Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
No matter what the end-all-be-all, I will always try to be a good steward of where I tread - as should all. No reason not to, but I will always be weary of those who force good intentions on those who can reason for themselves.
Do you know what is meant by "External Cost"?
What is the Tragedy of the Commons?
What do you think of forcing climate change on those who didn't cause it?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
^^^^
great example of revenue neutral carbon tax working.
But one thing we have learned in the US:
we can never learn anything from anywhere else.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
jeez malemute what'ya runn'in for office?
"" On June 9, 2014, Citizens Climate Lobby released a study from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) that examined the impact of a steadily-rising fee on carbon-based fuels with revenue from that fee returned to households in equal shares. With the fee starting at $10 per ton of carbon dioxide and rising $10 per ton each year, the major findings were:""
help me, i missed the part where they determine how many tons are coming from where?!
""> In 20 years, CO2 emissions would be reduced 50 percent below 1990 levels.""
Can you really see this as possible? Everyday for the past twenty years our emission output has grown. and it's going to continue to grow everyday. In twenty years we'll have +/-2 Bill. more people. And prolly 2+ Bill. more will grow up out of poverty over the next 20yrs and be living the dream life like us here in the USA now. We all know there is ALOT more crudeoil out there to be had, alot more than we already have burned. No Denying we'll burn it All! And the faster we do, the quicker our demise.. So that's my model. There's one of two ways i see to avoid environmental catastrophe; #1, God intervention. No i mean it. That's #1. If we ALL got together and prayed, i know God would heal the earth. #2, Science in the next 10yrs needs to have a major breakthrough. Of HUGE proportion! Something that changes our whole idea of energy, and make what we're doing today obsolete.
Besides, burning oil seems so caveman.
> Because of the economic stimulus of recycling carbon fee revenue back to households, in 20 years, 2.8 million jobs would be added to the American economy.
What kinda job's they talk'in here? Would they be, people taking the carbon tax, people counting the carbon tax, people putt'in carbon tax in pocket, people puttt'in carbon tax in household pockets?
i really want to call this some derogatory liberal social lateral agenda platform sorta thing!
Again, do you really see this agenda as a good stawtegic avenue?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
Blu, can you please show the source for that copy and paste?
thanks
|
|
BigFeet
Trad climber
Texas
|
|
Splater,
"Forcing climate change on those who didn't cause it"?
So, if the theory is that it is man made causes then you cannot exclude yourself from being a contributor. Sticky little conundrum this is.
Furthermore, I still have not been shown any absolute proof that any man made cause is being forced on you.
Quite the contrary. Who is it that is forcing a specific agenda? Who is it that is causing me to change the way I live? Who is it that is causing me to pay more for my food, fuel, and other essentials? Who is that? What group?
All of this without absolute proof. Who is that, again?
Edit to add:
Once again, I'm not advocating destruction of the Earth - just looking at this from a different perspective.
If you are not asking questions, continuously, about something that will affect everyone then there is no science to debate. No science at all, in fact - just a cult mentality. With fraudulent data being resourced... questioning said data should be a given. This does not appear to be the case with some. Things to ponder.
The arguments will continue here, nevertheless, so I still stand by the 30,000 goal.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
This thread will never die - just as any science related argument would not until finally proven absolute.
what constitutes "absolute" proof?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
"What constitutes absolute proof" . Answer: Al Gores body (preferably fully clothed) after he drowns from accelerating sea level rise in his Malibu mansion.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Malemute is transcending
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
what constitutes "absolute" proof?
You will die ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I was born, too...
|
|
BigFeet
Trad climber
Texas
|
|
Ed,
You decide what the absolute is, for I'm not the one pushing any agenda.
Replicate our world and universe, in total, and show me how you can definitively reproduce the coming cataclysm that is man made global warming. Funny that this term changes so often, is it not? Does this even throw up a red flag?
I believe that there are too many variables to take into consideration. Nuances that we may not have even been able to measure, let alone thought about.
The Earth and the universe in which we live is not static. It is ever changing. How can we seriously look at selected data points, omit others, and have a full view of what is taking place?
Even Stephen Hawking has had to change his theory, and he is the most esteemed scientist in his field. After spending his life career, to that date, believing and teaching a specific theory he had to go back and start over due to a question about the event horizon. He adapted a new theory.
