Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

The quote is taken from the page itself. I do not mean to comment on the issue, other to say that the skeptics now are using some of the same sources that climate science is using - which is a significant change, if it is a small one.

The same data was always being used. The problem is how the data is parsed and displayed and can be manipulated to show things that are not really there. Obviously the hockey stick thing is wrong. Same data, different outcomes. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No idea what you're talking about. How is the 'hockey stick thing' wrong ? You mean the temperatures really are not going up ?

Not as fast as predicted, and in some cases, it has stagnated. Projections/predictions were wrong. The same guys putting out these studies for the IPCC are saying that the projections were wrong. Only after many of the 'skeptics' discovered that those findings are not completely accurate. The stick top might be reachable by a small ladder and not a large skyjack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To continue your analogy, my logic is like comparing a 200 lb man to a 90 lb woman. I am not insisting that the man consume the same amount of food. I am saying let's look at the diets/lives of both people - maybe the man is eating too much or not excersizing enough and can learn a thing or two about healthy living. Maybe the woman is a smoker and the man can teach/inspire her to quit.

It is also possible that the 90lb woman has anorexia and needs to bulk up while the 200lb man is at his ideal weight given his physiology. It is simply wrong to start off by telling the 200lb man that he needs to reduce his food consumption simply because he consumes more than the 90lb woman. That is what you do by comparing different country's emission rates without any reference to what the 'ideal' would be given the nature of the economy. Hypothetically speaking it is possible that Canada is emitting more than it needs to but we don't have enough data points to determine what a "healthy" emission level is for a country like Canada. Exhortations to simply reduce for the sake of reducing are as immoral telling a healthy 200lb man to reduce his food consumption because he eats more than his anorexic neighbor.

I am as horrified as anyone at the thought of increased legistlated puritanism. Taxing waste / creating incentives for conservation is not legistlated puritanism.

Revenue neutral carbon tax which is collected by each province? Go for it. I don't oppose it at all because I believe consumption should be taxed instead of income. But it will have little, if any effect on emissions because the politically acceptable tax levels are way below the levels required to force any change to behavior. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, this alone (conserving fossil fuels) justifies a carbon tax.

Conservation of a finite resource isn't sufficient to justify a pigovian tax on fossil fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

You would need a lot more information such as the cost of implementation, the efficiency of the credit market (i.e. does it make sense for a person or corporation that owns an oil field to set a certain amount aside to sell to future generations), the cost of extraction (particularly as a function of time and/or of amount of resource extracted), the cost (as a function of time and other parameters) of alternative energy sources, the viability of alternatives to fossil fuels (such as synthetic fuels created from plants), etc.

Burning fossil fuels results in smog. A carbon tax would indirectly help reduce smog - especially as it would penalize coal.

I meant it makes more sense to directly tax the problem than to indirection tax it through a CO2 tax (can we please stop calling it a carbon tax? it sounds dumb). If you want to tax smog then tax smog. Taxing CO2 instead of smog won't take things into account such as burning fossil fuels outside of cities has less negative effects than burning fossil fuels inside of cities.

Anyway, I have yet to respond to the rest of your earlier post:

5. Per person, Australia emitted the most carbon

graph3_550x303.jpg

Divided up per person, each country's share of the world's emissions looks a little different.

Yay, Australia and Canada #1! Reminds me of this video:

Australia had the highest per capita emissions in 2012 at 18.8 tonnes. In the US, emissions per capita were 16.4 tonnes, and just behind came oil-rich Saudi Arabia with per capita emissions of 16.2 tonnes.

The EU and China - both major emitters in absolute terms - had much smaller per capita emissions, at 7.4 and 7.1 tonnes respectively.

Expecting the entire world, especially Australia or Canada, to become like Europe is unreasonable. You need to take into account that some countries are far more sparsely populated than other countries (so more transportation costs and less economies of scale), some countries have far more harsh climates than others (so more heating / air conditioning costs, more costs associated with snow plows, more irrigation costs, etc.; not everywhere is moderate Europe which has a very moderate climate thanks to the gulf stream), some countries have growing populations (like Canada, Australia, & the developing world, unlike Europe), some countries are still developing economically, etc. Europe is densely populated, has a moderate climate, has a declining population and is economically developed (except eastern Europe); how many other countries fit this description? (maybe japan, South Korea, and Singapore but that is about it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also possible that the 90lb woman has anorexia and needs to bulk up while the 200lb man is at his ideal weight given his physiology. It is simply wrong to start off by telling the 200lb man that he needs to reduce his food consumption simply because he consumes more than the 90lb woman. That is what you do by comparing different country's emission rates without any reference to what the 'ideal' would be given the nature of the economy. Hypothetically speaking it is possible that Canada is emitting more than it needs to but we don't have enough data points to determine what a "healthy" emission level is for a country like Canada. Exhortations to simply reduce for the sake of reducing are as immoral telling a healthy 200lb man to reduce his food consumption because he eats more than his anorexic neighbor.

