PDA

View Full Version : Climate shift



damienpaul
2005-Sep-04, 05:14 PM
Okay, as you can see in my sig, I am interested in climate, the weather and admittedly, i love a nice evening with red wine in hand watching a hell of a storm overhead (and taking pictures).

One question I'd like to get the views of the bountiful members here is if you belive that weather patterns are shifting permanently - meaning settling into a new regime (for want of a better term).

If folks could post evidence either way...I have no particular stance on this - it is a mixture of a hunch and a fear of sorts.

suttsteve
2005-Sep-04, 06:25 PM
I see no evidence that weather patterns are currently shifting. On a global scale, they seem pretty normal.

damienpaul
2005-Sep-04, 06:41 PM
Here is an article from the CSIRO in Australia Global climate shift linked to greenhouse (http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?id=WarmingUp&type=mediaRelease) and another from the USGS about the Little Ice Age ice-core evidence of rapid climate shift during the termination of the Little Ice Age (http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/SW_corrosion/icecore/).

It appears that climate shifts are relatively normal, usually either temporary or small scale - but there is a growing body of research that suggests that a large-ish scale climate shift is underway.

This shift could entirely be part of the natural cycles of things - e.g. interglacial cycles etc.

Suttsteve, thank you for your opinion - do you have links that show that point of view, i'd be interested in reading them

dgruss23
2005-Sep-04, 06:52 PM
Here is a really good discussion we had at BABB on this topic:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1

The people supporting anthropogenic global warming failed to come up with the meat to support the claim that the evidence for AAGW is overwhelming.

damienpaul
2005-Sep-04, 06:53 PM
Thats what I thought as well.... I remember reading a study of ice cores similar to the USGS link - and it suggests cyclicity.

The thread you linked is awesome, personally I am not really much of a believer of anthropogenic sources of global warming and climate change anymore. The data from ice cores etc seem to suggest a cycle

cyswxman
2005-Sep-04, 09:35 PM
It really depends on what you mean by shifting patterns. The atmosphere is pretty much in a constant state of flux, and rarely holds a climatic regime for very long. Indeed climate can be defined as the average weather over a rather long period of time. There tend to be irregular cyclical patterns, which themselves are governed by smaller cyclical patterns, and so on. To establish that the climate is now warmer than it should be, or colder, wetter, drier, etc, requires that one determine a normal, i.e. what it "should" be like, then measure the difference. I'm not so sure we can yet determine any locations' "normal", or even it it exists. As I am fond of saying, "Normal is quite abnormal."

Kullat Nunu
2005-Sep-04, 09:36 PM
Well, even if the rising temperatures are not caused by humans, it's not wise to accelerate the warming. We cannot afford to be wrong.

It seems that within the last few thousands of years -- the time when here have been human civilizations -- Earth's climate has been unusually stable. During the last glaciation period, especially at its end there were huge shifts in global temperatures.

Gillianren
2005-Sep-04, 10:07 PM
here's what I don't understand, and it's not just a global warming thing.

what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere? this is a similar question, to me at least, as "what's wrong with trying to limit the fossil fuels we use, even if they aren't going to give out any time soon?"

I don't have enough information to really have an opinion beyond that on either subject, and I feel that this is in no small part because most of the people who write on either subject assume that you already understand it. I don't; Bill Nye's talk on global warming (which, as I recall, supported the human-created angle, though I could be wrong) was about at the level I could understand, and included a funny bit about cavemen worrying about "global cooling," which made clear that climate varies and always has.

Kristophe
2005-Sep-05, 02:50 AM
I'm sorta in the same seat as Gillian, 'cept I'm more worried about the toxic chemicals that end up all over the place. I'd prefer we get a grip on those, first.

I, too, haven't personally witnessed any seemingly long term changes in the weather. Not locally, anyway. Everything is as it has been as far back as I can remember. Nearly twenty years, anyway.

MG1962A
2005-Sep-05, 12:56 PM
I think the climate is changing - I'm not sure there is any dynamic to make it stay stable for any period of time. My understanding is we are still on the up swing from the last ice age.

In terms of the stuff we are pumping into the atmosphere, there have been volcanic events in the past that bordered on catastrophic, and the environment has bounced back.

I am not condoning air pollution, just suggesting a lot of the stuff being pumped out wont affect climate as much as we think, though human health will naturally suffer.

You did ask to sight references, and that is a fair point. I have an interest in the evolution of life on this planet, and when you do look through the ages, you realise how calm things are at the momment. Life has had to deal with events that make the current climate seem a paradise

MG

dgruss23
2005-Sep-05, 01:19 PM
here's what I don't understand, and it's not just a global warming thing.

what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere? this is a similar question, to me at least, as "what's wrong with trying to limit the fossil fuels we use, even if they aren't going to give out any time soon?"



If you read the first 7 pages of the thread I linked to above you'll see the arguments against anthropogenic global warming. You could post some questions on that thread if you would like additional explanation.

As to your question about trying to limit what we spill in the atmosphere - Its a good question. And there is nothing wrong as long as its done for the right reasons and in a way that is not harmful.

The problem is that anthropogenic global warming theory is not a good reason to limit fossil fuel usage - because the theory is so weak when you look at the evidence. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is plant food. Trees grow by using atmospheric CO2. James Lovelock pointed out in his GAIA hypothesis that if CO2 levels drop too much below the pre-industrial levels, the growth of plants would be restricted.

Nobody on BABB (BAUT now) indicated they were against improving fuel efficiency and reducing emission pollutants such as SO2. But like it or not our economy and lives at this time depend upon the flow of oil. Alternative technologies are not yet feasible - perhaps someday - but not yet. Look at the crisis created in the south by one hurricane. You disrupt electricity and gasoline supplies and chaos ensues.

I'm in favor of improving fuel efficiency and reducing polluting emissions - but Kyoto (for example) is not the answer.

Lord Jubjub
2005-Sep-05, 11:21 PM
Oil and gas get expensive enough and many other options start to look feasible. A lot of these alternative energy sources are expensive in setup terms but cheaper in maintenence. Thus, they are likely to stick around when the prices drop. Even efficiency measures are the same way--very expensive to find and develop, but cheap once they're in production.

Supposedly, rooftop solar panels are quite the rage in California. Anyone there confirm this?

Taks
2005-Sep-06, 04:52 PM
here's what I don't understand, and it's not just a global warming thing.
economics are a HUGE consideration... so you're right, it's not just a GW thing.


what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere?
maybe nothing, maybe everything. tinkering one way or the other has yet unproven consequences. the only known consequence is economic impact. our technology to limit fossil fuel use, in particular, just isn't there yet. limiting such things results in dire consequences for developed nations, and all but eliminates growth in developing nations. the current answer? limit developed nations (US, europe) yet allow developing nations (china, india) to continue unabated. in the end, what do we accomplish when the primary polluters aren't limited anyway? (hint: nothing).

another example is recycling. currently, many forms of recycling are more damaging to the environment than developing the raw resource in the first place (primarily by requiring more energy to produce). when our technology advances, that won't be as much of an issue, but in the mean time... pollute away in the name of enviromental friendliness? :)

the short answer is that it makes sense to cut back on pollution, but not at the expense of the world economy. feeding the poor becomes a difficult task when we're all poor. technological advances that will in the end improve conditions no longer get invented due to a lack of resources.


and included a funny bit about cavemen worrying about "global cooling," which made clear that climate varies and always has.
that was the big scare up till the early 70s... then it was the hole in the ozone, now global warming. same people making the apocalyptic claims, too. then they wonder why folks such as i don't trust them.

taks

ausduck1
2005-Sep-07, 08:39 AM
For what it's worth, and having no qualifications in the area of weather and global weather patterns etc (I'm just an interested earth inhabitant who reads and watches documentary channels) - using common sense and knowing that the majority of weather observations have been collected in a very short period of time in the history of the earth... well, who's to say that the climactic changes aren't just the result of the very natural state of flux that this planet is in? The hole on the ozone layer gets press regularly here in Australia, and is often linked to our high rate of skin cancer, but are the fluctuations really the result of greenhouse gases or a natural ebbing and flowing??? WE live on a dynamic planet, things aren't going to stay the same, so go with the evolutionary flow :) (and wear sunblock!!)

Taks
2005-Sep-08, 07:46 PM
The hole on the ozone layer gets press regularly here in Australia, and is often linked to our high rate of skin cancer, but are the fluctuations really the result of greenhouse gases or a natural ebbing and flowing???the funny thing about a "hole" in the ozone is that when it gets big, there's more O2 in the atmosphere, which is then converted to ozone by UV light... back and forth, back and forth, definite ebb and flow thing going on there. once they figured that out after the big scare in the 90s (or whenever), suddenly the press dropped it and we never hear of it in the states anymore.

taks

Gillianren
2005-Sep-08, 09:41 PM
look, I used to live in LA. these means that, due to things dumped in the atmosphere, I still have the lungs of a smoker, even though I never smoked. that's the sort of thing I mean when I refer to things dumped in the atmosphere.

okay, yes, I'll admit I don't know what specific chemicals are dumped into the atmosphere, and what specific damage those chemicals do, but again, no one has ever even tried explaining this to me in language I can understand. I think I'm speaking for a lot of us when I say that what we need is "stuff dumped into the atmosphere for dummies."

but correct me if I'm wrong, but very few things that dump chemicals into the atmosphere dump nothing but harmless ones, even discounting any thoughts of global warming or ozone holes.

Glom
2005-Sep-08, 09:47 PM
This software has begun to annoy me. I already lost a post a spent a while writing.


what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere? this is a similar question, to me at least, as "what's wrong with trying to limit the fossil fuels we use, even if they aren't going to give out any time soon?"

I have another question. What's wrong with spilling stuff into the atmosphere? I know it's a weird one, but think about it. Of course, the answer is obvious when it comes to things like SO2 and NOx, which are pollutants, but I sense a more superstious implication that it is someful sinful to emit on first principles. I get a vibe of Ned Flanders and co for whom salting your food is a sin because it inflames the taste buds and becomes enjoyable. This puritanical attitude often seems to be an underlying bias for proponents of emissions reductions and the walking-on-egg-shells lifestyle. It has become ingrained in the public mind that emissions are bad regardless.

So when I ask the question, it's not because I'm saying there aren't plenty of emissions, which are bad, but because I want you to really think about what the basis of your concern is. Is it because of real issues like air quality or because of more latent fear of emissions in general? I'm not sure everyone knows anymore.

Glom
2005-Sep-08, 09:49 PM
look, I used to live in LA. these means that, due to things dumped in the atmosphere, I still have the lungs of a smoker, even though I never smoked. that's the sort of thing I mean when I refer to things dumped in the atmosphere.

Of course, when it comes to air quality, you are right to ask for emissions reductions. My issue is with a more superstitious undercurrent behind emissions reductions. Your question had a ring of "even if the emissions don't cause any harm, shouldn't we try to reduce them anyway".

aurora
2005-Sep-10, 03:52 PM
Today's news story linked below.

As in North America and Europe, glaciers are melting in the Himalayas.

CNN story glacier melting (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/09/himalayan.glaciers.reut/index.html)

but, no worries, right?

dgruss23
2005-Sep-10, 04:18 PM
Today's news story linked below.

As in North America and Europe, glaciers are melting in the Himalayas.

CNN story glacier melting (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/09/himalayan.glaciers.reut/index.html)

but, no worries, right?

I missed the part where the compelling proof is provided that humans are responsible for the observed climate changes. :)

Glom
2005-Sep-10, 05:07 PM
I missed the part where the compelling proof is provided that humans are responsible for the observed climate changes. :)

If I had a pound for everytime an AAGWer has cited some change as evidence of the paradigm, I'd already be able to fund Kyoto. No matter how many times we tell, them some of them can't seem to grasp the concept that evidence of change is not evidence of a specific cause.

BobK
2005-Sep-11, 05:17 AM
Graph the history of carbonated beverage consumption over the last 1000 years. Due to the enormous increase in consumption you will notice a hockey stick shape become quite apparent over the last 100 years.

For the AGW people worried about CO2 causing extreme global warming, I say a journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step. If you drink carbonated beverages,(unknown, but I'm sure vast majority of people) you should at least be willing to stop buying and consuming them. This will cost absolutely nothing, and for those that have a tough time making decisions, there's added benefit of reduced selection space when puchasing beverages.

How can the AGW people expect to convert the skeptics into supporting the enormous costs associated with Kyoto if they don't try to lead by the simple expedient of doing something that costs nothing and might well be as statistically insignificant as Kyoto?

aurora
2005-Sep-13, 08:13 PM
Greenland melting

Greenland melting article on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/12/greenland.arctic.thaw.ap/index.html)

Regarding those who believe that human activities have no effect on climate, I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Glom
2005-Sep-13, 08:40 PM
Greenland melting

Greenland melting article on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/12/greenland.arctic.thaw.ap/index.html)

Regarding those who believe that human activities have no effect on climate, I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Yes, but we manage. Moving on from this trolling...

