waldo Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Perhaps you could (finally) offer comment to suggest why the world's single most consuming country of products, manages to maintain a somewhat 'static' energy consumption level?The US did the same thing that denmark did: increase costs for businesses and give them a big incentive to relocate to another country where the energy consumption is now off their books. The only difference is denmark did it with energy taxes and the US did it with healthcare costs and payroll taxes.by extension to your acknowledgment on why the U.S. energy consumption numbers are somewhat 'static', might we expect some degree of compensation by those countries that, as you state, "sub-contract their emissions to other countries"... in particular those sub-contractors that choose to have no defined energy policies that might presume to attempt to reduce emissions of their own. (notwithstanding you haven't substantiated your claims to Denmark being, as you state, a "GHG freeloader").So you want to add insult to injury? I am sure all of the people laid off when the businesses moved would happy to pay "compensation" to the countries that took their jobs. Your thinking so completely twisted it is scary. If GHGs are a problem then all countries must pay the same price for carbon emissions just like they pay the same price for oil. Any attempt to give freebies to some will only increase total global emissions as the market shuffles production to place where they can pollute the most. Anyone who insists on a plan that does not involve an equal price for everyone has an agenda other than reducing GHGs. You clearly have reservations concerning "GHG freeloaders" (your term)... I interpret you really don't think such countries should get a "free ride" off other countries. If a true measuring/accounting metric can be accepted, the question remains on how to establish an equitable starting point... given the "GHG freeloaders". The starting point should include compensatory measures; moving forward from that point, I expect we could eventually reach a stage where a global price for GHG emissions might apply - equitably and fairly. Quote
noahbody Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) water vapor takes about 2 week to cycle through the atmosphere...CO2 accumulates faster than it can cycles out it has an atmospheric lifecycle that can last centuries...accumulating CO2 presents the danger and not water vapor as CO2 changes the GHG ratio in the atmosphere, a greater percentage of GHG's = more heat = warmer oceans=methane release= even more heat...the science is sound if you understand it... At least you acknowledge water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Do you believe taking the position that 0.28% of greenhouse gases (which is only one of the many factors involved) is, without question, driving recent climate change and this should not be considered debatable? And the models should be considered reliable even though, with global temperatures decreasing, they have proven themselves to be inaccurate? Should the recent peer-reviewed study that states CO2 escapes the atmosphere six times more than previously though not be a main topic of discussion? Because if it is indeed true, then then everything has been exaggerated six fold. One hundred years is 600 years and that is time for debate. As Canada's economy and services such as health care to a great extent rely on natural resources, we need to avoid knee jerk reactions. Unless you want your grandchildren living in a third world country. "Don't know what you've got 'til it's gone" should apply. Edited October 17, 2009 by noahbody Quote
Riverwind Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 If a true measuring/accounting metric can be accepted, the question remains on how to establish an equitable starting point.It is an exercise in futility. CO2 is not and never will be a tradeable commodity. However, if GHGs are a issue the only equitable way to address the problem is to make everyone pay the same price for the 'privilege' of emitting CO2. No exemptions no arbritrary historical baselines. A right must be purchased for every tonne of emissions whether the emissions happen in China, Canada or Russia.Of course, such a plan would never happen because the major emitters don't really believe that CO2 is a problem but they do believe it is useful propoganda tool that can be manipulated for political and economic gain. That is why the European's insisted on keeping the 1990 baseline because it benefited them the most. That is why China and India insist that developed countries commit to technically unreachable targets so they will be forced to funnel trillions into China and India to by bogus 'carbon credits'. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Riverwind Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 At least you acknowledge water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Do you believe taking the position that 0.28% of greenhouse gases (which is only one of the many factors involved) is, without question, driving recent climate change and this should not be considered debatable?I spent a lot of time looking at the science and do feel that the AGW case has been greatly exagerrated but there are a number of common skeptical arguments that make no sense. The CO2 is only 0.28% is one of them.There are many examples of systems where trace amounts of a material can have a great effect on the system. For example, iron is trace elment in blood. Too much and it will kill you but so will too little. In the case of CO2 its effect is determined by its ability to absorb IR radiation and it does have a large capacity to do that even at concentrations of 338ppm. The issue with water vapour is also complex because water vapour is both a cause and effect. i.e. if CO2 warms the temperature the amount of water vapour increases. This means the CO2 is amplified by water and therefore needs to be