No, in this case it is not possble that the 90 lb woman is anorexic - because I specifically chose "healthy" countries. You would be correct if I was comparing Canada's emissions to less developed countries - but I am not.

Please notice, I did not "start off by telling the 200lb man that he needs to reduce his food consumption simply because he consumes more than the 90lb woman". I specifically said: "let's look at the diets/lives of both people - maybe the man is eating too much or not excersizing enough and can learn a thing or two about healthy living." Do you see the difference?

I am not making any claims about what is "ideal" - I am just looking for best practices.

Revenue neutral carbon tax which is collected by each province? Go for it. I don't oppose it at all because I believe consumption should be taxed instead of income. But it will have little, if any effect on emissions because the politically acceptable tax levels are way below the levels required to force any change to behavior.

Yay, we have at least some consensus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expecting the entire world, especially Australia or Canada, to become like Europe is unreasonable.

You have the same mis-understandings about my position as TimG. I never said Canada should become like Europe. I said that the fact that we emit twice as much per capita suggests that we could be doing better. Let's look at some of the things that Europe is doing and perhaps apply some of their best practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just admit you couldn't be bothered to actually review the video... you saw the still-image associated with the video and you showed your ignorance. Like I said earlier, I suggest you take up your concerns over the video axis and timeline history with NOAA... the source and originators of the video.

Yes, I did not bother reading the video cause I'm very aware of the geological history of the planet and its climate and the fact that climate alarmists manipulate graphs and choose time periods that exaggerate support for their claims. Though I have now watched the video and verified that I was correct.

as before, you continue to avoid substantiating your claim. You also might want to qualify why you refer to organizations like the NSIDC as climate alarmists. :lol:

Pretty much all organizations that study climate science have been contaminated by climate alarmism to an extent. It's sad how appreciation for scientific methodology has fallen. As a result, I suggest that you rely less on appeal to authority and instead examine the scientific results on its own merit,

provide you... with the theoretical models... and equations! Sure sport... meanwhile you can continue to ignore my earlier question asking you why you continue to fixate on the global gradient while ignoring the actual localized gradients associated with the jet-stream... you know, the localized gradients associated with weather, in particular the extreme weather being reviewed and analyzed in relation to the shifting jet-stream (and it's causal links), in relation to the possible physical basis/mechanism proposed as the causal tie to the "stalling" jet-stream and ensuing amplification of extreme weather. The topic still is... extreme weather, right?

Again, you fail my request to provide me with theoretical models or equations which explain your claims (not that your claims are coherent or anything).

ya ya... somehow you can't translate that changing global gradient into the actual Arctic/Polar amplification effect...

Reduction in global temperature gradient and Arctic amplification is the same thing...

and increased extreme weather as reflected by the "stalling" jet-stream. From an earlier post... it's a video (from EarthNow)... I trust with this video, you'll actually run it and not just fixate on the still-image! :lol:

.

The video doesn't provide theoretical models or scientific explanations for why a reduction in the global temperature gradient leads to a stalling of the jet stream. It merely states an empirically observed correlation between sea ice extent and jet stream amplitude between the 1980s and today.

Anyway, I guess if I want things done I have to do them myself. I have spent several hours examining scientific papers and websites to find the theoretical model that explains anything relating to your claims. I believe that I have found sufficiently good information to present a cause, effect and explanation that we can both hopefully agree upon. But right now I have to go to a new years party, so I'll write it in my next post. Please do not respond to this post until I write my next post (cause this one is incomplete).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please notice, I did not "start off by telling the 200lb man that he needs to reduce his food consumption simply because he consumes more than the 90lb woman".

What you said was:

If high-per-capita-emitting countries followed some of the best practices of the EU - that would be a significant reduction.

i.e. you "started off" by telling countries like Canada that they need to reduce emissions simply because their per capita emissions are larger than the Europeans. Such as a statement is as nonsensical as saying a 200lb man should reduce his food intake by learning the best practices of 90 lb woman since you are assuming that all economies are equal and that if the per capita emission levels are not the same then something must be wrong.

I am saying economies are not equal and there is no way that per capita emission levels should be same.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I did not bother reading the video cause I'm very aware of the geological history of the planet and its climate and the fact that climate alarmists manipulate graphs and choose time periods that exaggerate support for their claims. Though I have now watched the video and verified that I was correct.

nice! You've now really upped your game to formally include NOAA (along with your earlier reference to NSIDC) in your alarmist labeling. Should we throw NASA into that mix, as well? How about Environment Canada? :lol: Are there any existing government organizations, or scientific based institutions, or academia, or intergovernmental organizations, etc., that you don't label as alarmist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you fail my request to provide me with theoretical models or equations which explain your claims (not that your claims are coherent or anything).