Fram
2005-Sep-14, 08:30 AM
Perhaps not trolling, but certainly flame bait. :evil:

Launch window
2005-Sep-14, 10:28 AM
Perhaps not trolling, but certainly flame bait. :evil:

Glom is a big gasoline fan and pro-Nuke advocate so just sometimes he'll turn a blind eye to evidence that is presented to him or blame 'Al-Gore' and accuse the data of being political. Thankfully his manners are a lot better than the other anti-Climate Change and Nuke-fan... that Project-Orion guy

antoniseb
2005-Sep-14, 10:44 AM
I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Hi Aurora, Global Warming is a touchy subject, and people on both sides find it easy to get frustrated with the other side. However, what you have written here is the sort of thing that starts fights. Please be more careful about this sort of thing. This is a warning.

Fram
2005-Sep-14, 11:04 AM
I meant that aurora's mail was flame bait, not Glom's. Sorry for the confusion.
I have complained about some of Glom's posts before, and I don't agree with him on the AGW issue, but I see no fault in his posts here, while aurora's was uncalled for. I should quote the post I'm replying to more often (this one was in response to Launch Window).

dgruss23
2005-Sep-14, 11:56 AM
Greenland melting

Greenland melting article on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/12/greenland.arctic.thaw.ap/index.html)

Regarding those who believe that human activities have no effect on climate, I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Its the evidence - and we discussed it extensively in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1&highlight=animosity) among others. Please feel free to respond to the points against AAGW raised in that thread. I left that as an open challenge and nobody has accepted it. I offered very detailed explanations and provided journal references. We don't have to reduce the discussion to "belief". There's plenty of evidence and logical inference to discuss.

Fram
2005-Sep-14, 12:37 PM
I'm just rereading the linked thread, and one of the first reasosn given why Kyoto is useless (by de Freitas originally) is that it will only have a very limited impact, even if everything else the AGW'ers predict is true.
As they say so themselves, that is true. However, you should also note that they give Kyoto as only a first (small) step towards a solution, not as the solution in itself. You have to change the curve (i.e. the rise in temperature) somewhere, and at first, the change will be slow, almost imperceptibly so. It's like steering an oil tanker...

So I think this argument is invalid. That leaves only, er, all the others to tackle. :)

Glom
2005-Sep-14, 01:51 PM
Many have said the Kyoto is just a first step, but that argument has several problems of its own when you consider that:

1) the cost of implementing Kyoto is more expensive than just adapting to the change despite having no effect.
2) even Europe can't achieve their targets apart from Britain that had the deus ex machina of North Sea gas and Germany that cheated.

So if you say that Kyoto is just a precursor to future more stringent treaties, then you have to consider that what hope is there for their success when even this first step is an expensive failure.

Kullat Nunu
2005-Sep-14, 02:09 PM
If humanity is indeed responsible for rising temperatures, and the current trend continues, the possible economic impact is much greater than any loss caused by environmental regulations.

My answer: let's develop better technology! We must invest much, much more to new forms of energy production (above all to fusion energy) and less consuming devices. We have got big brains, let's use them.

Fram
2005-Sep-14, 03:01 PM
Many have said the Kyoto is just a first step, but that argument has several problems of its own when you consider that:

1) the cost of implementing Kyoto is more expensive than just adapting to the change despite having no effect.
2) even Europe can't achieve their targets apart from Britain that had the deus ex machina of North Sea gas and Germany that cheated.

So if you say that Kyoto is just a precursor to future more stringent treaties, then you have to consider that what hope is there for their success when even this first step is an expensive failure.

1) Very debatable. First of all, it's little effect, not no effect. Secondly, if you want to decrease the level of manmade CO2, you have to start somewhere, as explained in my previous post.
Furthermore, if the AGW predictions come true, the cost will be enormous, much more than the cost of Kyoto. Complete economies will have to change (mainly agricultural), mass migrations will happen, and shortage for drinking water will become a problem in regions where there is no such problem now.
2) It's not can't. It's won't. The will isn't there, because if 'we' (whoever that is) do it, and 'they' don't, they will have an economic advantage, and the long term results of only 'we' implementing Kyoto are truly negligible. If it isn't implemented worldwide (and later added on by more agreements and more measures), it's useless.

And if it's not implemented, then it's just a failure, not an expensive failure. It's an expensive failure (though not as expensive as some people seem to think) if it's implemented without a follow-up. Building the towers for a suspension bridge is an expensive failure if you don't build the bridge later on. But if you don't build the towers, you won't have a bridge at all.

One other thing. I don't remember if you said it or someone else, but I have seen arguments like 'if the changes come, technology will fix it, we'll adapt'. I hope that's true, but anyway: why would we be able to adapt to a rise in temperature of 2.5 degrees or so, but aren't we supposedly able to adapt (technologically) to the limitations asked for by Kyoto? See it as a technological challenge, instead of the end of our economy. We'll find alternatives, better solutions, with less pollution. Things like nuclear energy (which I'm not against), hybrid cars (preferably better ones than the current), space based solar power, ... Implementing Kyoto isn't a return to medieval times or a ban of technology, but it should instead be a promotor of technology and innovation.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-14, 06:40 PM
1) Very debatable. First of all, it's little effect, not no effect.

Actually its a projected affect assuming that the models are right. Here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=328984&postcount=31) was my thoughts on the cost side of this debate. But I think that even greater priority than the cost is establishing that there is a valid reason to incur cost in the first place. Unless somebody can provide the compelling proof that CO2 is a climate forcer (see the other thread) the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is irrelevant to the Earth's climate system.

And I think that pretty much is how I would relate my thoughts on this issue to the rest of your post. I took a lot of time to detail the arguments against AAGW in that thread. Nobody offered a compelling response to my points nor evidence to support the claims that the evidence for AAGW is overwhelming. Without that there is no basis for taking any action.

Fram
2005-Sep-14, 07:33 PM
I said that I only tackled one point, namely the criticism against point 12 of your post (on page one). Now you are saying that I first need to establish points 3 to 11.
As for your linked answer: again, you are assuming in this scenario that no technological progress is possible, while on the other hand all scenario's of possible disaster are dismissed with 'if it happens, we'll find a way'. Isn't that a double standard?
There are many ways to reduce energy usage and CO2 emission. First of all, you can make your energy by different means (nuclear), meaning that you can still use your refrigerator and produce less CO2. Secondly, why is it so hard to switch from the current car to a compact? Most people don't need such big cars. And cars are getting more fuel effective all the time.
Of course the big question(s) remain, about the validity of the AGW model and so on. I admitted that and will do here again. But the question of the cost is, at least for me, not an argument against Kyoto.

Taks
2005-Sep-14, 08:56 PM
1) Very debatable. First of all, it's little effect, not no effect.actually, it is negligible effect. a nit, but an important nit. kyoto will cost trillions to implement to stave off 0.1 C of warming... also, the biggest future CO2 emitters, china and india, are exempt. do the math: china and india get to grow their economies while increasing their CO2 output and the rest of the world will crush their own economies while... increasing their CO2 output (kyoto will not reduce the overall output, it will only slow the increase).


Secondly, if you want to decrease the level of manmade CO2, you have to start somewhere, as explained in my previous post.and the need to decrease CO2 is still not proven necessary.


Furthermore, if the AGW predictions come true, the cost will be enormous, much more than the cost of Kyoto. Complete economies will have to change (mainly agricultural), mass migrations will happen, and shortage for drinking water will become a problem in regions where there is no such problem now.proof? you say that only bad things will happen yet there is ample evidence that a lot of good will come from a few degrees of warming. some places will likewise see vast improvements, i.e. russia and canada.


And if it's not implemented, then it's just a failure, not an expensive failure. It's an expensive failure (though not as expensive as some people seem to think) if it's implemented without a follow-up. Building the towers for a suspension bridge is an expensive failure if you don't build the bridge later on. But if you don't build the towers, you won't have a bridge at all.in terms of scale of magnitude, your analogy does not hold. kyoto has been implemented, and has already cost lives and 10s of billiions of dollars and will continue to grow without bound. a bridge is a one time hit for much less than a billion.


but aren't we supposedly able to adapt (technologically) to the limitations asked for by Kyoto? See it as a technological challenge, instead of the end of our economy.specious argument. "adapting" to kyoto means overnight reductions in fossil fuel usage. such things wreak havoc on economies. this is already happening and the costs are staggering. if we're all poor, we won't be able to adapt using new technologies because we won't be able to afford them.


We'll find alternatives, better solutions, with less pollution. Things like nuclear energy (which I'm not against), hybrid cars (preferably better ones than the current), space based solar power, ... Implementing Kyoto isn't a return to medieval times or a ban of technology, but it should instead be a promotor of technology and innovation.tell the nuclear argument to the rest of the AAGWs. they're often funded by the same groups that made it impossible to build new reactors in the US.

taks

dgruss23
2005-Sep-14, 09:48 PM
I said that I only tackled one point, namely the criticism against point 12 of your post (on page one). Now you are saying that I first need to establish points 3 to 11.

No, I've always maintained that there must be a compelling reason to take action - the whole reason for pts 3-11 and here from the comments on cost thread I linked to:


And more to the point, given that these are the sorts of sacrifices we're being asked to make in order to divert a projected GW disaster, shouldn't we be very certain that the scientific evidence supports the concern? Shouldn't we be profoundly interested in the fact that the solar activity connects extremely well with the observed climate records from 200,000 years ago up to the present? Shouldn't we have numerous questions about why it is that the 20th century temperature records are an incredibly poor match with greenhouse warming predictions? Shouldn't we be curious to know more about the reality that ice core studies show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years rather than precede temperature increases? Shouldn't we be asking why we're making these GW catastrophe predictions when there is a complete dearth of solid evidence linking CO2 as a forcing agent to the Earth's climate fluctuations on any time scale you wish to adopt?



Why take action to solve a problem that it isn't established exists by any compelling standard of scientific evidence? My point in the post I linked to was about the cost if we did attempt to take actions necessary to eliminate the projected warming. Nobody responded to that point either in the other thread.


You may have been responding to point 12, but as soon as you said this you made points 3-11 relevant again:


And if it's not implemented, then it's just a failure, not an expensive failure. It's an expensive failure (though not as expensive as some people seem to think) if it's implemented without a follow-up.

Its not a failure of any kind if the motivation for Kyoto is based upon claims that can't be scientifically backed up.


As for your linked answer: again, you are assuming in this scenario that no technological progress is possible, while on the other hand all scenario's of possible disaster are dismissed with 'if it happens, we'll find a way'. Isn't that a double standard?



I made no statement about technology in that post. I was not assuming technologies will not develop. I was assuming the radical environmentalists will not have the patience to give those technologies time develop. After all, its the AAGW movement that keeps claiming that we don't have time to wait and see if AAGW is right, because if it is then by the time we're sure it we'll be too late. My concern is that these energy cuts will be forced upon us before the replacement technologies can be implemented on a wide scale. That will have an economic impact - and thinking about it in the terms I gave in that post is a good way to start to grapple with the issue.



There are many ways to reduce energy usage and CO2 emission. First of all, you can make your energy by different means (nuclear),


Environmentalists (the same people pushing the AAGW scare) have objected to building new reactors. None have been built in the U.S. in at least 25 years. But I think both Glom and I would agree with you on this option.



meaning that you can still use your refrigerator and produce less CO2. Secondly, why is it so hard to switch from the current car to a compact? Most people don't need such big cars. And cars are getting more fuel effective all the time.

I have 4 children and often transport my best friend's children - a minivan is a requirement.

I live on a steep hill - a compact car would leave me stranded 2 miles from my house in the winter.


My wife rides horses - a truck is a requirement for taking them to competitions - a Yugo isn't going to get it done.


I live on a steep hill - the puny engine of a compact car will be chewed up before I pay off the loan on the thing.


And finally - I like a bigger vehicle! I'm not going to sacrifice the requirements met by a big vehicle to satisfy a movement that cannot even provide compelling evidence they are right.


Besides, the car companies have to know that any technology that can significantly increase fuel efficiency is an economic boon for them. Do you really think that they're holding back technology that would dramatically increase fuel efficiency? The first company that puts a truck or minivan on the market that gets 40+ mpg is going to be rolling in the money. The fact that no such vehicles are to be found suggests that either the car manufacturers are outright stupid - or its not technologically feasible at this time - or that the technology that is required to get that kind of efficience would make the vehicle so expensive that nobody could afford to buy it anyway.

I think the first option is unlikely because they'll be interested in anything that significantly increases profits. The last option is unlikely because after initial development the costs of new technologies quickly decrease. So the most likely option is that the technology is not feasible at this time - which goes back to my points in that other post. How are we to cut our fossil fuel usage that dramatically if the technologies are not readily available to replace them.