included we reporting the total effect of CO2. It is the water vapour feedback that makes CO2 a concern since CO2 on its own would not cause much more than 1 degC of warming this century even if we did absolutely nothing. But the thing with water vapour is it also amplifies anything that causes the temperature to go up. So if random changes in average cloud cover over the tropical oceans decreases over a period then temperatures would rise because more energy reaches the surface. This in turn would create more water vapour which further increases the temperatures. The trouble is AGW types like to predend that such effects average out over time but that an assumption that is only valid for linear systems. Climate is choatic, non-linear system and could easily randomly change states for no particular reason. This one possible explaination for the El Nino cycles and is the basis for the sceptical argument that net effect of CO2 on the system is being exagerrated. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Argus Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Are you stating the 80-83 recession wasn't a global recession? Actually, that was a typo. I meant the 1990 recession, which hit the US and its prinicpal trading partners much more severely than it did most European nations. When combined with the replacement of so many ancient and innefficient pollution sources around that time (not done because of CO2 emissions) it gave them a decided advantage over us. Your "European industry shutdown/retooling" claim will remain labeled as juvenile until such time as you bring forward something established and recognized to corroborate it... something other than just your statement. I see, so until I find some horrifically biased site like the ones you have quoted from to back up elementary logic it's "juvenile". Don't take it to heart - if you choose to jump into the meaty thread discussions and get shown up for your lack of understanding, just try harder - next time. Meaty? Well, If you want to reference it in those terms I'd say Riverwind is dishing out some mighty fine steak while you seem to be offering up regurgitated, day old Mcdonalds happy burgers, and doing so with a smary arrogance which belies you're very obvious lack of personal knowledge on the subject. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jbg Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 You know, your insistence on adding those laugh out loud emoticons with everything you say does nothing to convince anyone you are mature enough to even understand what you're talking about, much less what anyone else says. In fact, the tone of your posting is that of a loud mouthed bufoon. More than likely he is. He/she/it is more than likely the kind of person who, when you talk to them, mouths slogans and if you try to get them to analyze an issue, merely says "whatever" or lunges for their cellphone to look busy and wanted. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Yes, typo. The wall didn't even fall till 1989 - though the savings and loan disaster preceded it by 2 years. No, most of the S & L disaster post-ceded it by about 1-3 years. There was one major scandal, the one involving the Keating Five, before wall-down, but the lions share hit later. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted October 17, 2009 Report Posted October 17, 2009 Niiiiiice... just imagine those crafty Europeans playing off the timing of their "old industry shutdowns and retooling" against U.S./Canadian recession intervals. Really? That's what you're going with? Really?Actually, they even allowed base years as early as 1986, maybe 1984 for some European countries. Clearly Kyoto was more skillfully negotiated from the Old World than the New World side. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted October 18, 2009 Report Posted October 18, 2009 Are you stating the 80-83 recession wasn't a global recession? Do you have a new definition for a global recession... one other than that used by the IMF... one that would suggest the 80-83 recession wasn't global impacting?Actually, that was a typo. I meant the 1990 recession, which hit the US and its prinicpal trading partners much more severely than it did most European nations. When combined with the replacement of so many ancient and innefficient pollution sources around that time (not done because of CO2 emissions) it gave them a decided advantage over us. Typo? Sure... but a "do over' won't help you since all the data we've been talking about, and the discussion from it, centered around Riverwind questioning the start date from the EIA data (start date 1980). Try to keep up... hey? I am curious if you can come up with any justification for using 1980 as a start date for these comparisons other that 'it happens to the one that makes Danish policies look mor effective than they actually were'. Can you? Your "European industry shutdown/retooling" claim will remain labeled as juvenile until such time as you bring forward something established and recognized to corroborate it... something other than just your statement.I see, so until I find some horrifically biased site like the ones you have quoted from to back up elementary logic it's "juvenile". Buddy, I've offered a single link within this thread... everything else being discussed reflects back upon the links Riverwind has offered. The single link I've provided is to the IFC site (International Finance Corporation)... part of the World Bank Group. The article I referenced was actually an English translation of a Russian article... effectively an article about the history/challenges/successes of Denmark, written from a Russian perspective with subtle and not so subtle inferences suggesting areas where Russia failed to follow the lead/example of Denmark. Really? Was that single link I offered... that single article... from the IFC, the extent of your concern about, as you state, "horrifically biased sites"? Oh my - perhaps try