I certainly have no obligation to provide you with diddly - certainly not with your long history of ducking direct requests/challenges put to you. In any case, related papers have been cited... if the papers don't meet your claimed "scientific prowess", I suggest you contact the authors directly. You may also want to throw a challenge/comment in against any of the papers you feel are lacking in meeting your "expertise". You certainly have a ballsy approach for someone who couldn't even read a basic article reference and follow the direct bread-crumb trail laid out for you... repeatedly laid out for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is certainly a new twist....Canadians arguing about climate change from both sides but still using "denier nation" research and data. For those keeping score at home:

NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration (U.S.)

NSDIC = National Snow and Ice Data Center (University of Colorado, U.S.)

NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reduction in global temperature gradient and Arctic amplification is the same thing...

no - the concept of Arctic/Polar amplification speaks to the propensity for high Northern latitudes to experience enhanced warming... or cooling... in relation to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhhh... do you need to be handheld through this... even more so? It's a study that reinforces the Arctic/Polar amplification effect. See the same breadcrumb trail repeatedly laid our for you. As you say, duh!

ya ya... somehow you can't translate that changing global gradient into the actual Arctic/Polar amplification effect... the shifting jet-stream and the localized gradients associated with actual weather... and increased extreme weather as reflected by the "stalling" jet-stream. From an earlier post... it's a video (from EarthNow)... I trust with this video, you'll actually run it and not just fixate on the still-image! :lol:

The video doesn't provide theoretical models or scientific explanations for why a reduction in the global temperature gradient leads to a stalling of the jet stream. It merely states an empirically observed correlation between sea ice extent and jet stream amplitude between the 1980s and today.

I properly related what the video conveyed... the discussion emphasis was on Arctic amplification. I've included the full quotes above that you chose to ignore... I'd suggest, purposely ignore. Clearly, the video is a high-level presentation on the weather effects of Arctic amplification relative to the shifting jet-stream pattern. The only reference I've provided in regards to the "stalling" jet-stream was the earlier article/study offered in the (repeated) context of a possible physical basis/mechanism behind the stalling effect. Emphasis... again (as repeated multiple times over previously), that the authors provide their analysis as a possible physical basis/mechanism.

.

Anyway, I guess if I want things done I have to do them myself. I have spent several hours examining scientific papers and websites to find the theoretical model that explains anything relating to your claims. I believe that I have found sufficiently good information to present a cause, effect and explanation that we can both hopefully agree upon. But right now I have to go to a new years party, so I'll write it in my next post. Please do not respond to this post until I write my next post (cause this one is incomplete).

get over yourself! :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said was:

i.e. you "started off" by telling countries like Canada that they need to reduce emissions simply because their per capita emissions are larger than the Europeans. Such as a statement is as nonsensical as saying a 200lb man should reduce his food intake by learning the best practices of 90 lb woman since you are assuming that all economies are equal and that if the per capita emission levels are not the same then something must be wrong.

I am saying economies are not equal and there is no way that per capita emission levels should be same.

Not quite. While the analogy is decent, Canada and EU countries are not random 200 lb/90 lb people. Most importantly their standards of living and productivities are similar.

I am not saying that they should have equal emissions, I am saying that Canada's emissions should be less than double the EU's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be saying that at all. It's totally misleading. By that "averaging" theory, having your feet in the fire and your head in the icebox should make you comfortable. Don't try it. The EU is a mixture of basket case economies and others who have warm climates - or both.....and none have the transportation challenges that Canada faces with its huge land mass. To at least make it a somewhat fair argument, lets look at Germany. Arguably, they are the single biggest booster of energy efficiency in the EU with about 10% of electricity needs coming from wind. Like Canada, they also have a relatively strong economy. However - Canada is a much larger and somewhat colder country than Germany.....and yes, we are blessed with having an exceptionally robust energy sector. In spite of that, Germany produces 10MT per capita, and Canada is at 15. That's 50% higher - which already accomplishes your "goal" of less than double.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. While the analogy is decent, Canada and EU countries are not random 200 lb/90 lb people. Most importantly their standards of living and productivities are similar.

So? You can have a healthy, fit 200lb male and a healthy fit 90lb female. That does not mean their food consumption should be equal. The 200lb male needs to eat more because of his DNA and no amount of moralism can change that.

I am not saying that they should have equal emissions, I am saying that Canada's emissions should be less than double the EU's.

Yet within the EU you have a considerable range with Luxembourg at the high end with at 27.5 tCO2/person to the low end with Switzerland 7.3 tCO2/person. Why do you insist on judging Canada as a aggregate compared to the EU? Why not compare Canada to Luxembourg or compare Quebec to Norway?

