[Breakable]

Aeronaut wrote:

4% shows us how any population can easily be mis lead. I suppose another division will show us the top dog in charge of the environmental industry and it’s supporting pseudo-science? Perhaps he only has half a mind to do this, so we’ll divide again…

Lets narrow it down to one neuron

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Breakable Posted at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM
…
A slight reduction in the quality of living for many people is death. The problem with so much legislation (proposed or enacted) is that it seeks to prevent developing nations, well, developing. If they are only allowed energy from sources they can not afford (i.e. renewables) then they must continue to do without. That costs millions of lives and that is the true cost of making the wrong decision “just in case”. One reason why FF is so important – living standards world wide can go up sustainably.
At 05:04 AM (that’s very late by the way – kids keeping you up?) he goes on to say “A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.”

Well I don’t think I would like for anyone to perish because of me, but I don’t agree with your assertion. I understand that in most poor developing Africa’s countries 1 $ can mean a difference between life and death, but so can 1°C. In a developed country such as USA 1000$ or 10°C can serve the same purpose. In fact developing countries will be most affected by the global warming.
But they also have the greatest opportunities with renewable energy.
Take for example the story of http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/
or the design of http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4224763.html
Even the installation of inexpensive FF power might prove prohibitively expensive to a third world country for some time.
I do not think its a good idea to reduce the quality of living anywhere – if properly done carbon tax can instead slow down the speed at which quality of living is improving instead, and its increasing the fastest in developing countries.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Putting aside the “leanings and interests” of the people doing the survey that result is probably about the same percentage as thought the world was flat just before someone sailed around it.

Well there are still people who believe the earth is flat in our time, and nobody can convince them otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Phil’s Dad wrote:
What made me post though was the assertion at 06:42 AM that “Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on.” I can only presume that Breakable, generally a sensible chap, was by then very tired.
:-/

I am well rested and awake now, but I still stand by this statement. It is much easier to disprove criticism when you can make experiments. Even such a wacky theory as Quantum physics has won full support using experiments. Who would believe that observers effect is real if you would not be able to demonstrate it? And you cannot do an experiment on the whole earth…

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
That “97%” is false. Climatologists and physicists and hydrologists all have different knowledge sets that need to be plugged in here, and climatology knows nothing other than what the very limited modeling is saying about CO2’s effects.

Do you believe its not being done already, do climatologists just ignore every other specialists when they go about their business?

Brian H wrote:
So we know no such thing as “it will go crazy in the future if something is not done.” CO2 absorption is now and has long been near its maximum. It’s an asymptotic function. Even multiplying concentrations by several orders of magnitude would only add fractions of 1% to its effects. It is irrelevant.

Take a look at this chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
What do you think is the result in 20, 50 or 100 years? Plants are surely going to love it, what about mammals?
How can you say what is or is not irrelevant, if you are not a scientist and don’t have a model that shows that this 1% is irrelevant when accounting for all the factors? I would like to point out that all those minor percentages do add up. In a bank with 4% savings rate you can double your funds in 20 years. And earth is a closed system – heat that is not radiated back to cosmos stays here. If you are saying that co2 absorption is maxed out and its the only factor that matters, then you should prove it. I don’t have any research in this area, but I would think that there are indirect ways that co2 can affect absorption.
Edit:20 years

Brian H wrote:
Consider that CO2 has been climbing for a couple of hundred years, and human contributions have only been measurable for about 60 years, and during that time temperature has trended down, and up, and down, and up, and down again. That is impossible under the “CO2” driver hypothesis. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE TEMPERATURE GO DOWN IF CO2 IS CONSTANTLY RISING? CO2 is NOT the driver.
The temperature patterns DO, however, match solar sunspot activity almost precisely. A much more plausible hypothesis, which is ARTIFICIALLY EXCLUDED from the IPCC models. Because the modelers were told by the IPCC managers to exclude it.
These are video games, not actual emulations of the climate system. Worthless.

I am not a scientist, I don’t have a model that shows how Co2/clouds/storms/humidity/solar cycles/earth rotation/planetary position/core nuclear reactions/ice coverage/industrialization/atmospheric_absorption is affecting earths climate. It seems you believe that we can safely exclude all the other factors except for sunspot activity. This is all a speculation, but lets say that sunspot activity (99%) is a driver and co2 is a contributor (1%). Now if we don’t have a contributing factor (co2) the temperature will rise and fall as it done for millions of years. If we do have a contributing factor it will additionally increase by 0.1 degree each year. So the question is here if we can afford the contributing factor and whether it is profitable to fix it (Cap & Trade).
In my opinion it does not matter weather Co2 is a driver or not. If it is a contributor and one we can profitably affect it is enough.

I would suggest that for the sake of this thread we do agree that Co2 is a problem, because if we don’t – it means that any discussion about Cap & Trade does not make any sense.

