight tax....OK...
beej67
Your questions are almost certainly addressed in the vast literature on climate change science. Use Google and choose only the reputable sources and start getting your answers.
""The data before industrialization is worthless""
Never said that...
Any data that has low enough error variance related to modern warming will do.
I don't think the data past 2000 yr ago has this feature but I dunno, I am not a climatologist.
Yes your land rover is the sole cause of the whole mess....jis kiddin..
""previously unknown, unseen dynamic of CO2 rising without preliminary warming""
Yup this is what I said, but again I am not a climatologist, it was just a thought related to drawing inferences about
the chicken and egg conclusion from looking at the graph cajun linked.
I really don't think you guys would be a tiny bit happier if carbon was just plain taxed so really the paranoia about wall street
making out is irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW Carbon trading was considered the free market alternative to just taxing carbon. Those who could innovate their processes to
reduce emissions could do so as far as their capabilities allow and profit from their work.
But if you want just a straight tax....OK...
beej67
Your questions are almost certainly addressed in the vast literature on climate change science. Use Google and choose only the reputable sources and start getting your answers.
Which brings me back to my earlier point. If the purpose of a straight carbon [sic] tax is to reduce consumption and hence generation of the dread gas CO2, what is the price/consumption response of carbon-based energy? What magnitude of taxation would, therefore, be required to achieve the "desired" reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
Has anyone seen any studies on the increased growth of plants with the now higher CO2 levels? How much carbon has the increased plant growth captured?
How many more trees need to be planted to become carbon neutral in the US? any numbers? Detroit has some baron land now.
How many more trees need to be planted to become carbon neutral in the US? any numbers? Detroit has some baron land now.
btrueblood
Mechanical
"Detroit has some baron land now."
What? Have the English landed again?
What? Have the English landed again?
No they aren't. That's the problem.
In an area such as wetlands, we can easily identify what is and isn't a wetland, and make developers buy "wetland credits" from a wetland mitigation bank which creates new wetlands, to compensate for any wetlands they fill up. This is something we can point to. We know who does and doesn't have a wetland on their property. But when you do Kyoto style carbon cap and trade, who starts with the "credits"? How many does GE start with? How many does Southern Company start with? Who gets to sell them to whom? Etc. All these things would become highly manipulated by lobbyists in DC, and highly manipulated by bankers at Goldman Sachs, and used to build fortunes and destroy economic value, and for what?
Where is there any proof anywhere that such an amazingly intrusive and complex system is going to arrest global warming? If the alarmists are right, and that's a big If, then the only way to stop our contribution to global warming is to eradicate carbon emissions entirely. And even that wouldn't stop the warming trend. The warming trend started well before CO2 emissions started, and will continue tomorrow even if we ended all CO2 emissions tomorrow, just at a lesser rate.
What rate?
Nobody knows.
The IPCC models certainly don't know, because they predicted the global ice caps would be gone by now, and instead temperatures have been flat for the last decade and a half. If climate change were completely, or mostly, or even half driven by CO2, then the globe would have warmed over the last decade. It would have warmed. But it didn't.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
Global warming has not stopped. Because of natural variations in El Nino / La Nina patterns, more of the heat has been absorbed by the oceans rather than the atmoshere. This has occurred a number of times in the past 75 years. In every instance, the cycle has shifted again and the warming of the atmoshere has resumed.
Johnny Pellin
Johnny Pellin
What nonsense. Did you notice that every single model output that was shown as proof has a hockey stick just after the end of the "hindcast"? Every time. The hindcast data shows a flat to slight incline and the projection turns sharply upward. I was really impressed with their ability to shovel this dreck with a straight face.
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"
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"
So, instead of bickering back and forth, have you thought about a solution that might be more palitable to me and the other voters?
If the only solution being offered is more goverment, than you don't have much of a chance of my support of your solution (let alone any perceved problem).
Sorry I don't believe marginal numbers, and political hacks.
Global warming may have stoped, but political warming hasen't.
If the only solution being offered is more goverment, than you don't have much of a chance of my support of your solution (let alone any perceved problem).
Sorry I don't believe marginal numbers, and political hacks.
Global warming may have stoped, but political warming hasen't.
my firm belief is that you always need to fully define the problem before attempting any solutions. So offering solutions when there is still robust debate on symptoms of a potential problem is putting the cart before the horse. And certainly, handing over money to politicians will not solve anything.
-
1
- #116
JohnRBaker
Mechanical
cranky108 said:
Let's hope you're not thinking that the private sector, i.e. capitalism, will somehow provide a solution because if you do, you're a lot more naive than we'd expect you to be.
If there is NO short-term opportunity to make a profit for the investors/owners of capital, there will be NO incentive whatsoever for them to do anything. In fact, one could argue that those people controlling any company which voluntarily, on their own, pursued a course of business activities which while they were environmentally positive and appropriate, but were shown that these actions reduced the return on investment for the stockholders or reduced the value of the assets of the company, that the management team of that company could be sued for not meeting their fiduciary responsibilities. It is only when there are government imposed regulations which all corporations must comply with does this force public corporations to do anything which they would be barred, for whatever reason, from doing WITHOUT government intervention. That's the only way for a capitalistic society to survive longterm without evolving into a total oligarchy, not saying that certain groups in our society whouldn't be perfectly happy with the development and in some cases it appears that they're actively pursuing that course of action as we speak.
