104 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

ealdwita, on 03 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Hmm. Sounds a little like a 'Treaty of Versailles' to me. I'm not sure the Chinese would take too kindly to it! Like the idea of limits on children though. Overpopulation is probably the main threat to be overcome in the coming decades.

'Treaty of Versailles':  Economic and diplomatic machinery will have to be part of the solution:  that's how we do these things.  Conversion is a lot more than just pie-in-the-sky.

China probably wouldn't be too happy about it, but there are ways to sweeten the deal, like applying costs of green technology to the debt (The US pays for the technology and China lowers the debt a corresponding amount.).  As for not paying debts:  Finland is the only country to pay off its WWII debt - France and England just welched.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Michelle, on 03 December 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

People have no idea what constitutes petroleum based products and the energy involved in producing them. There is no way they are going to do without the items they use on a daily basis to make any real effect on the environment.

The carbon fee system would not require them to know anything about the carbon footprint of their purchases.  All they'd have to do is look at the price tag.  Once they get a few carbon checks (Direct deposit or a debit card would actually work better.) they'll get the idea.  Again, we don't tell anybody how to spend their dividend - that's their decision.
Doug

[Michelle]

Doug1o29, on 03 December 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

The carbon fee system would not require them to know anything about the carbon footprint of their purchases.  All they'd have to do is look at the price tag.  Once they get a few carbon checks (Direct deposit or a debit card would actually work better.) they'll get the idea.  Again, we don't tell anybody how to spend their dividend - that's their decision.
Doug

And then there is the rub...how far should the powers that be decide on the personal things like soap, toothpaste, shampoo and laudry detergent for the individual consumer? Are we to be condemned because we prefere one brand over the other for whatever reason? I'm sorry, I choose products because they suit my needs, whether it is environmentally correct or not.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Doug1o29, on 03 December 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

The carbon fee system would not require them to know anything about the carbon footprint of their purchases.  All they'd have to do is look at the price tag.  Once they get a few carbon checks (Direct deposit or a debit card would actually work better.) they'll get the idea.  Again, we don't tell anybody how to spend their dividend - that's their decision.
Doug

But surely alot of these products are required no matter the cost. There will be no reduction in CO2, just less money in my pocket and more in the Govt. coffers.

BTW, the last sea level figures the IPCC released were shown to have come from areas of subsidance, so i am not prepared to take them at their word this time.


Edit to add: i just found this graphshowing sea levels since 1880 and it appears that there has been no "run away" increase, but a steady straight line increase in sea levels.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 03 December 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Michelle, on 03 December 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

And then there is the rub...how far should the powers that be decide on the personal things like soap, toothpaste, shampoo and laudry detergent for the individual consumer? Are we to be condemned because we prefere one brand over the other for whatever reason? I'm sorry, I choose products because they suit my needs, whether it is environmentally correct or not.

That's the beauty of the carbon fee/dividend system.  The fee was charged at the point-of-origin.  Any manufacturer who uses that product has to include the fee in his price, or eat the cost.  Most will pass it along.  That cost gets reflected in the prices.  When a purchaser looks at a price, they are looking, in part, at the carbon footprint.  It is entirely up to the prospective purchser which product they purchase.

There is little to distinguish one toothpaste from another in terms of their carbon footprints.  That means little difference in price.  And that means that you can purchase which ever one you prefer.  The environmental benefit comes when two products have widely-differing carbon footprints:  in that case, the one with the larger footprint will cost more.  That's the only market control in the system - price is everything and the only price subject to control is the one charged at the point-of-origin.

And as for laundry detergent:  phosphates have been outlawed in laundry products since 1972 to prevent stream eutrification.  I'll bet you didn't even know you weren't allowed to buy such products, whether you prefer them or not.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Professor Buzzkill, on 03 December 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

But surely alot of these products are required no matter the cost.

Correct.  And they will still be available as long as people are willing to pay for them.