A discussion about Co2 link to climate change, might be better continued in a different thread, and preferentially in a forum where there are Climate scientist present which can point out and explain their models and any resent research that could be of interest.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
…invidious. You obviously have not looked at the evidence and quality of the work on climate prediction involved in the GW and Cap-And-Trade work. …
This has nothing like the science or accuracy associated with any of the science and math examples you gave. …
This is not science. I don’t know what to call it. But it wouldn’t be polite.
And CONSENSUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! The data is not there. The Emperors have no clothes.
About your graph, the less said the better. Not one of the assumptions underlying it can be justified.

I don’t think you believe that your comments are harmonizing? There was time when calculus was considered experimental. Climatology is still in its infancy.
You obviously have not looked at the list of cognitive biases before starting your analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.
There is more to science than data. There is also a method. If you want to form a scientific opinion independently I would suggest to use a proper method, not to narrow your scope with what confirms your preconceptions and not to include any bias in the analysis. There is possibly a lot of low quality work in any research, but the conclusions should statistically even out.

My (unscientific) opinion is that Weather will no be predictable at all because of the Chaos theory. I believe that scientists cannot currently predict the climate. Climate (long term) might be possible to predict if scientist find and are able to model all the factors responsible for climate change. I believe that all the factors and their importance in Climate Change are not currently known otherwise we had a proper model.
Co2 is one factor. We are able to measure it. We can predict it. Its importance is not measured yet, but we know it will go crazy in the future if something is not done. So the question is it wise to ignore this factor? If “97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming” I don’t think I can safely ignore them. Do you?

My graph had no assumptions. It is oversimplified. It has no actual data. Still it can prove that the costs can be set to low percentage, the build curve is exponential and the finish time-line is near, even with the current generation technology.

What about the big loser’s from carbon credits: Coal mines, oil industry, OPEC, plastic manufacturing anybody loves them? If co2 danger is real the winners are our children.

[Breakable]

So you are still not convinced co2, is causing climate change?
Well I am not here to convince you. I am not convinced myself, I just choose to believe one side. I am not a scientist, but I think a definitive proof would be if we had a model that can predict climate changes for 10 years ahead with 1% accuracy. We don’t have that model. That means we can believe anything? Well if you want to doubt the most of scientific establishment, then yes. But then what about Big bang? Quantum mechanics? Evolution theory? Thermodynamics? Germ theory? Gravity? Newton physics? Calculus? Round earth? Reality? There are skeptics everywhere. All those explanations and predictions of the world around us are based on some Axiom that we have to accept without proof. They are build one on top each other, and if you pull out the bottom building blocks they just collapse. Faith is the root of all science. What you believe is what you can build upon. Proof just complements that belief.

The situation for Cap and Trade is even worse. We don’t have a perfect economic theory that can predict how Cap and Trade will affect the markets. We don’t even have a working one. Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on. There are skeptics and there are believers. I can find you Blogs from both sides on the net, but what good would it do – its just opinions.
One interesting point I could show you is some calculations I made about renewable energy. This is a very simplified chart of what would happen if energy was taxed 10% and this tax (plus any savings) would be used to build renewable energy sources which payback time is 20 years.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rh1gl1vIfbzoWublfQ7ORnQ&oid=4&output=image

[Breakable]

I agree with you that there must be bias, conformity, corruption and fear involved in the Climate Change debate. However the actual scale is not known, neither to you nor me. What percentage of scientists are you willing to bet is suppressed? My guess about 5%. Would you bet it to be more than 20%?
In this case I would say there is really big problem with the science here. It might be easier to exterminate all the scientist and start over from scratch. Or maybe the problem is exaggerated?

Here is an interesting quote:
A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.[34] A summary from the survey states that:
“ It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

[Breakable]

There’s no possible way to reduce the nuclear guys’ costs by a factor of 10. ….

I’ve read a fair amount of Marx, btw. … “The state pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

Getting back to Cap-and-Trade, the fundamental assumption is that the state owns the rights to produce carbon dioxide (or anything else), and can sell and limit the supply of those rights — globally! Neither is valid, except by force of arms. It’s just another way for the middle and lower classes of the world to fund the AGW gravy train carrying the bureaucrats, academics, green power scammers and exploiters, and speculators.

CO2 is a resource, not a pollutant. Plants love it (greenhouse operators keep their atmospheres at 1000-2000ppm to maximize crop growth and health), and it has no marginal effect on climate (its absorption spectrum capacity is maxed-out already. Even Venus, with 90+ times the atmospheric density, and 100% CO2 atmosphere, has only a tiny fraction more CO2 GH effect than Earth. Earth has experienced ice ages during periods when CO2 levels were 10X those currently present. CO2 is irrelevant.)

It certainly wasn’t responsible for the heating of Pluto, Triton, Mars, etc. that occurred during the ’90s. Or of Earth.

