Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 19, 2009 - 01:45am PT
|
bluering - suppose the Hummer owner was the owner/operator of an ethanol fuel production plant? And mod'd it to run on the alcohol he makes. Special exemption to escape the higher taxes?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:49am PT
|
I dunno, Bluering, setting aside the whole carbon footprint issue, it conceptually seems quite reasonable to tax those who use more of our shared resources (i.e. petroleum) than others.
Why tax more? Shouldn't it be a flat tax, you pay XXX dollars a gallon, regardless of vehicle type?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 02:00am PT
|
"Why tax more? Shouldn't it be a flat tax, you pay XXX dollars a gallon, regardless of vehicle type?"
Isn't that essentially the system we have now? Problem is, the whole socio-economic strata-thing makes it not work so well. Those with more money can afford the big guzzler, and the gallons of petroleum that it takes. The net effect is that an individual who has money gets access to more of the limited resources than those who don't have money. Way oversimplified, I know, but it just doesn't seem fair.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:47pm PT
|
"Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the atmospheric scientists' take on the public write-ups? Is everyone of the attitude that we are sure enough that it is ok, because of the magnitude of the risks? "
What do you mean by 'public write-ups'? Do you mean media reports, peer-reviewed literature or syntheses for policy makers like the IPCC report?
"Is funding at risk, if they voice public disagreement with the "consensus"? "
Not really, no. People have, in the last few years, very publicly voiced contrarian views and it doesn't seem to adversely effect their grants. The major funding bodies (in this country the NSF and NASA) are run by scientists, and most scientists are just interested in the science, despite what certain commentators might think. We're nerds; we're just interested in solving the problem, and if someone comes along with a whole new idea that is realistic (and this is the key point) then it'll get funded.
One of the big straw man arguments by vocal contrarians has been that research into solar variability has been quashed. That is not true; there's more solar research now than ever. But there's no credible evidence, data or model that shows it can have a significant impact on global circulation at decadal timescales.
"Is the real problem so complex, that leaving it to atmospheric (ocean) physicists actually is a major mistake?"
Well, to be honest that's a bit of a semantic issue. I when I use the term 'atmospheric scientist' I mean anyone who is actively involved in atmospheric research of a suitable quality for a peer-reviewed publication, in the same way that I consider anyone who actively goes climbing is a 'climber'. Writing a turgid novel about climate science didn't make Micheal Crichton an atmospheric scientist, and half a day top roping the Church Bowl with a guide doesn't make someone a climber.
So I guess I would argue that this isn't some closed club where membership is based on having the correct degree from the right University. We have meteorologists, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and even plant scientists. And they are all doing atmospheric research.
" Are the atmospheric scientists doing the physical equivalent of solving all of the zero friction, idealized case problems? "
If all we did was look at simple models, then yes. But that isn't all we do. We use by models by necessity when we want to run experiments, when we try and make predictions, and when there simply isn't any observational data, but we'd always much rather be using observations. Results garnered from a modelling study, with no kind of obs. data to back it up, are only ever considered (even by the researchers themselves) as a first best guess, until we have the data to do something better.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:30pm PT
|
Ed, three scientists demonstrated that, in fact, no new elements were formed.
Meanwhile, in 1938, three German scientists had repeated some of Fermi's early experiments. After bombarding uranium with slow neutrons, Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassmann made a careful chemical analysis of the products formed. On Jan. 6, 1939, they reported that the uranium atom had been split into several parts. Meitner, a mathematical physicist, slipped secretly out of Germany to Stockholm, where, together with her nephew, Otto Frisch, she explained this new phenomenon as a splitting of the nucleus of the uranium atom into barium, krypton, and smaller amounts of other disintegration products. They sent a letter to the science journal Nature, which printed their report on Jan. 16, 1939.
Off hand I can't remember the book, but it provided a fairly fascinating account of Meitner's attempt to communicate and work with Fermi to identify the products chemically. Apparently he was having none of it.
An outstanding physicist, to be sure. Weird asterisk that he would have been awarded the Nobel Prize for a time when he was actually wrong.
|
|
Anastasia
climber
Not here
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:35pm PT
|
I haven't read all the post but... I feel that we have to try no matter the results. We are leaders which means that other countries will follow the trends we set.
AF
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 19, 2009 - 02:06pm PT
|
February 21, 2009 11:36 a.m. EST
David Goodhue - AHN Reporter
Miami, FL (AHN) - A glitch in a satellite sensor of the U.S.agency
that tracks Arctic Sea ice mistakenly led researchers to underestimate
the amount of existing sea ice by about 193,000 square miles - a chunk
about the size of California.
The error, which the National Snow and Ice Data Center is calling a
"sensor drift," began around January and started a "slowly growing
underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent."
-------------
What if other data are flawed? Like ocean temperature?
If something as obvious as ice can be mistaken for open water.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2009 - 12:56am PT
|
How many agree that Corniss Chopper is hopeless, and will continue to be until he/she posts more about climbing-related subjects?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2009 - 01:38am PT
|
Aye.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 20, 2009 - 03:32am PT
|
Mighty - ok ok .. there's always the worrisome subject of
'do you take the new girlfriend climbing on the 1st or 2nd date?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!