Of course the big question(s) remain, about the validity of the AGW model and so on. I admitted that and will do here again. But the question of the cost is, at least for me, not an argument against Kyoto.


I respect that. But I think people will have differing opinions on that - which brings us full circle to why I suggested that we should be looking for the compelling evidence that AAGW/AGW is correct.

Taks
2005-Sep-14, 10:15 PM
And finally - I like a bigger vehicle! I'm not going to sacrifice the requirements met by a big vehicle to satisfy a movement that cannot even provide compelling evidence they are right.ultimately AAGWs seem to think it is their moral imperative to tell you what to do, because they said so. i drive a sports car (about 21 mpg) and plan to get rid of it... in favor of an SUV. my wife as a mini-SUV (hyundai) too. we live in the mountains... it is kinda necessary.

taks

BobK
2005-Sep-16, 05:10 PM
It seems to me that increasing fuel efficiency would likely increase gasoline consumption. It simply makes it cheaper to travel a mile in a vehicle. Does anyone really think transportation will remain static in the face of decreased cost per mile?

If you want people and businesses to cut down on gas usage the only way to do it is to make it more expensive to travel a mile.

Increasing gasoline costs thru more taxation is likely committing political suicide.

I suppose the government could issue ration coupons, but it seems to me that would certainly open up a can of worms like black market and cronyism and be destructive to the economy as a whole. Not to mention such a program would likely be run on the Peter Principle.

Glom
2005-Sep-16, 06:46 PM
It seems to me that increasing fuel efficiency would likely increase gasoline consumption. It simply makes it cheaper to travel a mile in a vehicle. Does anyone really think transportation will remain static in the face of decreased cost per mile?

Somewhat specious. You assume that cost is the limiting factor on consumption, which assumes people care that much. If their SUVs magically halved their consumption, do you really think that the drivers would use them twice as much? They probably won't notice. Their driving is dictated by necessity and desire, not on the need to consume a certain amount.

And if cost was limiting consumption and the SUVs magically halved their consumption, why would they then spend more money by driving more than twice as much. If there is any merit to what you say, it's that consumption would remain constant.


I suppose the government could issue ration coupons, but it seems to me that would certainly open up a can of worms like black market and cronyism and be destructive to the economy as a whole. Not to mention such a program would likely be run on the Peter Principle.

I'm sure the communists would love that idea.

Taks
2005-Sep-16, 08:37 PM
I suppose the government could issue ration coupons, but it seems to me that would certainly open up a can of worms like black market and cronyism and be destructive to the economy as a whole. Not to mention such a program would likely be run on the Peter Principle.uh, you think gas is expensive now? give it to socialist (or fascist) control and you'll be unpleasantly surprised at how prices "evolve" overnight. corruption and cronyism are the least of the worries you'd have.

taks

Tom2Mars
2005-Sep-16, 09:46 PM
and the need to decrease CO2 is still not proven necessary.

For some time, I've heard the "CO2 Isn't That Bad" people say that increasing levels of CO2 is good, that it will stimulate more plant growth, and that the newly increased biota mass will consume the extra CO2 and eventually balance things out.

So...When's it gonna happen? If the plants are taking up the CO2, how come CO2 levels are still going up. Huh?

And-
Do you really think that they're holding back technology that would dramatically increase fuel efficiency? The first company that puts a truck or minivan on the market that gets 40+ mpg is going to be rolling in the money. The fact that no such vehicles are to be found suggests that either the car manufacturers are outright stupid - or its not technologically feasible at this time - or that the technology that is required to get that kind of efficience would make the vehicle so expensive that nobody could afford to buy it anyway.

I think the first option is unlikely because they'll be interested in anything that significantly increases profits. The last option is unlikely because after initial development the costs of new technologies quickly decrease. So the most likely option is that the technology is not feasible at this time - which goes back to my points in that other post..

Many times over the years, other countries, especially Japan, have sucessfully introduced more efficient technology, and, made it affordable. They bring things to market which "Detroit" had steadfastly claimed were "too expensive" and/or "impossible". The very next year, the U.S. automakers introduce their version.

So, turns out that most of the time, better techniques are possible, and profits go up. I therefore must agree with your supposition that "the car manufacturers are outright stupid". Expecially the manufactures in the U.S.

And re-
or that the technology that is required to get that kind of efficience would make the vehicle so expensive that nobody could afford to buy it anyway
If it were true, that nobody will buy an expensive vehicle, then how do you explain the purchase of expensive luxury vehicles such as Lexus, Porche, Mercedes, Lamborghini, Humvee...

Taks
2005-Sep-16, 10:27 PM
So...When's it gonna happen? If the plants are taking up the CO2, how come CO2 levels are still going up. Huh?dunno, nor do i care. first, there's issues regarding the levels of CO2 now compared to "before" (whenever the golden standard "stable" point was determined) due to depletion in the ice cores... second, CO2 is not shown to be a climate forcer, as many of us have pointed out ad infinitum. if it's not a climate forcer, who cares?


So, turns out that most of the time, better techniques are possible, and profits go up. I therefore must agree with your supposition that "the car manufacturers are outright stupid".he did not suppose car manufacturers are stupid... he asked a rhetorical question, followed by the supposition that they are not. given the enormous level of complexity designed into even the cheapest cars, as well as the enormous market, i'd say manufacturers by and large are not stupid. quite the opposite. they'd love nothing more than to find the golden bullet product that blew the market away. patents last 17 years...

also, your statement "most of the time" is unsubstantiated. is there a study you are referring to that shows most of the time better techniques are possible and manufacturers ignore them? anecdotal evidence won't get you far in a debate.


Expecially the manufactures in the U.S.funny, but it seems ALL manufacturers are hiding the 40 mpg+ carburetors, not just those in the US.


If it were true, that nobody will buy an expensive vehicle, then how do you explain the purchase of expensive luxury vehicles such as Lexus, Porche, Mercedes, Lamborghini, Humvee...i think another rhetorical statement or at least, most people would not buy such cars. probably less than 100k of those high priced cars sold in the world. if all cars were $100k or more, there'd only be 200k cars sold in a year... you've taken a light comment to it's most extreme sense, one that was obviously not intended and can easily be inferred from the context of this argument (and his statements).

taks

Essan
2005-Sep-17, 01:15 PM
CO2 emissions aren't the only way in which we can affect regional climates - changes in land use and vegetation cover have an important local impact as well. But at the moment this seems to be being conveniently forgotten in the futile drive to reduce CO2 emissions......

I can't help wondering, for example, whether the decline in Andean glaciers is partly down to reduced precipitation due to the destruction of a vast area of rain forest in Amazonia?

Glom
2005-Sep-17, 02:05 PM
I can't help wondering, for example, whether the decline in Andean glaciers is partly down to reduced precipitation due to the destruction of a vast area of rain forest in Amazonia?

Wise indeed. Glaciation has been retreating on Mt Kilamanjaro for a while, but the temperatures there have been cooling? How do we resolve the discrepancy? There has been deforestation in the region, which has been suggested as a cause for reduced precipitation.

Just like the insistence that plate tectonics have no role in changing sea levels, it appears that again we are witnessing the complex and non-linear system that is our planet simplified to politically selected variables.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-17, 02:59 PM
For some time, I've heard the "CO2 Isn't That Bad" people say that increasing levels of CO2 is good, that it will stimulate more plant growth, and that the newly increased biota mass will consume the extra CO2 and eventually balance things out.

So...When's it gonna happen? If the plants are taking up the CO2, how come CO2 levels are still going up. Huh?

First, you've misunderstood the point about plant growth. The claim is not that plant growth will absorb all CO2 put into the atmosphere. The point is that plants will grow better with increased CO2. See pages 6-8 of this paper (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf)(pdf file).

You should also look at the beginning of the paper and the discussion of the carbon budget.

And if you haven't already, you should read the first 7-8 pages of this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1&highlight=animosity)to review the arguments against AAGW that nobody has been able to offer the overwhelming counterresponse to. And this paper (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf)also presents a lot of important evidence on the issue.



And-

Many times over the years, other countries, especially Japan, have sucessfully introduced more efficient technology, and, made it affordable. They bring things to market which "Detroit" had steadfastly claimed were "too expensive" and/or "impossible". The very next year, the U.S. automakers introduce their version.

So, turns out that most of the time, better techniques are possible, and profits go up. I therefore must agree with your supposition that "the car manufacturers are outright stupid". Expecially the manufactures in the U.S.

So perhaps you could point to the technology the Japanese companies are avoiding that would net a truck 40+ Mpg?



And re-
If it were true, that nobody will buy an expensive vehicle, then how do you explain the purchase of expensive luxury vehicles such as Lexus, Porche, Mercedes, Lamborghini, Humvee...

Have you ever heard of wealthy people? I'm pretty sure they can offord those vehicles.

So lets review - you're saying the car companies are simply avoiding producing affordable technology that would net them a whole lot of money AND perhaps even the support of the environmental movement that so severely criticizes them at this time?

dgruss23
2005-Sep-17, 03:05 PM
ultimately AAGWs seem to think it is their moral imperative to tell you what to do, because they said so. i drive a sports car (about 21 mpg) and plan to get rid of it... in favor of an SUV. my wife as a mini-SUV (hyundai) too. we live in the mountains... it is kinda necessary.

taks

And that's the strange part about it. The basis of their moral imperative is that the CO2 increases will cause climate change. Yet they don't seem to feel a moral responsibility to prove their case.

Tom2Mars
2005-Sep-17, 05:39 PM
i'd say manufacturers by and large are not stupid. quite the opposite. they'd love nothing more than to find the golden bullet product that blew the market away.
taks

Now you've got me confused. Are we talking about the same U.S. auto companies that have been making cars these last 100 years? The ones who fought the introduction of seat belts and other safety features, the ones who lagged behind Japan with the introduction with more fuel efficient cars during the "energy crisis" of the 70's, the ones who for a couple of bucks of extra profit, left out some gas tank bolts in the Pinto's, resulting in fiery deaths for many unfortunate customers?

Well, that's the world I've grown up in. But, to tell you the truth, I like the alternate universe you are living in. It sounds really great!


So perhaps you could point to the technology the Japanese companies are avoiding that would net a truck 40+ Mpg?


funny, but it seems ALL manufacturers are hiding the 40 mpg+ carburetors, not just those in the US

Who said everyone needs a truck, let alone one that can get 40+ Mpg? As an overall system, and in terms of the energy expended to perform a given amount of work, our transportation system does not consist of every driver needing to haul 2,000 pounds of cargo up the steepest hill every time they get behind the wheel. I have a 14 year-old sedan/hatchback that gets over 40 Mpg. And, it's got a trailer hitch, for when I need to carry more stuff.


Have you ever heard of wealthy people? I'm pretty sure they can offord those vehicles. Uhhh...Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. When "Detroit" says, "We can't do such-and-such" because it will cost the consumer more money, they are ignoring the fact that they are already selling cars that cost some portion of their consumer base more money. The important step in developing any new technique, or technology, is to get something out there into the marketplace, start selling it, refine the process, and start bringing the price down through some economies-of-scale.


So lets review - you're saying the car companies are simply avoiding producing affordable technology that would net them a whole lot of money AND perhaps even the support of the environmental movement that so severely criticizes them at this time?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are slow to respond, react and innovate, and that when any company is slow, there is a chance that another company, or country, will take the opportunity to leapfrog over them. Let's face it. If there was a particular car company, U.S. or otherwise, that always did everything right, and brought the latest innovations to market first, and always did it for the best price for the consumer, there would probably be only One car company.

Which leads me to:

also, your statement "most of the time" is unsubstantiated. is there a study you are referring to that shows most of the time better techniques are possible and manufacturers ignore them? anecdotal evidence won't get you far in a debate.

Fine, I should have said that "Most of the time, when manufacturers Do bring better techniques to the market at an affordable price, profits go up."

dgruss23
2005-Sep-17, 09:00 PM
Who said everyone needs a truck, let alone one that can get 40+ Mpg?

Who said everyone owns a truck?


As an overall system, and in terms of the energy expended to perform a given amount of work, our transportation system does not consist of every driver needing to haul 2,000 pounds of cargo up the steepest hill every time they get behind the wheel.

And who's business is it to decide what each person's driving needs are?


I have a 14 year-old sedan/hatchback that gets over 40 Mpg. And, it's got a trailer hitch, for when I need to carry more stuff.

That's great! It sounds like it works for you, but a sedan/hatchback isn't going to cut it for me? As I said - who's business is it to decide what each person's driving needs are?


Uhhh...Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at. When "Detroit" says, "We can't do such-and-such" because it will cost the consumer more money, they are ignoring the fact that they are already selling cars that cost some portion of their consumer base more money. The important step in developing any new technique, or technology, is to get something out there into the marketplace, start selling it, refine the process, and start bringing the price down through some economies-of-scale.