To constantly question your theory, and try and disprove it... this is science. To say all debate is closed and we are implementing an agenda... this is something else.
Do we question and stay skeptical until proven/disproven, or do we take everything at face value just because?
There is no insult intended here. Only questions to ponder.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rick sumner
I contest all aspects of this argument, including the short term rises and fallls of CO2, which, despite massive research for viable alternate explanation, are primarily a result of temp changes rather than cause. Look up a scientist named Beck. He has discovered over 19, 000 atmospheric CO2 measurements prior to mauna loa. The graphs made from his reconstructions show rises to as high as 390ppm during WW2. Just a little different than the IPCC graphs.
Ed Hartouni
rick, post a real reference if you want to make an argument...
I haven't the time to figure out who and what the hell you're talking about.
It is long past the time of arguing that the CO2 increases are other than human caused.
Ed Hartouni
so rick no reference? no link? just your typical "I recall an article I read, it's in a stack of articles that I can't get access to right now, but..."
doesn't help support your point-of-view... you never seem to get around to posting a link.
rick sumner
Well Ed, you would never pursue alternative lines of evidence undermining the narrative of global manmade disaster ushering in the need for punitive taxation, regulations on all things human, the complete crippling of the economy, depopulation of the unworthy human stain counter to the utopia envisioned by fellow travelers. Now would you?
Anyway, to wet your taste buds to something foul, chew on this internet goodie-it mentions Beck. If you wanted to find his reconstructions im sure you could.
http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelu/20810/ketju/co2_ennen_teollistumista_jaworowski_ja_beck
I found the Beck article… not very impressive as a science article… we learn things like:
Callendar( engineer), Keeling (chemist) and IPCC do not evaluate these chemical methods though being standard in analytical chemistry, discredited these techniques and data and rejected most as faulty and highly inaccurate because not helpful proving their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In using their concept of unpolluted background level they had examined about 10% of available literature and considered less than 1% (Müntz, Reiset, Buch) as accurate.
Actually, the whole point of a Mauna Loa observatory for measuring atmospheric gases is the fact that it is isolated from the sources of the gases. The major confounding issue with trying to make a measurement of the composition of the atmosphere is the confusion from various gas sources on the continents.
Beck argues that the accuracy of the old data is very good, but he fails to take into account the “background” sources in the carbon cycle, something that has been well studied of late. He accepts those old measurements at “face value” and creates a reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Among his conclusions of this reconstruction is that the 0.4ºC increase in the temperature from the late 1800’s resulted in a roughly 170 ppm increase in the CO2, this is rick’s claim refuting, as he contests above, that CO2 increase cause the temperature rise (which is irrefutable science, increase the CO2 over long periods of time and the temps, averaged over those periods, will go up).
The peak that Beck points to in his Fig. 3 is elaborated in his Fig. 8, but it isn’t clear just what to make of this… since the temps are higher on the 1950s side of the plot, but his CO2 reconstruction has nearly returned to the pre 1920 values.
So it isn’t actually the full 0.4ºC departure that somehow induced a huge pulse of CO2 to puff into the atmosphere.
Oddly, you’d have expected a similar “puff” to happen in the increased temp, 0.5ºC from 1980 to 2010, by modern accounts, the CO2 has only increased 70 ppm, this seems off by a factor of 2 from Beck’s speculation.
So Beck’s hypothesis is shaky using his own data. His own data are the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere on the ground in the cities, and did not account for local sources. Not only that, but his reconstruction is based on specific sites at different times, providing a very uncertain interpretation for the association of the measurements with the state of the atmosphere. These are just a part of the myriad of systematic errors associated with the data included in Beck’s paper.
This paper was “published” back around 2007, yet nothing has come from it in terms of refined analysis or repeated experiments. The particular method, sampling the atmosphere from locations embedded in background sources, was recognized as unreliable and abandoned decades ago, Keeling’s choice of location was specifically chosen to reduce these background problems.
Keeling’s data are there to be analyzed, independent of Keeling the man himself. Beck doesn’t seem to take issue with Keeling’s data, but instead questions Callendar’s analysis of the same time period. There, Callendar’s values determined by a careful selection of data to reduce the backgrounds agrees with the ice core CO2 concentration values. Beck questions Callendar’s hypothesis, but does not address any of Callendar’s selection criteria.
The increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations corresponding to human industrial activity, the burning of fossil fuel, is quite well established, as is the subsequent increase in global mean temperature, as would be expected. A number of other changes support the these changes, not just the temperature increases.
That’s my reading of the paper, I don’t think I’d spend much more time on it. It’s basic premise is that we should include all of the measurements of CO2 concentrations at face value. We know that doing so will not lead to a determination of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
"Forcing climate change on those who didn't cause it?
So, if the theory is that it is man made causes then you cannot exclude yourself from being a contributor. Sticky little conundrum this is."
It's not a conundrum at all. It's the obvious outcome of any tragedy of the commons. No matter if I voluntarily reduce my consumption to zero, most others won't. Only if we go green as a group decision will it make a difference. That can be done by societal incentives/disincentives, such as a revenue neutral carbon tax.
Furthermore, I still have not been shown any absolute proof that any man made cause is being forced on you. Quite the contrary. Who is it that is forcing a specific agenda? Who is it that is causing me to change the way I live? Who is it that is causing me to pay more for my food, fuel, and other essentials? Who is that? What group?
I see you are still in denier step 1-2 out of 5.
There are already plenty of changes apparent. Start with shrinking glaciers, ice caps, sea level rise, ocean acidification.
The simplest question to ask is:
How could we pump out that much greenhouse gases WITHOUT having a big effect?
Numerous fossil fuel industry executives are now convinced of climate change.
Much of the congress have been bought off by a tiny group of lobbyists.
Did you know the people telling you that climate change does not exist are much the same type of people who
denied the ozone layer thinning,
denied that cars need pollution controls,
denied that mercury poisoned fish,
denied that acid rain killed trout,
denied that there was any limit to groundwater pumping,
denied that cars need seatbelts,
denied that mining pollutes groundwater,
denied that subsidies to solar power were worthwhile,
denied that cigarettes cause cancer.
A big part of the denier myth is that going green is somehow changing freedom. Simply not true. Either way, we make societal choices that affect everyone. The point is, we already have massive incentives that distort every bit of the economy.
A big part of a capitalist society is to dump your external costs onto someone else. Either way we go on any issue is a policy that people adapt to. Right now our policy is to Vastly subsidize the cost of driving in the US. Otherwise every mile you drive should be charged a toll by a smart-meter. Gas taxes only cover a small part of all costs, Subsidies cover the rest. Driving incudes road construction, medical care, highway patrol + pensions, foreign wars over oil ( trillions of dollars) sprawl costs (requiring distant infrastructure, and destroying town centers) instead of smart growth. Other pro-fossil fuel policies: subsidizing flying, subsidizing coal pollution effects (on medical care for crashes and breathing pollution, acid rain, mercury rain, groundwater pollution, etc), subsidizing pipelines (free federal ) Who is forcing all these things? Why should someone who doesn't drive have to pay all those costs/subsidies? Why should someone who drives 1000 miles/year (my grandmother) have to pay the same fee (registration) as someone who drives 100000 miles per year? Who is forcing me to have to listen to Harleys? Who killed the fish in New England (acid rain from coal) Who is killing the corals and oysters (acidic sea from CO2). Who is killing serenity in remote areas (motorized vehicles)?
There is very little that we do in life based on "Absolute proof". We ingest foods that might have something toxic added. People get married not knowing how long it will last. We spent $2 trillion so far (not including lifelong vet costs) on going to war with Iraq because we claimed they had WMD. We refused (&still refuse) to regulate the financial industry because they have WMD???. We feed antibiotics to cattle non stop because more is always better.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm not pushing an agenda, either, I'm trying to represent the science, and I do that as a scientist.
What you are saying is that we can never absolutely know anything, which I agree with (sorry Werner, but I am a scientist after all)
but that is not the same thing as saying we cannot understand something. And we understand the climate response on a planet with an atmosphere. The role of CO2 is well known and well understood. You increase the CO2 and the atmosphere will cause the planet surface to warm as it reaches equilibrium.
You can choose not to believe that, but as long as you recognize that such a belief has nothing to do with our scientific understanding, is contrary to that understanding, we're all good. But it is your choice, against what we have established over a long time, a field of climate science that does understand a lot about a very complicated system.
I'm saying that we do understand the consequences of human activity, especially emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. And we emit by choice.