Well it seems you disagree that CO2 can cause global warming. In my opinion this is a job for a scientist.
I cannot refute your points, because I am not a climatologist, and don’t follow that debate closely. I can only offer a few more ideas to consider:
Would you think that all those scientists that defend global warming and CO2 link are perpetuating a fraud and falsifying their data/results?
Well plants love co2, what about mammals?
It seems we are still 2 orders of magnitude away from deadly levels, but the curve is exponential and there does not seem to be any changes from 1985. Anything needs to change? What about if we get some fusion power online and everything continues to be “business as usual”, is it ok?

I think its pretty important to agree that there is no complete model of our planet, and scientists cannot predict outcome to the changes in its atmosphere accurately, but if there is even a remote possibility that by a slight reduction the quality of living a catastrophe can be prevented isn’t it a good idea to take that chance?

Returning to Cap & Trade. We should talk about it only if we agree that CO2 is a problem and should be addressed. Now as I understand Cap&Trade;is a multinational agreement. It works best when all the countries are involved, but even if not it should alleviate the problem. There are technologies that can monitor the outcome such as satellites that can measure the CO2 emissions on the ground. Of course there are problems lots and huge (such as USA refusing to ratify Kyoto protocol), but they can be addressed more or less, sooner or later. If there is no better alternatives there seems little reason not to use this solution.

[Breakable]

Well I will promise to read up on Bastiat if you promise to read up on Karl Marx. There is always different (and extreme) opinions present in each matter of importance. I don’t believe that any extreme opinion can be right, as usually a synthesis is adopted. Anyone knows a purely socialist or purely liberal country?

Thank you notifying me about the source of the infamous “Global Warming”, but I don’t believe it is of any relevance. Most important is to determine if it real, if it is caused by carbon dioxide and if it can cause any problem. It is really interesting when skeptic’s attack those three points out of order. Does it mean attacking the “causing problem” point that they accept it is real? In my opinion this should be left for scientists to determine, and as far as I know there is a 90% consensus on all three (or at least a conspiracy).

Sorry for the huge mistake in grammar, still you got my point nevertheless. Now lets imagine that the nuclear guys cost will be reduced from 1.5¢/kwh to 0.15¢/kwh. Does this change anything if there are no changes in infrastructure? Hopefully the regulators will interfere and fix the consumer price. By 1.3¢ 😉

Concerning your professor, I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some facts would be nice. I have none. Do you? That correlation you mentioned is a very inaccurate. Different countries, different education, different spending. Same country different time-line might be better, but compensation for delay is needed. I am not scientist of course.

Interesting notice about the heath-care. I guess you should get what you pay for.

PS:I don’t agree that Facts are Opinions, would you like a separate thread to discuss that?
PSPS:Sorry for being brief – I have two infants on my hands, and they are not open for debate 😀

[Breakable]

Btw I heard a professor of Economics once mentioning that price of oil is reversely proportional to the production of Intellectual products, because when the price of oil goes up, it becomes more profitable to produce non-substantial products and services (oil is used everywhere else). So basically lower oil price encourages low-paying jobs in manufacturing and transportation, and high price in design and development. What kind of job would you like to do?

[Breakable]

It still remains to be seen if fusion power would make electricity 10 or 20 times cheaper. Anybody care to share current production/consumption costs and prices? I heard its in the order of 10 magnitude different, at least in nuclear fission case.

If by “Other Uses” you mean cheap Chinese plastic stuff, then I would really not mind to pay twice more for it. Considering that the world is less trashed and polluted, and that stuff would become better quality, carbon tax would be a great idea.

[Breakable]

In my opinion some taxes are actually good. I believe we all can imagine the outcome if all taxes are abolished.

It is also my idea that nobody can predict the full impact of any law, because we don’t have a model of our society, so all the speculation is what it is – speculation. Even if we had a model it would have to deal with the Chaos theory.

Currently if you want to know how a law works you have to put it into force, and still determining all of actual outcome is not actually possible – we can only see what we can measure. And the outcome can depend on the circumstances.

So I guess the best politics in this situation is to become corrupt 😀

PS:opinions are not facts.

[Breakable]

In my opinion it is a very good idea to create a carbon pollution tax – the oil and coal wont look such an attractive energy source.
The implementation is not so easy though, but something (imperfect) is better than nothing.

[Breakable]

In my opinion content and purpose is more important than design. As long as the design is not obstructing the function I have no problem with it, but of course the look of the front page of FF might need some polishing to appeal to the first time visitors. Unfortunately I am not the person with any skills or advice.

[Breakable]

I believe you are doing a great job now!

There should be some knowledge how to deal with public relations available. Read a book or look for something free:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations

[Breakable]

Steam turbines is an old and time-proven method to convert heat into electricity.
Possibly this method will be preferred for some time, until other methods are proven.
Of course no one wants to envision FF coupled with such an ancient technology 😀

[Author]

Posts