"Detroit" focuses upon doing things that will give them more profits. If they can't profitably market a technology (to any segment of the consumer population), then they won't market it - but if it has potential they will keep developing it.

My point before was that if technologies to dramatically improve fuel efficiency were possible at this time - they'd already be on the market - because there would be a serious demand for them. Any manufacturer that can dramatically increase fuel efficiency will have a major market advantage (at least until the others catch up).

But as Taks pointed out you seemed to have completely missed my point:


Besides, the car companies have to know that any technology that can significantly increase fuel efficiency is an economic boon for them. Do you really think that they're holding back technology that would dramatically increase fuel efficiency? The first company that puts a truck or minivan on the market that gets 40+ mpg is going to be rolling in the money. The fact that no such vehicles are to be found suggests that either the car manufacturers are outright stupid - or its not technologically feasible at this time - or that the technology that is required to get that kind of efficience would make the vehicle so expensive that nobody could afford to buy it anyway.

I think the first option is unlikely because they'll be interested in anything that significantly increases profits. The last option is unlikely because after initial development the costs of new technologies quickly decrease. So the most likely option is that the technology is not feasible at this time - which goes back to my points in that other post. How are we to cut our fossil fuel usage that dramatically if the technologies are not readily available to replace them.

I gave three options as to why significantly better fuel efficiency is not on the market for larger vehicles(And if you'll look at what I was responding to it was in context). I argued that the most likely explanation is that the technology is not feasible at this time. Yet you responded as if I was proposing that the third option on the list was the explanation:


If it were true, that nobody will buy an expensive vehicle, then how do you explain the purchase of expensive luxury vehicles such as Lexus, Porche, Mercedes, Lamborghini, Humvee...

Never said it was true. In fact this was what I said:


The last option is unlikely because after initial development the costs of new technologies quickly decrease.

And yet somehow you've come full circle on this now and are lecturing me about this very point that I made in my post you objected to as if I never made the point:


The important step in developing any new technique, or technology, is to get something out there into the marketplace, start selling it, refine the process, and start bringing the price down through some economies-of-scale.

That's simply another way of stating the exact reason I gave for doubting that the third option was the reason we don't see these technologies on the market!

Tom2Mars
2005-Sep-17, 10:08 PM
dgruss23, You misunderstand me.

First, enjoy your truck. Really! It sounds like it works for you.

Second, here is a technology metaphor:

Look at your computer screen for a moment. Do you like having a computer? Well, not too long ago, Big companies like IBM and Xerox thought that computers were too expensive to produce for the small business and personal market, so, they just didn't make anything for those markets. Those markets didn't see any affordable computers available in the marketplace, so they didn't think to demand a product that the Big companies weren't making.

Ya with me so far?

So, one day 3 "kids", Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniac and Jef Raskin, paid a visit to Xerox PARC and took a peek at some technology that 2 other Big companies had passed on before ending up in the back-room-of-useless stuff at Zerox. Mainly, the Graphical User Interface, and the Mouse. These 3 eager, impatient, underfunded, nobody "kids" were familiar with some affordable chipsets on the market, and without conducting a Study or a Marketing Analysis, or, asking the vastly more experienced Grown-Up Computer BusinessMen what should be done and when can it be done, they just went ahead and did it.

And there's your computer! (Also, please take a moment to say a quiet Thank You to Jef Raskin, who passed away earlier this year)

What I'm trying to say in all of this, is that it is Always the right time to question, and be skeptical of the notion of:

its not technologically feasible at this time
I don't buy it! More than once, I have seen a reference about technology development and product innovation which states that 19 out of every 20 new products, designs and ideas come from individuals, not from corporations, especially big corporations. Those corporations may buy the rights to those ideas from individuals, but the corps are not very good at making innovation happen.

So, if the head of the biggest auto manufacturer in the U.S. says, "Sorry, that next cost-saving, fuel-saving, life-saving innovation is just not technologically feasible at this time", I say we give them a good whack on their head, and tell them to go back into their basement and poke around a bit. Or, better yet, they should stop by the grocery store and pick up the latest copy of Popular Car...Ahem...I mean, Popular Science, and see what the rest of the planet's automakers are coming up with next season.

And, as far as your question:


And who's business is it to decide what each person's driving needs are?

Well, I certainly hope you don't think it's me! I'm just a humble technologist stumbling through the maze of appropriate, usefull stuff.

However, I do know exactly whose business it Is to decide what each person's driving needs are! It's the very same car companies spending billions of dollars on the best Marketing Specialists and Product Psychologists that money can buy, to help them make the best, most convincing commercials, so they can broadcast them on 10 channels at once during the most expensive prime-time commercial timeslots available. And, let's not forget the print ads, and the car race sponsorships, and the billboards...

Gee, I don't know what the exact numbers are, but do you think it might be possible that they spend more on advertising to make the population salivate like a dog for next years "new-improved" model, than they do on their research guys back in the lab?

I wonder...

Taks
2005-Sep-18, 01:20 AM
Now you've got me confused. Are we talking about the same U.S. auto companies that have been making cars these last 100 years? The ones who fought the introduction of seat belts and other safety features, the ones who lagged behind Japan with the introduction with more fuel efficient cars during the "energy crisis" of the 70's, the ones who for a couple of bucks of extra profit, left out some gas tank bolts in the Pinto's, resulting in fiery deaths for many unfortunate customers?exactly what does any of this nonsense have to do with car manufacturers being stupid? really, i'd like to know.


Well, that's the world I've grown up in. But, to tell you the truth, I like the alternate universe you are living in. It sounds really great!why don't you try using facts, evidence and logic rather than cool soundbites. you'll get more credibility in circles where people actually do that.


Who said everyone needs a truck, let alone one that can get 40+ Mpg?i didn't, nor did dgruss, so why do you imply as much? it is my right, however, to drive a truck if i like. where do you get the moral authority to tell me not to?


The important step in developing any new technique, or technology, is to get something out there into the marketplace, start selling it, refine the process, and start bringing the price down through some economies-of-scale.the important FIRST step in introducing new technology is demonstrating demand. economics drive technology, even if you don't like it.


Fine, I should have said that "Most of the time, when manufacturers Do bring better techniques to the market at an affordable price, profits go up."still unsubstantiated. also, define affordable?

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-18, 01:33 AM
Look at your computer screen for a moment. Do you like having a computer? Well, not too long ago, Big companies like IBM and Xerox thought that computers were too expensive to produce for the small business and personal market, so, they just didn't make anything for those markets. Those markets didn't see any affordable computers available in the marketplace, so they didn't think to demand a product that the Big companies weren't making.irrelevant analogy. not only is it a different business, but a market that did not exist. also, there's a difference between whipping together a few hundred dollars worth of computer chips and investing a billion dollars into some newfangled carburetor (just an example technology).

the computer guys had nothing to lose, automobile manufacturers, coincidentally already losing massive sums, have quite a lot to lose.

Ya with me so far?


I don't buy it! More than once, I have seen a reference about technology development and product innovation which states that 19 out of every 20 new products, designs and ideas come from individuals, not from corporations, especially big corporations. Those corporations may buy the rights to those ideas from individuals, but the corps are not very good at making innovation happen.the burden of proof is still on you, and you have yet to show some great technology that will deliver us all some 40 mpg auto. you're starting to tread on conspiracy theories here, implying that they're really supressing advances in favor of their own interests. of course, as dgruss and i have both pointed out, any advance would be in there interest so the conspiracy theory just doesn't hold.


Gee, I don't know what the exact numbers are, but do you think it might be possible that they spend more on advertising to make the population salivate like a dog for next years "new-improved" model, than they do on their research guys back in the lab?
i'm beginning to get the very real impression that you just have a gripe, since you're using anecdote and cutsie stories in place of evidence. there's no substance to anything you've stated, only conjecture and thinly veiled attacks on an industry you obviously have a grudge against. show some proof, and maybe i'll reply again...

taks

dgruss23
2005-Sep-18, 02:32 AM
Look at your computer screen for a moment. Do you like having a computer? Well, not too long ago, Big companies like IBM and Xerox thought that computers were too expensive to produce for the small business and personal market, so, they just didn't make anything for those markets. Those markets didn't see any affordable computers available in the marketplace, so they didn't think to demand a product that the Big companies weren't making.


And then the technology became marketable and we are where we are today -computers everywhere. This analogy doesn't contradict anything I've said. It illustrates the point. New technologies come on the market when they become feasible - not before.

That leading experts doubt the viability of a new technology is nothing new:

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear] energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean tha tthe atom would have to be shattered at will."
~Albert Einstein 1932

But I suppose we should conclude that Einstein was keeping the secret of nuclear power to himself - or perhaps more rationally could it possibly be that knowledge had not advanced to the point that the technology was ready for application? Does that actually happen? New technologies take time to develop? New technologies require advances in knowledge? Can't be.

Tom2Mars
2005-Sep-18, 03:56 AM
Taks and dgruss23, since the both of you obviously enjoy dissecting the simplest statement, twisting the words around, and extracting outrageous suppositions, I'm real curious what you can do with the following simple sentiment.


"Enjoy your weekend guys!"


Please try not to spend too many hours of your time over-analyzing, overthinking, assaulting and insulting others.

Really...lighten up. See you'all in 6 months or so.

Taks
2005-Sep-18, 07:16 AM
curious where i, or dgruss, insulted you? you told us we were in an alternate reality, the closest thing to an insult i read.

we heavily insulted your arguments, because they are baseless. that's what you do in debate.

taks

dgruss23
2005-Sep-18, 02:00 PM
curious where i, or dgruss, insulted you? you told us we were in an alternate reality, the closest thing to an insult i read.

we heavily insulted your arguments, because they are baseless. that's what you do in debate.

taks

Not to mention the lack of response to points where we showed you to be wrong. No follow-up on the CO2 and plant growth question. Any thoughts on my response to your statement? Is your silence tacit approval of my points and the evidence in the articles I linked to?

Nor were we twisting words around. You twisted my three options for why higher mpg technologies were not on the market into advocacy of the third option which I specifically argued was unlikely and then lectured me that I should understand the very point I'd previously made - as if I'd never made the point myself. Now you're accusing me of twisting words when it was you that has done such. Next thing I know you'll be telling me that I need to get a grip because there is no compelling evidence for global warming.

I'm not sure why I need to lighten up - although I could probably stand to lose about 10 pounds around the middle. But then most of us that drive gas guzzlers could lose a few pounds if we walked a bit more instead of hogging all the petrol. :lol:

I'm sorry that you don't like my style of debate Tom2Mars. But I think it is you that needs to lighten up if you think that Taks and I have been "Assaulting" and "insulting".

Taks
2005-Sep-19, 04:25 AM
i could drop about 40 or so around the middle. having a kitchen at work is devastating. it's amazing how much more you eat when you don't have to pay for it! :)

taks

Fram
2005-Sep-19, 10:16 AM
I said that I only tackled one point, namely the criticism against point 12 of your post (on page one). Now you are saying that I first need to establish points 3 to 11.


No, I've always maintained that there must be a compelling reason to take action - the whole reason for pts 3-11 and here from the comments on cost thread I linked to:


And more to the point, given that these are the sorts of sacrifices we're being asked to make in order to divert a projected GW disaster, shouldn't we be very certain that the scientific evidence supports the concern? Shouldn't we be profoundly interested in the fact that the solar activity connects extremely well with the observed climate records from 200,000 years ago up to the present? Shouldn't we have numerous questions about why it is that the 20th century temperature records are an incredibly poor match with greenhouse warming predictions? Shouldn't we be curious to know more about the reality that ice core studies show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years rather than precede temperature increases? Shouldn't we be asking why we're making these GW catastrophe predictions when there is a complete dearth of solid evidence linking CO2 as a forcing agent to the Earth's climate fluctuations on any time scale you wish to adopt?

Why take action to solve a problem that it isn't established exists by any compelling standard of scientific evidence? My point in the post I linked to was about the cost if we did attempt to take actions necessary to eliminate the projected warming. Nobody responded to that point either in the other thread.

You may have been responding to point 12, but as soon as you said this you made points 3-11 relevant again:[QUOTE=Fram]And if it's not implemented, then it's just a failure, not an expensive failure. It's an expensive failure (though not as expensive as some people seem to think) if it's implemented without a follow-up.
Its not a failure of any kind if the motivation for Kyoto is based upon claims that can't be scientifically backed up.

My answer to point 12 was based on this premisse: if AGW is true (so if points 3-11 of your post were wrong), then what about argument 12 of you. That is all I want to discuss here. Of course if there is no need for Kyoto, then it is money thrown away (ignoring possible other benefits it could give, like air quality and so on). I want to show that for me, saying that 'even if AGW is true, Kyoto is still way too expensive for the results it is supposed to give' is false. Falling back to: 'but it will not have any results' is a cop-out.