We could choose to do something else.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Yes, i know, Beck is an incredible source. Thats why I had you look him up for yourself. Now show us big Al's bod hanging chads and all, victim of unpresidented sea level ruse. Failing this absolute proof, perhaps you could properly answer Bigfeet and stop the diversionary ploy of answering old posts of mine.
Oh come on. How about a little push for carbon taxes and additional non economic regulations.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Because every single simple troll deserves a thesis written to refute it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
It's interesting that two issues are being discussed...
1) the science of climate
2) the consequences of climate change and what, if anything we should do about it
the problem is that if the science of climate states that human activity is responsible for the 20th century climate change, then humans will feel compelled to do something about it, especially if the consequences are persistent. it's a moral issue. we're messing things up, we should at least try to fix things...
this bumps us to assessing the consequences and deciding what to do. this is an interesting policy topic and certainly has a great affect on all of us. the affect is so large that we would rather keep discussing 1) and hope that the science is different from what we currently understand.
however, waiting for 1) to be proven "absolutely" means that we have to wait for the consequences to hit us before we act. our current understanding of these consequences is that waiting to act for this to happen will not allow us to respond and fix it.
since 1) is telling us that the source of the climate change is our own activity, we have a choice to act, a choice to do something else than vent CO2 into the atmosphere.
correctly costing the emissions, sort of like charging someone to use the landfill, or to flush sewage into a treatment plant, does raise the cost of dumping garbage and flushing the leu... but it also preserves resources and probably reduces the overall costs of these activities, getting rid of garbage.
the consequence of climate change will cost, so assessing the cost of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere should be possible, and in so doing both helps to recover some of the expense of doing so, but also encourages alternative activities which do not dump CO2 into the atmosphere, presumably because they become cost competitive.
flexible policies could also adapt to what we will know as the science becomes better at predicting the consequences of our actions.
|
|
BigFeet
Trad climber
Texas
|
|
Splater & Ed,
It is nice to have a discussion without all the drama and mud. Thank you guys for keeping it civil.
A lot to go through from you both. It is late here so I will keep this fairly short for now. It takes awhile to type this out on my phone.
I agree with quite a lot you both have said.
I'm not stating things have not changed, for they always will. The predictions given have not panned out though. First cooling, then warming, now climate change (nice cya on the last one).Ice caps, hurricanes, water levels among other things have shown not to be anything close to what was predicted. This in the face of former ice ages. Why did the ice cap covering most of the northern hemisphere disappear? Climate change/warming way back before any industrialised societies. Discovered cities found throughout the world well underwater. They were not built there were they?
I understand we humans have an impact on our environment. Litter, water pollution, concrete everywhere, vehicle emissions, even Splater's Harley noise pollution. How do we make everyone feel and think the same way on societal issues that can drastically change their lifestyle without some form of tyranny? What if this expensive remedy does not affect the changes you predict? Is this possible?
People deal with other people's crap on a daily basis and we will never be able to overcome this. Your good intentions could have a negative affect on things unknown. Do we abandon lasting and cost effective fuels to jump to technology still in infancy of efficiency? Do we overuse our food stuffs for fuel alternatives? This list could be very long.
I am aware of our capacity to understand without all knowns known. Sailors many centuries ago knew how to utilize wind without completely knowing what it was, and where it came from. We knew the water the ship sailed on was wet, denser than air, and could float said ship. My Hawkings comment earlier shows we are still, to this day, understanding without knowing.
I'm not a "denier" - just skeptical based on what I have found. You should be too. This in no way diminishes you, but keeps you thinking and asking questions. Is this wrong?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
to repeat:
The simplest question to ask is:
How could we pump out that much greenhouse gases WITHOUT having a big effect?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I said I was done, I couldn't resist. Are you discounting the influence of the Japanese auto market? LOL! You really are not that smart...
I probably wasn't clear enough.
My point were that Americans often drive large cars with a bad gas mileage. It is possibly that it has changed to some extents since the last time I was there but I really doubt that it today is similar to Europe.
So you seemed to suggest that the problem were with the lack of available green technology. That is one part but I believe that other things like the "need" to drive a large car are more important.
One other thing is that there are green alternatives that could be used much more than it is now in many areas (for example cars) but it is not used because people think it is to expensive.
This somewhat relates to you complain about the gas price even though the gas price in USA is much lower than in for example Europe.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!