The Luxembourg case is interesting because it sells fuel cheaper than its neighbors so it has an economy with a large energy sector (refined products in this case). This makes it emissions higher and lowers those of its neighbors who are importing the fuel. This example alone illustrates the absurdity of looking at per capita emissions. Different countries specialize in different ways and that will affect the the emission levels.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be saying that at all. It's totally misleading. By that "averaging" theory, having your feet in the fire and your head in the icebox should make you comfortable. Don't try it. The EU is a mixture of basket case economies and others who have warm climates - or both.....and none have the transportation challenges that Canada faces with its huge land mass. To at least make it a somewhat fair argument, lets look at Germany. Arguably, they are the single biggest booster of energy efficiency in the EU with about 10% of electricity needs coming from wind. Like Canada, they also have a relatively strong economy. However - Canada is a much larger and somewhat colder country than Germany.....and yes, we are blessed with having an exceptionally robust energy sector. In spite of that, Germany produces 10MT per capita, and Canada is at 15. That's 50% higher - which already accomplishes your "goal" of less than double.

Are you (and TimG) saying that there is nothing Canada (or any country) can do to reduce CO2 emissions without a significant negative impact on the economy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? You can have a healthy, fit 200lb male and a healthy fit 90lb female. That does not mean their food consumption should be equal. The 200lb male needs to eat more because of his DNA and no amount of moralism can change that.

In the above situation you are correct - as I've said this analogy has outlived its usefullness.

Yet within the EU you have a considerable range with Luxembourg at the high end with at 27.5 tCO2/person to the low end with Switzerland 7.3 tCO2/person. Why do you insist on judging Canada as a aggregate compared to the EU? Why not compare Canada to Luxembourg or compare Quebec to Norway?

There is no harm in comparing any country/province to any other as long as you realize that there are differences and limitations - I certainly realize that.

We should actually be more specific comparissions, for example:

-What are the best ways generate electricity?

-What are the best ways to heat/cool buildings?

-What are the best ways to design transportation systems?

-What are the best materials to use in construction?

-What are the best policies that protect the environment without crippling the economy?

Of course the answer to all these questions is "it depends...." - we should still be asking them, researching and comparing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the above situation you are correct - as I've said this analogy has outlived its usefullness.

No it has not - you just want to dismiss it because it illustrates how weak your 'per-capita-emissions-should-be-the-same' argument is.

Of course the answer to all these questions is "it depends...." - we should still be asking them, researching and comparing.

Well before you can compare you have to determine what "best" means. For most people the "best way to generate electricity" means it provides reliable power at a low cost and does not result in reduced air/water quality. CO2 emissions don't even enter into the equation.

For most people the "best way to heat/cool buildings" is the way that ensures good air quality at the desired temperature for as low a cost as possible. This does not necessarily mean the design with the lowest energy consumption is best.

And so on. CO2 emissions are simply one criteria among many and any viable solution to these problems will require energy consumption and emit CO2. This is why I think the scope for government mandated CO2 reductions is very small. People are simply not willing to change their lifestyle to take actions that will make no difference in the long run.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you (and TimG) saying that there is nothing Canada (or any country) can do to reduce CO2 emissions without a significant negative impact on the economy?

All I'm saying is that you can't just throw out generalizations. Every country is different. Is there something Canada can do? Of course there is - but not in a vacuum where our efforts penalize industry more than other countries. A perfect example: if Canada under the Liberals had actually accomplished their Kyoto obligations, you can bet that our economy would be dead and the effect on people, social programs and poverty would be devastating. Fortunately, the Liberals did nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it has not - you just want to dismiss it because it illustrates how weak your 'per-capita-emissions-should-be-the-same' argument is.

1. This is not my argument.

2. If you want to continue to use the analogy perhaps you can explain why Canada is akin to a 200 lb man and the EU or the Scandanavian countries are 90 lb women.

Well before you can compare you have to determine what "best" means. For most people the "best way to generate electricity" means it provides reliable power at a low cost and does not result in reduced air/water quality. CO2 emissions don't even enter into the equation.

For most people the "best way to heat/cool buildings" is the way that ensures good air quality at the desired temperature for as low a cost as possible. This does not necessarily mean the design with the lowest energy consumption is best.

And so on. CO2 emissions are simply one criteria among many and any viable solution to these problems will require energy consumption and emit CO2. This is why I think the scope for government mandated CO2 reductions is very small. People are simply not willing to change their lifestyle to take actions that will make no difference in the long run.

I agree that CO2 emissions is one criteria amongst many. In general, I am not in favour of high-cost CO2 reduction "solutions". I especially hate it when "alarmists" are against nuclear energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...