Quote

There will be no reduction in CO2, just less money in my pocket and more in the Govt. coffers.

The CO2 reduction comes when people decide to purchase the cheaper product rather than the more-expensive one.  The more-expensive one is more expensive because it costs more to manufacture because the carbon used to make it costs more.

Except for a small fee to cover overhead costs, all money is returned to the public, untaxed.  The agency in charge does not even have to be a government agency - an independent one would probably be less-subject to political meddling, anyway.

Quote

BTW, the last sea level figures the IPCC released were shown to have come from areas of subsidance, so i am not prepared to take them at their word this time.

I am not prepared to discuss this.  I have heard the same criticism before and there may be something to it.  I'd have to spend some time reading up on it, first.

Quote

Edit to add: i just found this graphshowing sea levels since 1880 and it appears that there has been no "run away" increase, but a steady straight line increase in sea levels.

The sea is a HUGE thermal mass.  It takes a lot of energy to get it moving.  Minor fluctuations in atmospheric temperature have little effect.  A steady increase is entirely consistent with global warming.

By the same token, once the sea starts to warm up, there is very little that can stop it.  Best not to get it moving any faster than it already is.
Doug

P.S.:  That graph seems to show a slight logarythmic curve.  That would make it a good match for land-based surface temps.  It also means that sea temperature rise is accelerating - not good news.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 03 December 2012 - 11:07 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Since we live in a market system we can distort the market in many ways to force out dirty products. We use all manner of subsides to encourage certain behaviours and outcomes. Why is it that we are still subsidizing companies which produce and use dirty fuels like coal ?

Many items out there can be produced with less fuel and raw material use - in the short term it maybe cheaper to produce energy and material rich products - but in the long term it costs society vasts amounts of money to clean up after them. It has to be sensible to penalize such wasteful production methods and reward the efficient producers with the savings which society accrues in using them.

If you focus purely on the unit costs of production you frequently end up with higher life cycle costs - and ultimately that comes out of societies budget and hence everyones pocket.

Br Cornelius

[Professor Buzzkill]

Doug1o29, on 03 December 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Correct.  And they will still be available as long as people are willing to pay for them.

The CO2 reduction comes when people decide to purchase the cheaper product rather than the more-expensive one.  The more-expensive one is more expensive because it costs more to manufacture because the carbon used to make it costs more.

Except for a small fee to cover overhead costs, all money is returned to the public, untaxed.  The agency in charge does not even have to be a government agency - an independent one would probably be less-subject to political meddling, anyway.

And if you need the product (i.e. fuel, plastics etc) in which there is no difference in CO2 between brands, who benefits from the increase in price? The product will still be used, CO2 will still be produced and it will make me incur greater costs for nessessary items.

When there is an electric engine driven truck which can deliver my goods (withoutcreating more CO2 in production than a truck uses in its whole life) then i think we can impliment this policy. Until there is a fair ulternative, we are stuck using what we know works.

[Br Cornelius]

Doug is right about wind costing less than fossil fuels. The only thing cheaper is nuclear - but that has unaccounted long term costs which are seldom factored in.
The only reason that wind costs more at the moment is because Governments have chosen to subsidize it in order to encourage private investors to spend the up front capitol costs. They did the same when the national grids were developed and when most of our electricity was coal sourced (hence legacy coal subsidies). Opponents of wind show a remarkable lack of understanding of how capitol intensive infrastructure projects get built.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Professor Buzzkill, on 03 December 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

And if you need the product (i.e. fuel, plastics etc) in which there is no difference in CO2 between brands, who benefits from the increase in price? The product will still be used, CO2 will still be produced and it will make me incur greater costs for nessessary items.

When there is an electric engine driven truck which can deliver my goods (withoutcreating more CO2 in production than a truck uses in its whole life) then i think we can impliment this policy. Until there is a fair ulternative, we are stuck using what we know works.

