Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2011 - 07:39pm PT
|
The true cost Green collar jobs
...
This study found that consumers paid much higher prices for home electricity
due to government-mandated use of premium priced green energy. In turn
this caused many employers to leave the country in search of cheaper energy
elsewhere. After accounting for the increased cost of electricity and the
government expenditure used to create the new green jobs, Calzada estimates
that the Spanish spent $774,000 for each job created.
...
every green collar job created in the U.S. results
in the loss of 2.2 jobs
...
http://www.missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10008
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2011 - 08:11pm PT
|
Interesting that nobody raises a stink regarding the billion$ paid to the oil companies to subsidize their search for black gold. Gee, who gains when they use US taxpayer dollars to find the stuff? Do they pay a the money back to the Gov't, with interest?
The media jumps on this one green energy company. Whoa, they are soo bad. Best let the Chinese have all the green energy jobs. They're already doing such a good job at it, why would we want to get in their way.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2011 - 08:25pm PT
|
K-man - The oil companies have 100's of billions of dollars. They don't receive cash from the govt. They pay taxes to the govt, but in this case they paid less after making a deal.
But to a Liberal this fact morphs into the fantasy that sacks of money are being shipped to oil headquarters.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2011 - 09:13pm PT
|
Perhaps the term "subsidy" is not 100% accurate, although it is one that is often used to describe the tax breaks that oil companies receive. Google "oil company subsidies" and you'll find a mess of articles.
Here's a quote from one:
Is there a similar case for giving oil producers subsidies? The principal tax subsidies for the oil industry are as follows: a “domestic manufacturing deduction” that allows oil and gas companies to deduct an extra 6 percent of their taxable income; a deduction for “intangible costs,” which are costs for investments in oil exploration or production that have no salvage value, such as clearing land to enable an oil well to be drilled—the oil companies are not required to amortize these costs over the entire expected life of the oil well—and last the companies are permitted to deduct royalties they pay to foreign government, on the ground that royalties paid to a government are really a tax.
So you are right, I didn't have my facts straight in my previous post. But oil companies do get tax breaks from the Gov't and these are associated with the "intangible costs" of oil production.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2011 - 12:10am PT
|
The climate is always changing and that it continues to be so stable as it has for the last 120years is such a stroke of luck for humanity it verges on divine intervention.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2011 - 03:55pm PT
|
cc wrote: The climate is always changing and that it continues to be so stable as it has for the last 120years is such a stroke of luck for humanity it verges on divine intervention.
That's right. Look how much flatter the black line is compared to all the other lines:
Yeah right, hahahahaha!
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
GO
|
|
DrDeeg
Mountain climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 03:07pm PT
|
CC, westchrist, et al. Follow the energy.
If you do the radiative transfer calculation, doubling atmospheric CO2 from the preindustrial level causes a radiative imbalance of about 3 Watts per sq m. Therefore Earth has to warm (energy in greater than energy out).
The variability in solar radiation is about 1/10 that. On a plane perpendicular to the sun at the top of the atmosphere, the total variability since about 1880 is about 2 Watts per sq m, but you have to divide that by 4 because Earth is a sphere, and then multiply that by about 0.7 because 30% of the sunlight is reflected. So the maximum warming you can get from the sun is 0.35 W per sq m. It's even probably a little less because most of the variability in solar radiation is at short wavelengths which mainly affect the upper atmosphere.
The basic physical process of warming is straightforward.
And the Suess ratio shows pretty clearly that the extra CO2 is from fossil fuels. Over the last half-century, the ratio in the atmosphere of C-14 to the normal C-12 has declined. Therefore the extra CO2 must have come from a source that is depleted in C-14, and old source. The half-life of C-14 is about 6,000 years, so coal and oil have none.
Malemute: thanks for the cartoon above. Hilarious.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 03:11pm PT
|
No. You've conveniently left out the negative forcing factors that make more CO2 irrelevant. On purpose of by ignorance Dr?
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 03:16pm PT
|
* The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four
published papers, not 2,500;
* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for
climate sensitivity, are overstated;
* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has
been falling for seven years;
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so
long and rapid a cooling;
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating
the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two
weeks ahead is impossible;
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same
time as Earth warmed
;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any
other time in the past 11,400 years.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 04:03pm PT
|
The AGW people and the fundie Islamists have something in common.
Alcohol should be outlawed!
The major waste product is CO2!
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 04:38pm PT
|
Save the planet!
No more fizz in beer!
Hey I forgot!
The yeast in bread and cakes produces CO2 as well.
Let them eat hardtack!
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 04:53pm PT
|
Turn off the heater and quit driving Too!!
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 05:01pm PT
|
So!
Global Warming hysteria has taken us to the point where:
"Every time a Warmist exhales he's committing a climate sin".
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 10:42pm PT
|
I read 'em
I'm also getting the skis tuned up for another record winter.
|
|
Lennox
climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 11:09pm PT
|
Record cold or record wet?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 11:13pm PT
|
Cold in So Cal.
Really cold and dry in AZ
Wet and avg temps in N Cal
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2011 - 11:18pm PT
|
What a dumfuk.
|
|
DrDeeg
Mountain climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2011 - 12:13am PT
|
CC,
Not the case. The climate models include current knowledge about atmospheric properties, and the optical properties of gases and aerosols can be measured in the lab. Indeed aerosols (particles) cool, just not enough to offset CO2. Without them, the models overestimate the warming that CO2 would cause, but when included the models better match the observed warming (globally).
Here is a graph that gives an estimate of the forcing that has already occurred. The red (above the line) values are positive, and yes the Sun is there. Soot goes in both directions, because black carbon (coal, oil) is more absorptive than brown carbon. Note that the "snow" part of soot results from its deposition reducing the reflectivity (albedo) of snow. The other aerosols (mainly sulfur compounds) cool, so their forcing is negative. Their Indirect effect is through condensation nuclei for clouds. Land use change goes both ways. Decreasing evaporation forces positively, but cleared land is brighter and reflects more sunlight.
As for the temperature record, the graph below is the best estimate from a variety of sources. It is redrawn from a 2006 National Academy report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (you can download a free PDF). You can ignore, if you wish, the colored lines on the right side of the graph, which are model projections under various future scenarios of CO2 concentration. All else is data. The wiggly black line shows the instrumental measurements starting around 1850. Previous measurements are proxies (tree rings, coral, etc) except the borehole measurements are directly measured temperatures. The last 1000 years were about 1.1 deg C cooler than the present, globally.
Regional variability will always be with us. Despite a warming trend, we will occasionally have cold winters, like last year on the east coast, and the incredibly hot summers, like a few months ago on the east coast too, are not surprising.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!