again, hey buddy? Let's make a note highlighting you failed to provide one of your own references to corroborate your juvenile assertion concerning the "shutdown/retooling" of European industry as the basis for the EIA data's 1980 start date. HAW HAW HAW. I'm so smart! Guffaw! Snort! Belch! Yer so stoooppiidd!Yes, I so admire an intellectual. I'm enthralled by your learned words. Don't take it to heart - if you choose to jump into the meaty thread discussions and get shown up for your lack of understanding, just try harder - next time. Meaty? Well, If you want to reference it in those terms I'd say Riverwind is dishing out some mighty fine steak while you seem to be offering up regurgitated, day old Mcdonalds happy burgers, and doing so with a smary arrogance which belies you're very obvious lack of personal knowledge on the subject. clearly, your inability to offer anything of substance to this thread... belies... your very obvious lack of personal knowledge on the subject... making your assessments arbitrary and inconsequential Quote
noahbody Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 I spent a lot of time looking at the science and do feel that the AGW case has been greatly exagerrated but there are a number of common skeptical arguments that make no sense. The CO2 is only 0.28% is one of them. The 0.28% refers to manmade CO2. Does it make sense? I guess it depends on how it is used. If it's used to challenge the narrow focus of the those who are defining the problem it does give reason to debate. It also should be used to help determine any course. I mean, how much impact can humans realistically have on this 0.28%? How about Canada? Aside from feeling warm and fuzzy inside, what are we going to accomplish? There are many examples of systems where trace amounts of a material can have a great effect on the system. For example, iron is trace elment in blood. Too much and it will kill you but so will too little. I agree it shouldn't be eliminated from the equation, but it shouldn't be singled out. The earth doesn't distinguish manmade CO2 from natural CO2. Could technology be developed to convert or capture emissions from volcanoes? Possibly. Will we ever have that discussion? No. Nature is never the bad guy. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 The 0.28% refers to manmade CO2. Does it make sense? I guess it depends on how it is used. If it's used to challenge the narrow focus of the those who are defining the problem it does give reason to debate.It is true that human CO2 is a tiny part of the total CO2 cycle but the it is the addition of human CO2 that is causing the total CO2 to increase. Try thinking of a bathtub with water going in at a 1liter/sec via the spout and out the drain at 1 liter/sec. The water level in the bathtub is stable. However, if you started adding additional water with a tear-dropper at a rate of 1 ml/sec you would find that this tiny addition would cause the water level to increase and stay permanently at the higher level. This is like what humans are doing with CO2.It also should be used to help determine any course. I mean, how much impact can humans realistically have on this 0.28%? How about Canada? Aside from feeling warm and fuzzy inside, what are we going to accomplish?Absolutely nothing. Which is why it is a waste of time to talk about reducing CO2 emissions until we have technology that China and India would deploy without requiring massive bribes.Could technology be developed to convert or capture emissions from volcanoes? Possibly. Will we ever have that discussion? No. Nature is never the bad guy.No disagreement here either. The alarmistic logic is nonsensical because it tries to argue that the CO2 problem is a immediate danger yet it also seeks to claim that humans could do something about it if they only "changed their ways". I see the two claims as contradictory. If CO2 is an immediate danger then we can't do anything about because we don't have the technology and we will need to adapt. If we have time to "change our ways" then we have time to focus on developing the appropriate technlology and adapting as required.Neither options requires that a radical restructuring of the economic order in society be completed on the alarmists' schedule. The recent cooling trend further supports the notion that there is no need to rush to implement "solutions". Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 I agree it shouldn't be eliminated from the equation, but it shouldn't be singled out. The earth doesn't distinguish manmade CO2 from natural CO2. Could technology be developed to convert or capture emissions from volcanoes? Possibly. Will we ever have that discussion? No. Nature is never the bad guy.actually science distingushes between natural and manmade CO2...CO2 emissions from volcanoes is small compared to human produced CO2 and the planet could absorb that contribution without problem... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 Neither options requires that a radical restructuring of the economic order in society be completed on the alarmists' schedule. The recent cooling trend further supports the notion that there is no need to rush to implement "solutions". the myth of the cooling trend...using the el Nino year of 1998 an anomoly as the starting year...the denier handbook alwsys cherry picks starting dates of convenience, why not use last week because it was warmer than this week?.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wild Bill Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 actually science distingushes between natural and manmade CO2...CO2 emissions from volcanoes is small compared to human produced CO2 and the planet could absorb that contribution without problem... That contradicts what I've always heard. Can you give us a cite for the claim that C02 emissions from volcanoes is small? Are volcanoes the ONLY source of natural C02? I just can't accept your claims without some backup. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) That contradicts what I've always heard. Can you give us a cite for the claim that C02 emissions from volcanoes is small? Are volcanoes the ONLY source of natural C02?I just can't accept your claims without some backup. fair enough.. from a Volcanologist "Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. " CO2-Volcanoes if Volcanoes produced a significant amount there would be major spikes in CO2 levels during eruptions but there aren't any...there have been suspected mass extinctions(PT extinction) from past mega volcanoes which CO2 is suspected of being a factor but we've experienced nothing remotely close to that level of emissions... what we get from normal eruptions is cooling and a drop in average global temps and no volcanoes are not the only source of CO2...but our bio sphere has adapted to normal CO2 production like H2O it cycled in and out, man made CO2 is altering the normal balance and altering the natural cycle... Edited October 20, 2009 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) That contradicts what I've always heard. Can you give us a cite for the claim that C02 emissions from volcanoes is small? Are volcanoes the ONLY source of natural C02?At least 80% of the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years has come from humans. The climate sceptic Roy Spencer, as an academic exercise, tried to come up with a non-human origin hypothesis but eventually concluded that it could not be supported by the available data. Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 and no volcanoes are not the only source of CO2...but our bio sphere has adapted to normal CO2 production like H2O it cycled in and out, man made CO2 is altering the normal balance and altering the natural cycle...The biosphere has adapted to many different CO2 levels but the general rule is more CO2 means more plant life even if the mix of plant life might change. It is worth noting that primates first appeared on the scene during a period of extremey high CO2 levels 55 million years ago. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
wyly Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 The biosphere has adapted to many different CO2 levels but the general rule is more CO2 means more plant life even if the mix of plant life might change. It is worth noting that primates first appeared on the scene during a period of extremey high CO2 levels 55 million years ago. that could be true, no one ever said conditions on the planet were constant...the point many misunderstand is life adapts to very various conditions when it has time to do so...but whenever there has been a rapid change in the environment there have also been mass extinctions...generally the larger, more complex, slower to mature animals die off because they cannot adapt quickly enough...we are experiencing one of those rapid changes, what will survive and what will not is unknown at this time, but there definitely will be casualties... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) we are experiencing one of those rapid changes0.7 degC over 100 years is not a rapid change. Ice cores show that changes of that magnitude occurred in the past over similar timeframes. Your claim is based entirely on the assumption that CO2 will lead to rapid changes in the future - an assumption that has yet to be verified. Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
noahbody Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 the myth of the cooling trend...using the el Nino year of 1998 an anomoly as the starting year...the denier handbook alwsys cherry picks starting dates of convenience, why not use last week because it was warmer than this week?.... So if a lead author for the IPCC says it's cooling, is it because he's been reading this handbook? Why didn't a leading modeller not see this coming? Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scie...0571/story.html Quote
noahbody Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 actually science distingushes between natural and manmade CO2 No it doesn't. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 No it doesn't.The source of the CO2 can be inferred from the ratio of carbon isotopes - CO2 that comes from old sources has a different isotope ratio. The science behind it is similar to carbon dating. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
noahbody Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 Try thinking of a bathtub with water going in at a 1liter/sec via the spout and out the drain at 1 liter/sec. The water level in the bathtub is stable. However, if you started adding additional water with a tear-dropper at a rate of 1 ml/sec you would find that this tiny addition would cause the water level to increase and stay permanently at the higher level. This is like what humans are doing with CO2. Is this bathtub in a lab or outside? Regardless, if the water level begins to drop, or if there's a study suggesting water is draining out faster than previously thought, it might be a good idea to hold off on that new flooring. I'm sure you'll agree. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 Is this bathtub in a lab or outside? Regardless, if the water level begins to drop, or if there's a study suggesting water is draining out faster than previously thought, it might be a good idea to hold off on that new flooring. I'm sure you'll agree.I think you are mixing temps with CO2. I am only saying that the link between CO2 and humans has pretty solid support from the data. The CO2-temp link is another question entirely. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
noahbody Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 The source of the CO2 can be inferred from the ratio of carbon isotopes - CO2 that comes from old sources has a different isotope ratio. The science behind it is similar to carbon dating. What difference does it make if it can be identified? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.