As for your linked answer: again, you are assuming in this scenario that no technological progress is possible, while on the other hand all scenario's of possible disaster are dismissed with 'if it happens, we'll find a way'. Isn't that a double standard?
I made no statement about technology in that post. I was not assuming technologies will not develop. I was assuming the radical environmentalists will not have the patience to give those technologies time develop. After all, its the AAGW movement that keeps claiming that we don't have time to wait and see if AAGW is right, because if it is then by the time we're sure it we'll be too late. My concern is that these energy cuts will be forced upon us before the replacement technologies can be implemented on a wide scale. That will have an economic impact - and thinking about it in the terms I gave in that post is a good way to start to grapple with the issue.

No, it is a simplistic and populistic way to grapple with the issue. Beware of Kyoto, because it will mean that you'll freeze in your home, can't go where you want, and probably be out of work because our economy will crumble.
"Apocalyptic" is the term you use for the extremist AGW defenders (because they are of course the easiest targets), but this is rather apocalyptic as well...




There are many ways to reduce energy usage and CO2 emission. First of all, you can make your energy by different means (nuclear),
Environmentalists (the same people pushing the AAGW scare) have objected to building new reactors. None have been built in the U.S. in at least 25 years. But I think both Glom and I would agree with you on this option.
You mean "extreme environmentalists"? There are others, but again, it's easier to make a caricature of your opponents.




meaning that you can still use your refrigerator and produce less CO2. Secondly, why is it so hard to switch from the current car to a compact? Most people don't need such big cars. And cars are getting more fuel effective all the time.
I have 4 children and often transport my best friend's children - a minivan is a requirement.

I live on a steep hill - a compact car would leave me stranded 2 miles from my house in the winter.

My wife rides horses - a truck is a requirement for taking them to competitions - a Yugo isn't going to get it done.

I live on a steep hill - the puny engine of a compact car will be chewed up before I pay off the loan on the thing.

And finally - I like a bigger vehicle! I'm not going to sacrifice the requirements met by a big vehicle to satisfy a movement that cannot even provide compelling evidence they are right.

That's why I said 'most people'. I know enough people driving a SUV without any need for it (no kids, no horses, no hills, just image building). And a Yugo isn't the most environmentally friendly car, but again, it is a caricature you use. Rather annoying habit, that.


Besides, the car companies have to know that any technology that can significantly increase fuel efficiency is an economic boon for them. Do you really think that they're holding back technology that would dramatically increase fuel efficiency? The first company that puts a truck or minivan on the market that gets 40+ mpg is going to be rolling in the money. The fact that no such vehicles are to be found suggests that either the car manufacturers are outright stupid - or its not technologically feasible at this time - or that the technology that is required to get that kind of efficience would make the vehicle so expensive that nobody could afford to buy it anyway.

I think the first option is unlikely because they'll be interested in anything that significantly increases profits. The last option is unlikely because after initial development the costs of new technologies quickly decrease. So the most likely option is that the technology is not feasible at this time - which goes back to my points in that other post. How are we to cut our fossil fuel usage that dramatically if the technologies are not readily available to replace them.

I have never said or implied that they have that technology without using it. I say that most people have the possibility nowadays to buy a more fuel economic car nowadays which would satisfy their needs (but not their ego) just as well: space, speed, luxury...
Many minivans already have a 40+mpg fuel consumption.
e.g. the Citroen Xsara Picasso gets 51 mpg (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/citroen-xsara-picasso-range-1003687.html), the Volkswagen Touran gets 47.8 mpg (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/volkswagen-touran-range-1003806.html), and the Ford Galaxy gets 44.7 mpg (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/ford-galaxy-tdi-150-1004666.html).

So it's not a 'fact' that such cars don't exist. The technology is available and is getting better all the time. The problem is that many people want a mucho macho car, regardless of cost and fuel efficiency, and regardless of what they need (you obviously need a powerful car, so spare me the anecdotical evidence: many people don't need it at all).


[QUOTE=Fram]
Of course the big question(s) remain, about the validity of the AGW model and so on. I admitted that and will do here again. But the question of the cost is, at least for me, not an argument against Kyoto.
[/QOUTE]I respect that. But I think people will have differing opinions on that - which brings us full circle to why I suggested that we should be looking for the compelling evidence that AAGW/AGW is correct.

And that, indeed, is the tough question. I'll try to focus on that one.

boppa
2005-Sep-19, 02:11 PM
just a quick thought..

as 4x4(suv as the yanks call em) are so popular

the first company that had a `miracle' 400km/l suv that goes 4 times as far on a litre of petrol as the oppositions smallest compact

think how many 4x4 they would sell
think how many of the buzzboxes the other mob wouldnt sell..

noW (edit the t out) tell me again why they would `hide' this technology??

o......k........

Fram
2005-Sep-19, 02:23 PM
I don't think any technology is hidden as far as this is concerned. But why would you promete lighter, slimmer, cheaper cars (with more mpg) if you make more profit on a big, heavy, more fuel consuming car? The general audience in the US is not interested (enough) in those more economical cars (partly because fuel prices are way lower than in Europe), and if no one buys them, no one sells them, and thus no one promotes them, and thus no one knows they are there. It's a tough circle to break out off.

Taks
2005-Sep-19, 03:40 PM
I don't think any technology is hidden as far as this is concerned. But why would you promete lighter, slimmer, cheaper cars (with more mpg) if you make more profit on a big, heavy, more fuel consuming car?no power. there are always exceptions, fram, and you're holding an impossible standard to dgruss' statements. perhaps he should have qualified it. also, the # 40+ was arbitrary.

also, this falls back on the whole "living the way YOU want us to live," as opposed to living the way each individual wants to live.


the 51 mpg The general audience in the US is not interested (enough) in those more economical cars (partly because fuel prices are way lower than in Europe), and if no one buys them, no one sells them, and thus no one promotes them, and thus no one knows they are there. It's a tough circle to break out off.this is true. there is no demand, at least not enough. remember, too, in europe people aren't driving across kansas. the US is much larger, which means different needs.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-19, 04:15 PM
Falling back to: 'but it will not have any results' is a cop-out.excuse me? "it will not have any results" is really kyoto's own claim, not ours. and yes, the cost is ridiculous. trillions, literally trillions (http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1821742005) to stave off a tenth of a degree. i'd say a tenth of a degree is equivalent to no results, particularly since it is within the variance of the results anyway.


No, it is a simplistic and populistic way to grapple with the issue. Beware of Kyoto, because it will mean that you'll freeze in your home, can't go where you want, and probably be out of work because our economy will crumble. nobody is claiming that. don't put words in our mouths, it is a tactic often frowned upon.

contrary to your position calling our view simplistic, kyoto's view is simplistic. in fact, the entire GW view is simiplistic. it's basing nearly ALL of GW on CO2, in spite of being known to be only a tiny fraction of the story. climate forcing has been attributed to CO2 when in fact no causation has ever been proved, only correlation, and the correlation is suspect as well. be careful before you accuse us of being simplistic, you're way off the mark.


You mean "extreme environmentalists"? There are others, but again, it's easier to make a caricature of your opponents.and they're all equally incorrect, in our view. evidence is growing that the claims are all incorrect. evidence is regularly debunked, e.g. the hockey stick, and antics by the so-called "experts" (mann in particular) are demonstrating that what evidence remains is suspect (it turns out the IPCC "study" in 2001 that resulted in kyoto was never peer reviewed till this year and mr. mann chose to play games with the data, including a reluctance to allow outside observers review the data). even some of the proponents of the past are beginning to see the light. recent statements from the IPCC VP verify our position that CO2 is not known to be the climate forcer, and more importantly, even if it is, it may not be all that bad.

to date, fram, you have not shown any evidence of either of those last two points in particular. only more conjecture and "i think" statements.

taks

Fram
2005-Sep-19, 07:02 PM
excuse me? "it will not have any results" is really kyoto's own claim, not ours. and yes, the cost is ridiculous. trillions, literally trillions (http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1821742005) to stave off a tenth of a degree. i'd say a tenth of a degree is equivalent to no results, particularly since it is within the variance of the results anyway.

No, it is a simplistic and populistic way to grapple with the issue. Beware of Kyoto, because it will mean that you'll freeze in your home, can't go where you want, and probably be out of work because our economy will crumble. nobody is claiming that. don't put words in our mouths, it is a tactic often frowned upon.
Strange, you said some posts earlier:

the rest of the world will crush their own economies So our economy won't crumble, it will be crushed. Your words.
Oh, and this as well:
such things wreak havoc on economies. this is already happening and the costs are staggering. if we're all poor, we won't be able to adapt using new technologies because we won't be able to afford them. So we won't be out of a job and freezing in our homes: we will just be poor in a crushed economy. No, this isn't simplistic and populistic at all...
Since a more compact vehicle is not an option for many, those people will need to cut the mileage in half.i.e. 'you can't go where you want'.
How far down must you set the thermostat during the winter? 60 deg C? 50 deg C?i.e. 'you'll freeze in your home'.

Please retract your claim or retract your previous posts. I have only summarized what you both have said in this thread (for you) and a post that was linked to by dgruss23 himself.


contrary to your position calling our view simplistic, kyoto's view is simplistic. in fact, the entire GW view is simiplistic. it's basing nearly ALL of GW on CO2, in spite of being known to be only a tiny fraction of the story. climate forcing has been attributed to CO2 when in fact no causation has ever been proved, only correlation, and the correlation is suspect as well. be careful before you accuse us of being simplistic, you're way off the mark.

and they're all equally incorrect, in our view. evidence is growing that the claims are all incorrect. evidence is regularly debunked, e.g. the hockey stick, and antics by the so-called "experts" (mann in particular) are demonstrating that what evidence remains is suspect (it turns out the IPCC "study" in 2001 that resulted in kyoto was never peer reviewed till this year and mr. mann chose to play games with the data, including a reluctance to allow outside observers review the data). even some of the proponents of the past are beginning to see the light. recent statements from the IPCC VP verify our position that CO2 is not known to be the climate forcer, and more importantly, even if it is, it may not be all that bad.

to date, fram, you have not shown any evidence of either of those last two points in particular. only more conjecture and "i think" statements.

taksTaks, how often do I need to tell you: I've only commented on the 'Kyoto is too expensive' point of view, not on its validity. My statements are all based on the situation: if the Kyoto proponents are right concerning the cause of GW and the effects Kyoto will have, does objection 12 of dgruss23 have any merit? How hard is that to understand? I have admitted three times (i.e. every major post I made in this thread) that I have not looked into the points 3 to 11 of dgruss23 yet (i.e. if it is valid). I have not made conjectures about it or 'I think' statements.

I hope the level of your arguments against Kyoto is better than the level of those you use to discredit me, as they are very poor.

Fram
2005-Sep-19, 07:09 PM
I don't think any technology is hidden as far as this is concerned. But why would you promete lighter, slimmer, cheaper cars (with more mpg) if you make more profit on a big, heavy, more fuel consuming car?
no power. there are always exceptions, fram, and you're holding an impossible standard to dgruss' statements. perhaps he should have qualified it. also, the # 40+ was arbitrary.

also, this falls back on the whole "living the way YOU want us to live," as opposed to living the way each individual wants to live.
An impossible standard? He makes a quantitative statement and I reply with a quantitative answer.
This reply wasn't directed to dgruss23 though, but it was a direct reply to the previous post, made by Boppa. My reply to dgruss23 was another post.
And what does 'no power' mean? You think those cars I gave as examples have no power? They have all the power most people need.


the 51 mpg The general audience in the US is not interested (enough) in those more economical cars (partly because fuel prices are way lower than in Europe), and if no one buys them, no one sells them, and thus no one promotes them, and thus no one knows they are there. It's a tough circle to break out off. this is true. there is no demand, at least not enough. remember, too, in europe people aren't driving across kansas. the US is much larger, which means different needs.

taks
Umm, the cars made here are well fitted for long trips as well, you know.

Taks
2005-Sep-19, 08:25 PM
They have all the power most people need.90 bhp is no power. i beg to differ that this is all the power most people need, unless you have proof otherwise? be careful making statements based on your intuition.


Umm, the cars made here are well fitted for long trips as well, you know.that's not my point at all. the needs in the US are different than the needs in europe.

you need to provide a little evidence towards your position other than "because i said so." not once have you answered direct questions put before you. 1) where is the evidence that CO2 is a climate forcer, despite being only a fraction of the atmosphere (water vapor is 95%) and 2) where is the evidence that warmer temps, assuming that's the trend, are bad?

"because you think so" is not evidence, fram.