Almost all products can be built in more resource and energy efficient ways. You are correct that the same things will get built but they will get built for less energy and less raw materials.  

The automotive industry developed the technology to produce high efficiency petrol and diesel vehicles back in the 1970's. They only started to put these developments into production cars when the legislation forced them to do so. The problem was that low efficiency high status cars became popular from the 1980's to 2007 and so fuel efficiency actually went down over that period. Since most car manufacturers have oil interests it has always been in the industries interests to maximize fuel consumption rather than efficiency.

Sometimes direct market intervention is essential to ensure the best societal outcomes.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 December 2012 - 11:26 PM.

[Number Fingers]

ealdwita, on 03 December 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

At present, the preferred solution (in the UK at least) is to pay huge subsidies to inefficient wind factories and other pipe dreams, pile more and more tax on fuel and energy sources, sign up to unrealistic 'treaties' and condemn thousands of UK households to 'fuel poverty' whilst 'emerging economies' such as China and India are pumping tons of poisonous gasses into the atmosphere and discharging gallons of waste into our seas!  This country could go back to the carbon footprint of the Bronze Age and still not make the slightest difference to the climate!

Hit the nail on the head here.

These models arrive just in time to replace the older sea-level-rise models that clearly won't come true.  It's amazing that not one of their models has ever actually been correct.  They're lucky they don't get paid based on results.  They've been wrong even as far back as 1986 when James Hansen said "Within fifteen years, global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn't existed on earth for 100,000 years.

Or when the scientists at the University of Anglia said in 2000 that within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event."  And that "children just aren't going to know what snow is."

It's as if the earth is trolling them.  So in 2012 when there's less snow, they get to say, "It’s consistent with the idea that global warming is going on."  But in 2010 when there was more snow, they say, "Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.”  It's a sweet ride when you get to win both ways.

And then they have the effrontery to say that 'deniers' attack the science or don't understand the science, when the observed reality itself disproves the invented science.  The alarmists have no idea what will happen, but I'm sure they didn't predict no warming for 16 (going on 17) years.  Even psychics are better at predicting the future, because at least some predictions they make come true by chance.  It's funny to watch these alarmists make fools of themselves, except that the reality is they're trying to change world politics and economics based completely on a lie.

Edited by Number Fingers, 04 December 2012 - 03:18 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

Number Fingers, on 04 December 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

Hit the nail on the head here.

These models arrive just in time to replace the older sea-level-rise models that clearly won't come true.  It's amazing that not one of their models has ever actually been correct.  They're lucky they don't get paid based on results.  They've been wrong even as far back as 1986 when James Hansen said "Within fifteen years, global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn't existed on earth for 100,000 years.

Or when the scientists at the University of Anglia said in 2000 that within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event."  And that "children just aren't going to know what snow is."

It's as if the earth is trolling them.  So in 2012 when there's less snow, they get to say, "It’s consistent with the idea that global warming is going on."  But in 2010 when there was more snow, they say, "Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005-2006 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it.”  It's a sweet ride when you get to win both ways.

And then they have the effrontery to say that 'deniers' attack the science or don't understand the science, when the observed reality itself disproves the invented science.  The alarmists have no idea what will happen, but I'm sure they didn't predict no warming for 16 (going on 17) years.  Even psychics are better at predicting the future, because at least some predictions they make come true by chance.  It's funny to watch these alarmists make fools of themselves, except that the reality is they're trying to change world politics and economics based completely on a lie.

Which all goes to show that you have no understanding of the difference between weather and climate.
Lets just look at the snowfall average in the UK to see where you made your mistake;

http://www.climatetr...igure30_sml.gif

Notice the trend line which is going downwards, notice the peak at 2000 - thats weather. Did you spot the difference ?

Despite the sever cold snaps of the last few years (probably due to arctic ice melt) the actual periods of winter showing cold weather is still declining overall. A cold snap doesn't make a winter.

