Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 4 27

[jmw]

Joesephv,
I'll accept "disputes" but maybe "challenged is more appropriate.
Anyone can begin an article with such a statement but that is certainly challenged which is why we are into our 4th thread and have 200 posts since June 27th.
If anything more and more people are less and less convinced by such statements.
Let's hope we don't have to go over all the 4 threads again to put that one back in its place.

I' not sure I'd accept NGis is "in" the scientific community, it is simply a commentator on the world, with nice photos intended for the general public.

Heck, even the science journals or scientific organisations are heavily criticised for their PC attitudes, improper peer review and bias.

An interesting read (not necessarily related to AGW but to what happens out there in the science journals) is this: it is long but you'll like the punch line (found on Numberwatch):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

From Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/404873/National-Geographic-Society

"With more than nine million members in the mid-1990s, the organization is the world’s largest scientific and educational society."

In my book, National Geographic is a member of the scientific community.

Unlike, the Telegraph, Toronto Sun and National Post (whose links and political comments appear in an engineering thread for some reason) which clearly are not members of the scientific or engineering community.

 

[cranky108]

Back to my point. The world tempeture is changing, so what.
Is what you are proposing to do about it going to make very much difference? And what is it going to cost? And is everyone going follow the same rules?

Bottom line is, to what effect, what is the cost, and are we just hurting ourselves?

 

[owg]

Cranky108 - You touch on a concern of mine.

"Is what you are proposing to do about it going to make very much difference? And what is it going to cost? And is everyone going follow the same rules?"

President Obama says its a great opportunity.
If this is an opportunity, I can't wait to hear what he calls a problem.



HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[ewh]

joesephv,
What exactly are the criteria for membership? A checkbook, perhaps?

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[rapt]

josephv,

"Few scientists dispute that human fossil fuel consumption is altering Earth's climate. The scope of that change, however, remains a subject of debate."


The second sentence says it all. I think everyone will agree that fossil fuel consumption will have "some" effect on climate.

You still miss my point, there have been many other instances in time where the temperature has changed significantly over a relatively short period (like .4C in one century). This is not the first.

 

[Matt51]

China will be emitting twice the greenhouse gases the US is by 2012, according to Wikipedia. China is planning to build coal power plants for the next twenty years. Now, I can dig out the numbers, but the amount of electricity required to build a car is enormous, including what is used to make steel, aluminum. The cost of electricity to build a car is more than the cost of labor. So, is China playing the US? We go nuclear at great expense, they burn cheap coal at $.02 per KwH? They end up with all the manufacturing?
Secondly, people have talked about cow 'emissions' contributing to global warming. Excuse me, since we now have had our coolest summer in recorded history, the term "climate change" is in use. It can be applied whether the we have warming or cooling.
Anyway, India has three times the cattle the US does. And they are old cows, which have a lot of 'emissions'.
So, with China burning much more coal than the US, and India having more gassy cows, it seems 'climate change' is something the US has very little control over.

 

[josephv]

Shouldn't the US as the leader of the free world actually take the lead here? Lead by example, reduce pollutants and convince the other countries (e.g. China and India) to do the same.

 

[jmw]

Because history tells us that unilateral legislation doesn't work. It not only doesn't work it does the legislator some harm as they become less competitive.

It is generally recognised that when dealing with global problems the only effective solution is through International Environmental Agreements.

It is why the European Union Charter requires it to address global issues, climate change etc. through treaty making.

The forum is often the various UN agencies.
To be effective they should set achievable, affordable and justifiable targets, and they require the co-operation of the member states.

The key requirements for successful treaties are genarlly agreed to be:
[ul][li]Implementation[/li]
[li]Enforecment[/li]
[li]Monitoring[/li]
[li]Verification[/li][/ul]
It is also commented that experience shows onerous imposed solutions don't tend to work well; everyone has to agree t the final solution. That solution may deliver less than could be realised if the ideal path were followed and were complied with but also tends to show that the expectation often far exceeds the achievement and the net delivered benefit is often less than that delivered by an mutually agreed solution.

Leading by example sound nice but the reality si it won't work.
Now consider SOX emissions. They represent a global problem because of acid rain (some what over hyped) and a regional problem due to the impact on morbidity.
anthropogenic SOX is said to be around 30% of atmospheric SOX. The reduced sulphur content in European and US fuels for cars and trucks may have delivered a significant benefit in the local community as a result of unilateral legislation but globally the UN can't say if it has had any overall effect at all. In other words it could be that as one country reduces emissions others increase emissions and their fuel costs less to produce. In such things we find the beginnings of trade imbalances due to different overheads.




JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

Have Germany, Spain and Israel become less competitive after implementing Solar Energy programs and reducing pollution?

No they haven't, and In fact, they are more competitive than before.

 

[jmw]

You mean Spain Germany and Israel are now exclusively solar powered?
That's news to me.

Many countries have some hydro, some wind farms, some mix of energy sources. Having some and having enough to make a difference are two different things.

If anything, the new cheap (tight) gas that is coming on stream is going to enhance the energy cost difference between fossil (cheap) and green (not) and so make it even more attractive for those who need low energy costs for their industry to stick with fossil.

Take a look at who is buying into fossil fuels in a big way and then see if you can guess which countries will be enjoying cheap energy and low manufacturing costs at the expense of those who have gone green alone.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[GregLocock]

Solar is now responsible for approximately 1% of Germany's electrical geeneration.

Not, perhaps, a convincing case for the economic advantages of solar, unles that 1% somehow sprinkles fairy dust over their brown coal plants.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[cranky108]

If you really want to 'do something' about global warming then view the facts, and become a VEGAN.

If you want to 'feel good' about global warming call your goverment to legeslate new laws.

If you only want to 'feel soso' about the envirment, try picking up trash.

If you want every thing cheeper then call your goverment to legeslate no new envirment laws.

But please stop complaining, and do something.

 

[Matt51]

VEGAN is stupid. There are no healthy Vegans in the long term. Humans evolved for a long time eating meat. Vegetarians in India eat things like dairy and eggs. This you can do. Being a Vegan is just plain ignorant.

 

[Matt51]

"Global Warming" - now called "Climate Change" - was/is a Trojan Horse for hidden agendas. To provide tax subsidy for technologies which make no economic sense - solar. To push nuclear energy as "green" - despite nuclear being extraordinarily dangerous - Chernobyl, potential terrorist attack, nuclear waste stored all over the US at each plant. To move "dirty" manufacturing to China where they have to live with the pollution - although, along with the pollution went all the jobs.
Here in Indiana, along with much of the US, we just had the coolest summer since temperature records were kept, starting back in the 1800's.
The highest standard of living for all Americans, and citizens of the world, comes from using the lowest cost energy sources. In the US, this is coal for electricity, natural gas for fueling cars. Assuming the goal is to provide a high standard of living for Americans, as opposed to helping out special interest groups.

 

[cranky108]

To be a VEGAN, check the facts uses less resources from the earth, including farm land.
I did not say it is healthy, or fun.

Also being a VEGAN is an agenda of the many greenies.

So you don't want to be a VEGAN, then make another choice.

I, myself, choose to be a non-believer.

 

[josephv]

You mean to tell me that fossil fuels are not heavily subsidized?

That's news to the world.

Fossil fuels are not cheap, it us tax payers who foot the bill.

 

[josephv]

let's not forget the US auto industry, which is ridiculously subsidized at this moment.

 

[GregLocock]

Oh well, perhaps you'd like us to switch to the Chinese auto industry?

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[josephv]

Interesting you mention China, Greg.

China subsidizes gasoline prices so that their citizens can afford it.

But it does not end there. India also subsidizes gasoline prices for their citizens.

Wait there is more, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela use the profits of their oil industry to (you guessed it) subsidize gasoline prices so that it is really cheap for them to fill a tank of gas. So when the price of oil goes up, they have more profits to subsidize their gasoline.

In Canada, the oil sands require massive amounts of water and the process pollutes this water. What do the companies pay for this water and for contaminating it? Nothing, that is an enormous subsidy.

So how can fossil fuels be cheap, when the fuel itself is subsidized by tax payers all over the planet, and two of the big three car companies require massive bailouts to continue operating (which have been going on for some time)?
That is not cheap, that is very expensive.

Another note, are there foreign troops in Saudi Arabia to protect their solar panels or to ensure that there oil industry is secure? How much does that cost?

Imagine renewable energy received that kind of subsidy, you wouldn't be seing solar at 1%. Further to this hand calculators at one point were used by 1% of engineers and slide rulers by 99%. Solar will grow, it's called progress.

In Germany, electricity from renewables grew from 6% in 2000 to 15% in 2008. Over 200,000 people were employed in the renewable energy sector by 2006.

Imagine other countries taking Germany's lead. That would help the economy, create jobs, and fight pollution.