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-19, 08:47 PM
Strange, you said some posts earlier:
So our economy won't crumble, it will be crushed. Your words.
Oh, and this as well:So we won't be out of a job and freezing in our homes: we will just be poor in a crushed economy. No, this isn't simplistic and populistic at all...i.e. 'you can't go where you want'. i.e. 'you'll freeze in your home'. fram, fram, fram. you said we'd freeze in our homes, not me, nor dgruss. you took the extension from crushed economies to "we're all out of work and freezing." neither of us said that. another strawman. a slippery slope AND a strawman all in one statement. you commit fallacious aruments on a regular basis, fram, and i catch them.

for the record, people are already dying because of kyoto. the "heat wave" in france was a hair over 90 degrees F, yet they were dying? oh, yeah, it's because they can't afford to pay the fuel costs to turn on their ACs.


Please retract your claim or retract your previous posts. I have only summarized what you both have said in this thread (for you) and a post that was linked to by dgruss23 himself.no, you put words into our statements that weren't there. it's hard to argue that economies will not be heavily damaged (some will be crushed, the most resilient could certainly survive but hampered) given that they're already backing down on the requirements of kyoto due to the economic repercussions. but you took the argument a little farther in order to give it merit. "dgruss thinks we'll all be out of work and freezing" is akin to a strawman, since the argument is easier to counter. you do this regularly, and i've called you on it before. go back and look at the strawman arguments i caught you in in previous threads (that you chose to stand by?). if you can't debate properly without distorting our statements, please take them elsewhere.


I've only commented on the 'Kyoto is too expensive' point of view, not on its validity.and i directly countered that statement by 1) showing the cost of kyoto 2) demonstrating the return for said cost and 3) pointing out that only developed nations are expected to shoulder that cost. not once have you been able to show why kyoto is not too expensive and yet we have regularly shown how it is.


My statements are all based on the situation: if the Kyoto proponents are right concerning the cause of GW and the effects Kyoto will have, does objection 12 of dgruss23 have any merit? How hard is that to understand? I have admitted three times (i.e. every major post I made in this thread) that I have not looked into the points 3 to 11 of dgruss23 yet (i.e. if it is valid). I have not made conjectures about it or 'I think' statements.and we have pointed out, countless times, that the effects of kyoto are irrelevant (within statistical variance) regardless of whether or not GW claims are valid. therefore, objection 12 is valid because kyoto will not accomplish anything. it is made worse by the fact that countries are quickly dropping back and saying they can't even meet the meager requirements of kyoto as is.


I hope the level of your arguments against Kyoto is better than the level of those you use to discredit me, as they are very poor.oh yeah, like using strawmen, slippery slopes and, well, failing to answer any direct questions. you can think you know what you're talking about, but you certainly haven't done well to prove it.

taks

dgruss23
2005-Sep-19, 08:55 PM
My answer to point 12 was based on this premisse: if AGW is true (so if points 3-11 of your post were wrong), then what about argument 12 of you. That is all I want to discuss here. Of course if there is no need for Kyoto, then it is money thrown away (ignoring possible other benefits it could give, like air quality and so on). I want to show that for me, saying that 'even if AGW is true, Kyoto is still way too expensive for the results it is supposed to give' is false. Falling back to: 'but it will not have any results' is a cop-out.


The premise of my post that I linked to is an exercise to illustrate that if Kyoto is not going to fix the problem, then we will have to make significant changes in our lifestyle to actually make a difference – if the technology to adapt to the changes is unavailable. I’m not commenting on the moral side of whether taking those actions is right or wrong – I’m saying that’s the way it is. There will be economic consequences to take actions that would make a difference.



No, it is a simplistic and populistic way to grapple with the issue. Beware of Kyoto, because it will mean that you'll freeze in your home, can't go where you want, and probably be out of work because our economy will crumble.


No, it wasn’t Fram. Please take one more look at what I wrote there – It was a series of questions. How do we cut our energy consumption 50%. Do we know how we are going to do that? I provided a list of examples of what cutting our energy consumption 50% as individuals might mean.

You’re turning this into a different context than what it was, but that is easy for anyone that reads the post in question to see. Take just this one section of my points:



And what about the businesses that provide the goods we need? How exactly will there be enough canned foods on the grocery shelves if the companies doing the canning must cut their energy usage in half? And how much more will it cost for a can of beans under such restrictions? And how many jobs will be lost due to the increasing expenses the companies must absorb? Shouldn't we know all this before we jump on board a treaty that will limit our energy usage?


By my count 5 questions and no declarative statements there. Do you disagree that these sorts of questions are important –even if the AGW scenario was true? How can you know that we must act – unless you have some concept of the costs?



"Apocalyptic" is the term you use for the extremist AGW defenders (because they are of course the easiest targets), but this is rather apocalyptic as well...


That’s pretty funny. I’ve repeatedly provided detailed explanations as to the failings of AAGW and the responses have for the most part been a refusal to respond to those details in any meaningful way. I’ve repeatedly asked for the overwhelming evidence – from anybody. And you tell me I’m taking the easy path of going after extremists? Not even close.



You mean "extreme environmentalists"? There are others, but again, it's easier to make a caricature of your opponents.



No, I said environmentalists. AAGW supporters can be environmental extremists and those that are not extreme. The scenario they are supporting is extreme – after all why all the fuss about the issue if doom is not being forecast? And did I miss some reactors being built in this country?




That's why I said 'most people'. I know enough people driving a SUV without any need for it (no kids, no horses, no hills, just image building). And a Yugo isn't the most environmentally friendly car, but again, it is a caricature you use. Rather annoying habit, that.



Caricature? Its called an illustration Fram. Please feel free to insert the compact car of your choice. I chose a Yugo. Would Ford Escort have been an acceptable substitution? Or how about a Geo Prism?


And I object to this whole concept that anybody should be passing judgement as to the type of vehicle that someone else “needs”. There is no basis for anybody to put their nose in someone else’s business about vehicle selection unless that it is established that there is a problem that requires such intervention.


I have never said or implied that they have that technology without using it. I say that most people have the possibility nowadays to buy a more fuel economic car nowadays which would satisfy their needs (but not their ego) just as well: space, speed, luxury...
Many minivans already have a 40+mpg fuel consumption.
e.g. the Citroen Xsara Picasso gets 51 mpg (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/citroen-xsara-picasso-range-1003687.html), the Volkswagen Touran gets 47.8 mpg (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/volkswagen-touran-range-1003806.html), and the Ford Galaxy gets 44.7 mpg (http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/ford-galaxy-tdi-150-1004666.html).

So it's not a 'fact' that such cars don't exist.

The Picasso is not a minivan. Both the Touran and Ford Galaxy are Diesel Units – as indicated on your links:


“6-litre FSI engine slips below the 2.0 FSi petrol unit that represents the rather modest pinnacle of the petrol powered bunch although many buyers will be tempted by the diesel alternatives. Offering a decent slug of mid range power, 159g/km CO2 emissions and fuel economy that nudges 48mpg, the TDI 100 unit is likely to be the favourite of private and corporate buyers alike.”


“True, its not the smoothest or most linear of turbodiesels and the latest common rail TDI engines are a good deal more civilised, but it does major on excitement, an ingredient all to often excised from full-sized MPVs. The greatest thing is that you can enjoy this sort of illicit fun without paying a big penalty at the pumps. The Galaxy TDI 150 will still see a return of around 44.”


So none of your three examples have demonstrated the existence of a gasoline powered 40+mpg Minivan/truck.


The problem is that many people want a mucho macho car, regardless of cost and fuel efficiency, and regardless of what they need (you obviously need a powerful car, so spare me the anecdotical evidence: many people don't need it at all).


I provided my situation as an example of why many people do need these vehicles. But there is great irony that you dismiss my “anecdotal” illustration with anecdotal evidence of your own.


I’d be more interested in hearing your reasons for feeling that one person has the right to determine what the vehicle needs of another person are.



And that, indeed, is the tough question. I'll try to focus on that one.


Great! Take your time. I keep saying that I’m waiting for the overwhelming evidence not to rush anybody – but simply to remind them that if they are interested in this debate, that is what I’m looking for.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-19, 09:08 PM
fram, fram, fram. you said we'd freeze in our homes, not me, nor dgruss. you took the extension from crushed economies to "we're all out of work and freezing." neither of us said that.

You're exactly right as I noted in my post above. What I actually did was ask questions:


Cutting your heating energy by 50%. How far down must you set the thermostat during the winter? 60 deg C? 50 deg C? Anybody know? You should if you want to say you're will to accept this.

Fram, you've clearly distorted the meaning of what I was saying. My point in that whole post was to generate some thought by asking people to think about trying to cut 50% of their energy consumption in all phases of their life. I'm not sure how you keep the thermostat at its normal temp and cut heating costs at the same time. Nor did I imply that everyone would freeze. My question was very clear - we ought to find out how far we would have to drop the thermostat to cut energy consumption 50%. Can anybody shed some light on that?

I do note that I put C when I meant F on the temperatures I gave. That's the problem with dealing with C temps all day and then going home and switching to F temp scale.

Taks
2005-Sep-19, 11:19 PM
That's the problem with dealing with C temps all day and then going home and switching to F temp scale.or kelvin. it gets ugly when you analyze the noise temperature of a RF link (millions of degrees kelvin). ick.

taks

Sam5
2005-Sep-20, 03:31 AM
Okay, as you can see in my sig, I am interested in climate, the weather and admittedly, i love a nice evening with red wine in hand watching a hell of a storm overhead (and taking pictures).

One question I'd like to get the views of the bountiful members here is if you belive that weather patterns are shifting permanently - meaning settling into a new regime (for want of a better term).

If folks could post evidence either way...I have no particular stance on this - it is a mixture of a hunch and a fear of sorts.

I read an interesting National Geographic article about 30 years ago that said weather patterns change over decades and hundreds of years, then they change again, then again, over and over. Some bigger weather patters change over longer periods of time. Seems like the US is having a few more big hurricanes recently. But we had them in the past. Then we'll go through a few decades with only a few small hurricanes.

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 08:52 AM
fram, fram, fram. you said we'd freeze in our homes, not me, nor dgruss. you took the extension from crushed economies to "we're all out of work and freezing." neither of us said that. another strawman. a slippery slope AND a strawman all in one statement. you commit fallacious aruments on a regular basis, fram, and i catch them.

for the record, people are already dying because of kyoto. the "heat wave" in france was a hair over 90 degrees F, yet they were dying? oh, yeah, it's because they can't afford to pay the fuel costs to turn on their ACs.

no, you put words into our statements that weren't there. it's hard to argue that economies will not be heavily damaged (some will be crushed, the most resilient could certainly survive but hampered) given that they're already backing down on the requirements of kyoto due to the economic repercussions. but you took the argument a little farther in order to give it merit. "dgruss thinks we'll all be out of work and freezing" is akin to a strawman, since the argument is easier to counter. you do this regularly, and i've called you on it before. go back and look at the strawman arguments i caught you in in previous threads (that you chose to stand by?). if you can't debate properly without distorting our statements, please take them elsewhere.

and i directly countered that statement by 1) showing the cost of kyoto 2) demonstrating the return for said cost and 3) pointing out that only developed nations are expected to shoulder that cost. not once have you been able to show why kyoto is not too expensive and yet we have regularly shown how it is.

and we have pointed out, countless times, that the effects of kyoto are irrelevant (within statistical variance) regardless of whether or not GW claims are valid. therefore, objection 12 is valid because kyoto will not accomplish anything. it is made worse by the fact that countries are quickly dropping back and saying they can't even meet the meager requirements of kyoto as is.

oh yeah, like using strawmen, slippery slopes and, well, failing to answer any direct questions. you can think you know what you're talking about, but you certainly haven't done well to prove it.

taks

If an interpretation of someones statements is no longer allowed, if turning rhetorical questions into statements is no longer allowed, if you are the only one that can use rhetorical tricks to make claims without having to defend them, then this isn't a discussion any longer.

Tell me, taks, in what scenario does an economy collapse (being crushed, you know) and people are poor, but they don't loose their jobs? Communism, perhaps, but I don't suppose you're claiming that we'll all turn into communist states. So in what way was I putting words in your mouth? I was just making the logical conclusion. No strawman, no slippery slope (or certainly not one of my making), no fallacious arguments made by me.
I'll try to see what direct questions I haven't answered. But it's sometimes hard to know in your posts what is a direct question and what a rhetorical, you know...

Oh, the heat wave in France had temperatures up to 104F (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm),
which is, like you said, "a hair over 90 degrees F". And the reason you give for the deaths is definitely not simplistic or populistic, but a well-balanced and thought out view. Give me a break.


90 bhp is no power. i beg to differ that this is all the power most people need, unless you have proof otherwise? be careful making statements based on your intuition.
The Ford Galaxy, one of the three examples I gave, has 150bhp. Be careful making statements without doing some research (like, looking for two seconds at the links given) first.

that's not my point at all. the needs in the US are different than the needs in europe.Any proof, or intuition?