As for the lack of warming in the last 17yrs, in a word bull****;

http://www.realclima...a-trend-lesson/

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 December 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Number Fingers]

You say I don't know the difference between weather and climate, but yet these alarmists use every single major weather event anywhere in the world as further 'proof' of climate change.  Maybe you should inform them of the difference.  They seem to have forgotten their own handy 'weather isn't climate' meme.

But even I'll admit that that weather graph (or the Real Climate graph, or any such graph) isn't truly useful at all to show trends as precise as those graphs do, simply because of all the sampling errors and the noise involved.  It's essentially impossible to find a global average as it is.  As if that's supposed to mean anything anyways even if they could manage to do so.  The margins of error of the weather-instruments themselves are greater than the differences these charts purport to show.  And that's not even accounting for non-sampling errors, such as the locations of the instruments themselves being altered, for example from shady woodland to open tarmac, or new technology implemented over time.  Even NASA admits that all satellite data relating to sea-level rise cannot be taken as precise measurements. Even that data is in question, so is any model that uses it as a base.

Then Mann tries to use tree rings (3 to be precise) to show absolute precision?  And now the new fad is using stalactites as measurements of historical climate?  What world is this?

Which of course makes the entire process laughable from the very start.  Then they compare these fractions of a degree going back hundreds and even thousands of years as if they have all this data for certain.  Ultimately, they can make the data say anything, because the data itself is such a mess that it can be produced to say anything they need.

[ealdwita]

Doug1o29, on 03 December 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

'Treaty of Versailles':  Economic and diplomatic machinery will have to be part of the solution:  that's how we do these things.  Conversion is a lot more than just pie-in-the-sky.

China probably wouldn't be too happy about it, but there are ways to sweeten the deal, like applying costs of green technology to the debt (The US pays for the technology and China lowers the debt a corresponding amount.). As for not paying debts:  Finland is the only country to pay off its WWII debt - France and England just welched.
Doug

Ooops?.......... http://www.politics....s-off-wwii-debt

[Br Cornelius]

Number Fingers, on 04 December 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

You say I don't know the difference between weather and climate, but yet these alarmists use every single major weather event anywhere in the world as further 'proof' of climate change.  Maybe you should inform them of the difference.  They seem to have forgotten their own handy 'weather isn't climate' meme.

But even I'll admit that that weather graph (or the Real Climate graph, or any such graph) isn't truly useful at all to show trends as precise as those graphs do, simply because of all the sampling errors and the noise involved.  It's essentially impossible to find a global average as it is.  As if that's supposed to mean anything anyways even if they could manage to do so.  The margins of error of the weather-instruments themselves are greater than the differences these charts purport to show.  And that's not even accounting for non-sampling errors, such as the locations of the instruments themselves being altered, for example from shady woodland to open tarmac, or new technology implemented over time.  Even NASA admits that all satellite data relating to sea-level rise cannot be taken as precise measurements. Even that data is in question, so is any model that uses it as a base.

Then Mann tries to use tree rings (3 to be precise) to show absolute precision?  And now the new fad is using stalactites as measurements of historical climate?  What world is this?

Which of course makes the entire process laughable from the very start.  Then they compare these fractions of a degree going back hundreds and even thousands of years as if they have all this data for certain.  Ultimately, they can make the data say anything, because the data itself is such a mess that it can be produced to say anything they need.

All standard denial arguments straight from Anthony Watts - we could go into detail to analysis why you are wrong on each count - but if you do a little searching you'll find its all been debunked a thousand times before and you can save us all the trouble of typing it all out again.

The secret to understanding any of it is to remember its all about trends. If you have enough data even a dirty  dataset will show an accurate trend. Thats what climate science is all about, collecting enough different datasets to make the chance of a similar error occurring in them all impossible. Hence stalactites are just another strand of confirmatory evidence in support of the ice cores, mud cores, tree rings etc etc etc.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 December 2012 - 01:06 PM.