Case in point:
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.
John makes a point. Which, of course is the rationale behind the carbon [sic] tax movement - to somehow monetize the cost to the collective/society by emitting CO2. In that environment, then certainly unbridled capitalism will most certainly find the most effect means. That, in turn, result in not more government, but really less government involvement. Should be a win-win.
However, in the event that the cost to "stop" global warming is greater than the cost to adapt to the consequences, then the collective/societal cost is greatly reduced. This link demonstrates that even IF the science is settled, the adaptation costs are 50 times less than the costs to stop the warming from occurring.
Word of advice to the "warmists"/"alarmists": you're not going to win by arguing for a complete de-industrialization of the world (which is what "stopping" global warming, if the science is true, would take). However, selling a pay-to-play system where all funds raised are dedicated to adapting to the warming, would be a much easier sell. Then, there's no cap-n-trade where the bankers are the only ones making money, there's no additional five levels of government (including the UN) expanding at rates vastly exceeding inflation, there's none of that. I don't understand the insistence on demonizing energy and prosperity.
Now, you may ask, why, after all my harping on the (lack of) scientific rigour, and the insistence on having a carbon-consumption-price sensitivity, why I would submit to a taxation on carbon [sic]? Well, the fact of the matter is that the globe has warmed in the last century - whether that's man-made or not is not the point. There are most certainly costs associated with that - some may argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, which may be the case. But, we can have some measure of accounting of this, on an ongoing basis. If there are net costs, then someone has to pay for them. I'm not categorically opposed to figuring out some measure to pay for real, incurred costs. We do that with other aspects of our civil society: infrastructure, education, health care, defence, etc.
I just don't see that
However, in the event that the cost to "stop" global warming is greater than the cost to adapt to the consequences, then the collective/societal cost is greatly reduced. This link demonstrates that even IF the science is settled, the adaptation costs are 50 times less than the costs to stop the warming from occurring.
Word of advice to the "warmists"/"alarmists": you're not going to win by arguing for a complete de-industrialization of the world (which is what "stopping" global warming, if the science is true, would take). However, selling a pay-to-play system where all funds raised are dedicated to adapting to the warming, would be a much easier sell. Then, there's no cap-n-trade where the bankers are the only ones making money, there's no additional five levels of government (including the UN) expanding at rates vastly exceeding inflation, there's none of that. I don't understand the insistence on demonizing energy and prosperity.
Now, you may ask, why, after all my harping on the (lack of) scientific rigour, and the insistence on having a carbon-consumption-price sensitivity, why I would submit to a taxation on carbon [sic]? Well, the fact of the matter is that the globe has warmed in the last century - whether that's man-made or not is not the point. There are most certainly costs associated with that - some may argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, which may be the case. But, we can have some measure of accounting of this, on an ongoing basis. If there are net costs, then someone has to pay for them. I'm not categorically opposed to figuring out some measure to pay for real, incurred costs. We do that with other aspects of our civil society: infrastructure, education, health care, defence, etc.
I just don't see that
The two issues are entirely separate.
1 Is there sound science to strongly suggest that CO2 emissions are going to warm the planet significantly and drastically modify the environment that we have build civilized society into.
2 What to do about it??
We can discuss 1 without considering 2 at all if we are honest and have courage.
We may well arrive at a position of " to hell with future generations " but at least we will be honest.
1 Is there sound science to strongly suggest that CO2 emissions are going to warm the planet significantly and drastically modify the environment that we have build civilized society into.
2 What to do about it??
We can discuss 1 without considering 2 at all if we are honest and have courage.
We may well arrive at a position of " to hell with future generations " but at least we will be honest.
Because the two points always seem to be tied togather, I have little option but to consiter both as one issue in real terms. I am being asked to pay more taxes.
1. Weather things are warming or what the cause dosen't matter. I'm being asked to accept a new tax.
2. My point is why aren't other options being discussed?
The debate hasen't ended on GW, however what to do about it seems to have been ended with rasing taxes (If I pay the goverment, UN, or Goldman Sacks, it still smells like a tax to me).
Debate GW all you want, the political types have already decided you are going to pay more in taxes. Why aren't you debating that? Are we devoid of possible solutions? Are we that disfunctional?
Good point that maybe the benifits of GW might outweigh the down side. If so the do nothing option is a possible.
1. Weather things are warming or what the cause dosen't matter. I'm being asked to accept a new tax.
2. My point is why aren't other options being discussed?
The debate hasen't ended on GW, however what to do about it seems to have been ended with rasing taxes (If I pay the goverment, UN, or Goldman Sacks, it still smells like a tax to me).
Debate GW all you want, the political types have already decided you are going to pay more in taxes. Why aren't you debating that? Are we devoid of possible solutions? Are we that disfunctional?
Good point that maybe the benifits of GW might outweigh the down side. If so the do nothing option is a possible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