Ah, direct questions:

you need to provide a little evidence towards your position other than "because i said so." not once have you answered direct questions put before you. 1) where is the evidence that CO2 is a climate forcer, despite being only a fraction of the atmosphere (water vapor is 95%) and 2) where is the evidence that warmer temps, assuming that's the trend, are bad?

"because you think so" is not evidence, fram.
Was that last line a case of "putting words in my mouth"? Can you give me one example where I said "because I think so" or "because I said so"? "Not once" is a bit too strong as well, but I notice that the standards you put on other people do not apply to yourself.
Apart from that: for the fifth time, I haven't answered that yet, not have I tried to. I'm discussing another point. I have acknowledged this from the start. I have not claimed that if I can show dgruss23's point 12 to be invalid or overstated, the rest of the argument falls and AGW wins. What is so difficult about this that you still don't seem to grasp it?
Post 30:
So I think this argument is invalid. That leaves only, er, all the others to tackle. :)
Post 35:
I said that I only tackled one point, namely the criticism against point 12 of your post (on page one). Now you are saying that I first need to establish points 3 to 11.
Same post:
Of course the big question(s) remain, about the validity of the AGW model and so on. I admitted that and will do here again. But the question of the cost is, at least for me, not an argument against Kyoto.
Post 58:
My answer to point 12 was based on this premisse: if AGW is true (so if points 3-11 of your post were wrong), then what about argument 12 of you. That is all I want to discuss here.
And finally, post 63:
Taks, how often do I need to tell you: I've only commented on the 'Kyoto is too expensive' point of view, not on its validity. My statements are all based on the situation: if the Kyoto proponents are right concerning the cause of GW and the effects Kyoto will have, does objection 12 of dgruss23 have any merit? How hard is that to understand? I have admitted three times (i.e. every major post I made in this thread) that I have not looked into the points 3 to 11 of dgruss23 yet (i.e. if it is valid). I have not made conjectures about it or 'I think' statements.
It is very tiring if you have to put the same disclaimer after every post, and it gives the impression that the opponent doesn't bother to read your posts, or doesn't understand them, or ignores the things he doesn't like to be able to make the same strawman argument over and over again. As I don't think my statement is that difficult to grasp, and you don't give the impression of not reading my posts (not very carefully perhaps, but you do read them), then I can only conclude that you willfully ignore this.

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 09:40 AM
My answer to point 12 was based on this premisse: if AGW is true (so if points 3-11 of your post were wrong), then what about argument 12 of you. That is all I want to discuss here. Of course if there is no need for Kyoto, then it is money thrown away (ignoring possible other benefits it could give, like air quality and so on). I want to show that for me, saying that 'even if AGW is true, Kyoto is still way too expensive for the results it is supposed to give' is false. Falling back to: 'but it will not have any results' is a cop-out.
The premise of my post that I linked to is an exercise to illustrate that if Kyoto is not going to fix the problem, then we will have to make significant changes in our lifestyle to actually make a difference – if the technology to adapt to the changes is unavailable. I’m not commenting on the moral side of whether taking those actions is right or wrong – I’m saying that’s the way it is. There will be economic consequences to take actions that would make a difference.
Of course. But they do come across like scare-crow questions, while brushing the 'if the thechnology is unavailable' part under the carpet. Much of the technology is available, and if more research will be done into them, many improvements will be made. Does this mean that no sacrifices will be necessary? Of course not, but it is the scale of it (and the economical feasability) that we disagree on.


No, it is a simplistic and populistic way to grapple with the issue. Beware of Kyoto, because it will mean that you'll freeze in your home, can't go where you want, and probably be out of work because our economy will crumble.
No, it wasn’t Fram. Please take one more look at what I wrote there – It was a series of questions. How do we cut our energy consumption 50%. Do we know how we are going to do that? I provided a list of examples of what cutting our energy consumption 50% as individuals might mean.

Yes, and they are simplistic and populistic, in my view.
e.g.
~Driving half the miles - or switching from the mini-van you need to get your family around to a compact car. Since a more compact vehicle is not an option for many, those people will need to cut the mileage in half. And where does that come from? Going to work? Shopping for the groceries? Visits to family and friends?
The first part is a statement. Those people will need to cut the mileage in half. The questions are only the second part. Which miles will you cut? So it was a series of questions after the statements were made, and not only a series of questions.

You’re turning this into a different context than what it was, but that is easy for anyone that reads the post in question to see. Take just this one section of my points:

And what about the businesses that provide the goods we need? How exactly will there be enough canned foods on the grocery shelves if the companies doing the canning must cut their energy usage in half? And how much more will it cost for a can of beans under such restrictions? And how many jobs will be lost due to the increasing expenses the companies must absorb? Shouldn't we know all this before we jump on board a treaty that will limit our energy usage?By my count 5 questions and no declarative statements there. Do you disagree that these sorts of questions are important –even if the AGW scenario was true? How can you know that we must act – unless you have some concept of the costs?

There you have it. The section I quote does have declarative statements, the section you quote doesn't.
Of course these questions are important, but I don't agree that we must know all this before signing Kyoto. There will always be questions, surprises and things that turn out different than expected. IF you wait for all questions to be answered before taking action, no action will ever be taken. I know that that is what you want in this case, but it is a bad way of looking at things in general. It is the same kind of arguments used against GM (genetical manipulation, not General Motors): it should be forbidden because we don't know all the consequences yet.


"Apocalyptic" is the term you use for the extremist AGW defenders (because they are of course the easiest targets), but this is rather apocalyptic as well...That’s pretty funny. I’ve repeatedly provided detailed explanations as to the failings of AAGW and the responses have for the most part been a refusal to respond to those details in any meaningful way. I’ve repeatedly asked for the overwhelming evidence – from anybody. And you tell me I’m taking the easy path of going after extremists? Not even close.

You mean "extreme environmentalists"? There are others, but again, it's easier to make a caricature of your opponents.No, I said environmentalists. AAGW supporters can be environmental extremists and those that are not extreme. The scenario they are supporting is extreme – after all why all the fuss about the issue if doom is not being forecast? And did I miss some reactors being built in this country?
Did I miss the environmentalists winning the elections in the US?


That's why I said 'most people'. I know enough people driving a SUV without any need for it (no kids, no horses, no hills, just image building). And a Yugo isn't the most environmentally friendly car, but again, it is a caricature you use. Rather annoying habit, that. Caricature? Its called an illustration Fram. Please feel free to insert the compact car of your choice. I chose a Yugo. Would Ford Escort have been an acceptable substitution? Or how about a Geo Prism?I rest my case. You haven't seen the examples I have given? I don't consider a 150bhp seven seater like the Ford Galaxy a compact car.
And I object to this whole concept that anybody should be passing judgement as to the type of vehicle that someone else “needs”. There is no basis for anybody to put their nose in someone else’s business about vehicle selection unless that it is established that there is a problem that requires such intervention.

The 'unless' is just what is my premisse, as stated often enough now. And I haev a feeling that the extreme (in my view) individualism of you and taks is the core of the reason why you both are so vehemently against Kyoto. That doesn't mean that your scientific reasons can't be correct though.
All I say is that if Kyoto has to be implemented, there are cars out there that will fit the need of many people without having the fuel consumption of many SUVs nowadays.


I have never said or implied that they have that technology without using it. I say that most people have the possibility nowadays to buy a more fuel economic car nowadays which would satisfy their needs (but not their ego) just as well: space, speed, luxury...
Many minivans already have a 40+mpg fuel consumption.
e.g. the Citroen Xsara Picasso gets 51 mpg, the Volkswagen Touran gets 47.8 mpg, and the Ford Galaxy gets 44.7 mpg.

So it's not a 'fact' that such cars don't exist.
The Picasso is not a minivan. Both the Touran and Ford Galaxy are Diesel Units – as indicated on your links:
“6-litre FSI engine slips below the 2.0 FSi petrol unit that represents the rather modest pinnacle of the petrol powered bunch although many buyers will be tempted by the diesel alternatives. Offering a decent slug of mid range power, 159g/km CO2 emissions and fuel economy that nudges 48mpg, the TDI 100 unit is likely to be the favourite of private and corporate buyers alike.”

“True, its not the smoothest or most linear of turbodiesels and the latest common rail TDI engines are a good deal more civilised, but it does major on excitement, an ingredient all to often excised from full-sized MPVs. The greatest thing is that you can enjoy this sort of illicit fun without paying a big penalty at the pumps. The Galaxy TDI 150 will still see a return of around 44.”

So none of your three examples have demonstrated the existence of a gasoline powered 40+mpg Minivan/truck.
Shifting the goalposts? When was said that it had to be gasoline powered?


The problem is that many people want a mucho macho car, regardless of cost and fuel efficiency, and regardless of what they need (you obviously need a powerful car, so spare me the anecdotical evidence: many people don't need it at all).

I provided my situation as an example of why many people do need these vehicles. But there is great irony that you dismiss my “anecdotal” illustration with anecdotal evidence of your own.
I’d be more interested in hearing your reasons for feeling that one person has the right to determine what the vehicle needs of another person are.
Yep, I'm capable of irony. If you don't see that many people drive a car that is too heavy, too powerful, and hence too much fuel consuming, for what they actually need, then there is no point in discussing this. I have not said that everyone can do with a smaller car. I haven't seen you or taks admit that many people can do with a smaller car though. The only argument I have heard against it is (I'm paraphrasing here, no actual quote): but I don't want it. Well, tough luck.
What do you do with emission requrements? They exist already, and they are just as well a way of determining what kind of car is allowable. There are rules for everything, and if the need for another rule is there, I have no problem if it is implemented. You can't always get what you want, you can't even always get what you need. A balance has to be found between the needs of society (or humanity) and the needs of the individual, and sometimes that will mean that your needs will come second.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-20, 10:42 AM
I rest my case. You haven't seen the examples I have given? I don't consider a 150bhp seven seater like the Ford Galaxy a compact car.

If you look again at my last post I pointed out that the first of your 3 high mpg vehicles was not a minivan/suv/truck and the last two - which includes the Ford Galaxy - were Diesel powered vehicles - or at least the versions that got the 44-48 mpg you were noting were the Diesel powered versions - not regular gasoline powered vehicles. This was clearly discussed in the links you provided. Did you see that part of my post?

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 11:02 AM
Yes. What's the problem with that? You didn't ask for regular gasoline originally, I believe. Diesel isn't that exotic (70% of all cars sold in Belgium are Diesels).
I'll not discuss if a Citroën Picasso is a minivan or not, that's why I offered the other two examples.
I don't know of any gasoline powered minivans with 40+mpg (some come close), but I haven't checked them all of course.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-20, 12:26 PM
There you have it. The section I quote does have declarative statements, the section you quote doesn't.

The declarative statement in that section you are quoting are a restatement of the original premise. The premise was that if Kyoto's 5% reduction would only lead to a 0.1 deg reduction in warming, then treating it linearly a 50% reduction would be needed to entirely stop the warming. Hence when I say cut your mileage in half, I am simply re-stating the premise. The rest of the statement was questions as to how a person could do that.

You were trying to claim that I suggested we'd freeze out of our homes if we signed Kyoto. Never said it. I posed a series of questions as to how we would adapt our energy consumption if we had to cut our usage enough to make a difference RE AAGW.


Did I miss the environmentalists winning the elections in the US?

Al Gore - the Earth in the Balance author? Many Democratic members of congress take a hard line environmental approach. As soon as their opponents suggest altering an environmental law they claim that they are "anti-environment" setting up the false dichotomy that you either support their environmental ideas or you're in favor of poisoning the planet.

Political lobbying has been very effective in the US at stopping the construction of new reactors. The environmental groups do have their allies in congress and sometimes the White house. So the election of an "environmentalist" is not necessary for them to get their way. And that's as much as I'm going to say on the political side of it - you're the one that mentioned elections and all of the above is in that context.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-20, 12:29 PM
Yes. What's the problem with that? You didn't ask for regular gasoline originally, I believe. Diesel isn't that exotic (70% of all cars sold in Belgium are Diesels).

No I didn't specify gasoline powered because diesel powered vehicles are much less common in the U.S. - and in general have a reputation as not being as clean a burning fuel. That we're talking about gasoline powered vehicles is simply implied in the discussions about fuel efficiency. But if switching to diesel can conserve fuel - then that's ok by me.

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 02:00 PM
The declarative statement in that section you are quoting are a restatement of the original premise. The premise was that if Kyoto's 5% reduction would only lead to a 0.1 deg reduction in warming, then treating it linearly a 50% reduction would be needed to entirely stop the warming. Hence when I say cut your mileage in half, I am simply re-stating the premise. The rest of the statement was questions as to how a person could do that.

You were trying to claim that I suggested we'd freeze out of our homes if we signed Kyoto. Never said it. I posed a series of questions as to how we would adapt our energy consumption if we had to cut our usage enough to make a difference RE AAGW.
And I interpreted them as leading, rhetorical questions, partially because you mixed questions and statements in some of those points. All right, I misinterpreted your intent with the 'freezing' part of my summary, and I'll retract it here, which leaves from my disputed summary the halving of the mileage (from you), and the poor people in the collapsed, crushed economy (which implies directly losing jobs) from taks.


Al Gore - the Earth in the Balance author? Many Democratic members of congress take a hard line environmental approach. As soon as their opponents suggest altering an environmental law they claim that they are "anti-environment" setting up the false dichotomy that you either support their environmental ideas or you're in favor of poisoning the planet.

Political lobbying has been very effective in the US at stopping the construction of new reactors. The environmental groups do have their allies in congress and sometimes the White house. So the election of an "environmentalist" is not necessary for them to get their way. And that's as much as I'm going to say on the political side of it - you're the one that mentioned elections and all of the above is in that context.
Agreed. No politics, my bad.

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 02:17 PM
No I didn't specify gasoline powered because diesel powered vehicles are much less common in the U.S. - and in general have a reputation as not being as clean a burning fuel. That we're talking about gasoline powered vehicles is simply implied in the discussions about fuel efficiency. But if switching to diesel can conserve fuel - then that's ok by me.

I guess as an American 'gasoline' is implied, while as an European, it isn't. Hence the misunderstanding in this part. I'm glad that's cleared.
They are indeed on average not as clean as contemporary gasoline cars, but they have come a long way, and coupled with the better fuel efficiency make a very good alternative in some cases. Their bad image (dirty, but also noisy, powerless, ...) is partly a remnant of the past, but it's often hard to get rid of such an image. The same goes with LPG, which still has the image of exploding cars, even though the risk has become minimal. But this may get us way off-topic...

Taks
2005-Sep-20, 03:44 PM
I read an interesting National Geographic article about 30 years ago that said weather patterns change over decades and hundreds of years, then they change again, then again, over and over. Some bigger weather patters change over longer periods of time. Seems like the US is having a few more big hurricanes recently. But we had them in the past. Then we'll go through a few decades with only a few small hurricanes.yeah, glom has made some pretty good statements regarding the fact that our climate is anything but static. it bounces all over the place always. those that claimm otherwise just don't understand. oh, and you can look up the hurricane tracks this century... much worse in 1961 and about the same in 1950/55 (i may be off by a year or so on these dates). as a matter of fact, the 61 'season had 7 cat 4 or stronger hurricanes. funny that things are "worse" now?

taks

Taks
2005-Sep-20, 03:48 PM
And I interpreted them as leading, rhetorical questions, partially because you mixed questions and statements in some of those points. All right, I misinterpreted your intent with the 'freezing' part of my summary, and I'll retract it here, which leaves from my disputed summary the halving of the mileage (from you), and the poor people in the collapsed, crushed economy (which implies directly losing jobs) from taks.
no, still you put words in my mouth. i never said we'd all be out of jobs. crushed economies is certainly a subjective term, but nowhere does it imply "we're all out of jobs" which is what you said.

stop doing this fram, it's not good etiquette and it is really getting annoying...

if you actually took the time to read the article i linked to, it gave a measured value on the impact to the economy. interesting read for those interested in facts and real analysis, not conjecture and baseless supposition.

taks

Fram
2005-Sep-20, 07:00 PM
no, still you put words in my mouth. i never said we'd all be out of jobs. crushed economies is certainly a subjective term, but nowhere does it imply "we're all out of jobs" which is what you said.

stop doing this fram, it's not good etiquette and it is really getting annoying...

if you actually took the time to read the article i linked to, it gave a measured value on the impact to the economy. interesting read for those interested in facts and real analysis, not conjecture and baseless supposition.

taks

Can you give one example of a crushed, collapsed economy that wasn't accompanied by massive unemployment, apart from perhaps a communist one? In the Great Depression, US unemployment went from 3% to 25%.

I have read your article. I have read and skimmed many more. Everyone disagrees, and yours gives about the highest number of them all. Coincidence, probably.
This 5 page pdf (http://titan.iwu.edu/~econ/ppe/2002/alexis.pdf) estimates the global cost to be $0.8 trillion. This is definitely not a pro-Kyoto paper by the way, but a serious economic paper.
Talking about annoying: you haven't replied to my questions about your false quotes of me, and you do it again. I have not said "we're all out of jobs". You haven't replied to anything in my last post, actually, nor have you admitted any fault I pointed out.
Oh, and you are the one that said that we'ld all be poor.

dgruss23
2005-Sep-20, 09:52 PM
And I interpreted them as leading, rhetorical questions, partially because you mixed questions and statements in some of those points. All right, I misinterpreted your intent with the 'freezing' part of my summary, and I'll retract it here, which leaves from my disputed summary the halving of the mileage (from you), and the poor people in the collapsed, crushed economy (which implies directly losing jobs) from taks.

Fram, Thanks for your responses to my last several posts. I feel like we've cleared the air. :)

Refresh my memory - what was the dispute you had about halving the mileage? Just for clarification as to where I was coming from. My premise was that if we wanted to take immediate action that would counteract the projected warming in the AGW scenario - it would potentially require a 50% reduction in energy consumption.

The 50% was a simple scenario based upon the prediction that a 5% reduction would lead to a 0.1 deg reduction in projected warming so (treating it as a linear relation) a 1 deg reduction (all of the projected warming by 2050) would require a 50% energy reduction. As I also clarified earlier the assumption was built in that significant technological advances would not be available to contribute to the energy reduction because of the push to take very quick action.

Obviously these are simplified assumptions, but I don't think they are unreasonable as a starting point. Its not certain how much technology will contribute to reduction of fossil fuel demands in the near future. And in the projections for warming the non-linear effects on warming are from positive feedback mechanisms rather than the increased CO2 itself.

BTW, my comments about the politics were not intended to be a slap at you for mentioning that. I just wanted it clarified to the moderators if my discussion on the topic was objected to - that I was only responding in context to the question you asked?

Fram
2005-Sep-21, 07:17 AM
Fram, Thanks for your responses to my last several posts. I feel like we've cleared the air. :)

Refresh my memory - what was the dispute you had about halving the mileage? Just for clarification as to where I was coming from. My premise was that if we wanted to take immediate action that would counteract the projected warming in the AGW scenario - it would potentially require a 50% reduction in energy consumption.
No real dispute, it was one of four things I gave as a very short summary of the economic scenario you and taks gave (independently) and which I found to be rather alarmist and simplistic. E.g. in this case, you give the impression that the only solution to use half as much fuel in ten years time is to drive only half as much, while I feel that for lots of people, buying a more fuel efficient car will help a lot as well, and new technology will help a lot as well.
Taks accused me of putting things in your mouths, while I felt that my text was a correct resumé of what was said. I have now seen that my part about 'freezing' was based on an interpretation of your text that was perhaps not wrong but certainly not what you intended. I still think the other three things are a fair representation of your (and certainly taks') view of the economic results of implementing Kyoto and its successors. Taks disagrees.


The 50% was a simple scenario based upon the prediction that a 5% reduction would lead to a 0.1 deg reduction in projected warming so (treating it as a linear relation) a 1 deg reduction (all of the projected warming by 2050) would require a 50% energy reduction. As I also clarified earlier the assumption was built in that significant technological advances would not be available to contribute to the energy reduction because of the push to take very quick action.

Obviously these are simplified assumptions, but I don't think they are unreasonable as a starting point. Its not certain how much technology will contribute to reduction of fossil fuel demands in the near future. And in the projections for warming the non-linear effects on warming are from positive feedback mechanisms rather than the increased CO2 itself.

BTW, my comments about the politics were not intended to be a slap at you for mentioning that. I just wanted it clarified to the moderators if my discussion on the topic was objected to - that I was only responding in context to the question you asked?

I'm more optimistic than you about the technological possibilities, but this is the kind of thing that is hard to proof or disproof. It seems that estimating the cost of Kyoto, and the cost of the supposed AGW, is equally hard, which makes debating it difficult and per definition subjective.
And I didn't feel slapped by you, you were correct that it was better not to discuss politics in an already loaded discussion (or anywhere on the board, for that matter).

gopher65
2005-Sep-21, 02:06 PM
Alright, I only read about half the posts in this topic so forgive me if these points have already been brought up.

1) The problem with dumping boatloads of CO2 into the atmosphere is *not* global weather change as such, but rather ocean acidification. Acidy oceans = dead algae, dead plankton, and lotsa dead other stuff that doesn't matter to us as much as the first two do. Why do they matter? Because they give off 50-90% of the oxygen we breath. Those rainforests don't do a heck of a lot. It is all the ocean:P. If you want to see something nasty, then drop the amount of oxygen in the air you breath by even 20% and see what happens. At sea level you could still survive, but what about salt lake city:)?

2) On the flip side of things, the amount of CO2 we pour into the atmosphere is negligible compared to the natural amount that is being shoved into the air all the time. However it is always possible that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are in a fine balance, and even the relatively small amounts we are emitting will tip the balance in one direction or the other. I dunno if anyone really knows the answer to this.

3) Trees don't use up CO2. They absorb it while alive, then give off *exactly the same amount that they took in* when they die. Trees do nothing for CO2 levels. Canada is planning to meet its Kyoto obligations largely by planting trees and investing in green 3rd world power plants (and other green tech). Since planting trees does absolutely nothing to help CO2 levels in the long term, a large part of the Kyoto accord is useless.

Glom
2005-Sep-21, 04:34 PM
1) The problem with dumping boatloads of CO2 into the atmosphere is *not* global weather change as such, but rather ocean acidification. Acidy oceans = dead algae, dead plankton, and lotsa dead other stuff that doesn't matter to us as much as the first two do. Why do they matter? Because they give off 50-90% of the oxygen we breath. Those rainforests don't do a heck of a lot. It is all the ocean:P. If you want to see something nasty, then drop the amount of oxygen in the air you breath by even 20% and see what happens. At sea level you could still survive, but what about salt lake city:)?

Perhaps a bit over the top, but you are onto something more real.


2) On the flip side of things, the amount of CO2 we pour into the atmosphere is negligible compared to the natural amount that is being shoved into the air all the time. However it is always possible that the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are in a fine balance, and even the relatively small amounts we are emitting will tip the balance in one direction or the other. I dunno if anyone really knows the answer to this.

Is there any kind of balance in a chaotic and non-linear system?


3) Trees don't use up CO2. They absorb it while alive, then give off *exactly the same amount that they took in* when they die. Trees do nothing for CO2 levels. Canada is planning to meet its Kyoto obligations largely by planting trees and investing in green 3rd world power plants (and other green tech). Since planting trees does absolutely nothing to help CO2 levels in the long term, a large part of the Kyoto accord is useless.

So what's wood made of? Silicon?

Lianachan
2005-Sep-21, 11:48 PM
I read a story about possible indications of climate change today.

The thing that really stood out for me, is that if climate change is indeed occuring here then there's no way it has been caused by mankind (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm).

I don't think anybody has mentioned it in this thread already, but I just quickly skimmed down the custard pie fight and may have missed it. Sorry if it's old hat

Glom
2005-Sep-22, 03:49 PM
I don't think anybody has mentioned it in this thread already, but I just quickly skimmed down the custard pie fight and may have missed it. Sorry if it's old hat

There was a thread in ATM about it. It was rather good. A very good find.

Taks
2005-Sep-22, 04:41 PM
3) Trees don't use up CO2. They absorb it while alive, then give off *exactly the same amount that they took in* when they die. Trees do nothing for CO2 levels. Canada is planning to meet its Kyoto obligations largely by planting trees and investing in green 3rd world power plants (and other green tech). Since planting trees does absolutely nothing to help CO2 levels in the long term, a large part of the Kyoto accord is useless.uh, actually, it is my understanding that they don't dump CO2 back into the atmosphere... it goes into the ground. most of the CO2 that is consumed by plants is converted to carbon and oxygen, which means whatever they do absorb, the net loss upon death MUST be less anyway.

taks

SG-1 Fan
2005-Sep-23, 02:22 PM
Hello. I am fairly new here and have a question or two…

Has anyone in this forum visited www.junkscience.com?

If so, is the “real-time” depiction (The Kyoto Count-Up!) of cost and effect accurate?

Thanks,
Keith

Glom
2005-Sep-23, 03:07 PM
Hello. I am fairly new here and have a question or two…

Has anyone in this forum visited www.junkscience.com?

If so, is the “real-time” depiction (The Kyoto Count-Up!) of cost and effect accurate?

Thanks,
Keith

I wouldn't bet on it, but you don't need amateur theatrics like that to show the fallacy of Kyoto (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0312/S00036.htm).