Strange Weather

[Charles Anthony]

The golfers are rejoicing while the sky-hill operators are crying.

I am genuinely worried about the hibernating animals and insects -- hell, everything for that matter. We may likely see a frightening upset in the ecosystem.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The golfers are rejoicing while the sky-hill operators are crying.

I am genuinely worried about the hibernating animals and insects -- hell, everything for that matter. We may likely see a frightening upset in the ecosystem.

Back in 1993 or 1992 (early '90's) I lived in Edmonton. They had an unbelievably warm winter - people were golfing on xmas day. They called it "el nino".

"Luckily" for us , the frigid cold returned the following year and for many years to come.

Just because you have a balmy winter isn't evidence of anything, really.

The most accurate and unbiased way to describe the situation is this:

The earth has historically fluctuated in temperature, prior to industrialization and after industrialization.

Before industrialization, the earth warmed during interglacial periods, glaciers receded (even further han they have recently) and global temperatures got warmer. Then they cooled again. Now they're warming again.

We only have a cursory idea as to why the earth warms and cools and always has done so. There is a hypothesis, backed by some evidence (but certainly not conclusive), that humans may contribute partially to the change in global temperature.

Other than that, the rest of what you hear is hogwash.

[geoffrey]

The golfers are rejoicing while the sky-hill operators are crying.

Only in the East. Alberta mountain parks all had record openings as well as most interior BC locations. In the front ranges where I often XC ski we already have more snow right now then we usually have at the end of January. They closed 300km of the Trans-Canada for a day because all the snow was causing numerous avalanches.

Shouldn't put up all that smog! The snow runs away from it don't you know.

[Charles Anthony]

Only in the East.

No. You lowly Earthlings misunderstand. I play golf way up in the sky.

[geoffrey]

Only in the East.

No. You lowly Earthlings misunderstand. I play golf way up in the sky.

Eh?

Did you drop this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/Science/home

[Topaz]

For those who want to read more about global warming go to www.coasttocoastam.com put "global warming" in their search and you'll have lots to read. If the world is not heating up then why is the North and South poles melting????

[GostHacked]

When is the last time you heard the media talk about that OZONE layer in Antarctica. How has that been going?? Good? Bad? No one knows?

Also CO2... this is Carbon Dioxide right??? Like what comes out of my lungs when I exhale? Or is it Carbon MONOXIDE they are refering too? If MONOxide, then you can make a pretty good guess that burning fossile fuels for transportation purposes increases the level of Carbon Monoxide, then you have an argument for that affecting climate change. But regular C02?? Trees baby, lots of them.

It has been a warm winter so far here in Ottawa, Canada, but other parts of the continent are getting SLAMMED with cold weather and lots of snow. So the chicken little 'sky is warming' agrument gets tossed out the door. This has been the warmest winter I have seen. I had lived in Sudbury Ont, for most of my life and the last 10 years here in Ottawa. They are close in lattitude and a measly 500kms from each other. And yet the weather in both cities is different.

Sudbury has no major bodies of water around it ... check that... major bodies of moving water. Lots of lakes though. The winters were usually very cold and dry. Summers cool/hot/humid ect ... all over the place.

Now here in Ottawa, the winters have not been as cold (temperature wise) but feels colder due to the moisture in the air. Ottawa River right in the city, St. Lawrence only a couple hundres KMs from here.

The winters in both cities have been quite different from each other. A couple years ago, my dad in Sudbury was telling me it was a warm winter and he could not get out on the snowmobile much if at all for the entire season. Yet in Ottawa here, we were buried in the snow.

Weather patterns always shift. Always.

Tomorrow has a 100% chance of weather.

[geoffrey]

Exactly, anyone that says one warm winter is a sign of global warming does a disservice to their cause.

No one is stupid enough to believe that... are they?

[August1991]

When is the last time you heard the media talk about that OZONE layer in Antarctica. How has that been going?? Good? Bad? No one knows?

An international agreement eliminated the use of CFCs. The hole in the ozone layer still exists but it is no longer growing.

No one talks about acid rain either. Why? A US-Canada agreement reduced emissions by creating a sulphur dioxide emissions market.

The Great Lakes are "cleaner" now than 40 years ago because of the way we dump effluence into the watershed.

No such agreement exists for CO2 emissions but Kyoto is a first start. When people claim that global warming is a left-wing fallacy, they ignore the progress made to clean up the environment elsewhere.

----

You pay for the 50 litres of gasoline you purchase when you fill your tank. You don't pay for dumping 50 kgs of effluence into the atmosphere when you drive. That has to change. When something appears to be free, it usually isn't.

[geoffrey]

All those excise taxes, taxes on taxes and more taxes aren't enough August? If we just paid for the gas and not it's impacts on society it'd be nearer to $0.40 or $0.45 per litre.

[Charles Anthony]

All those excise taxes, taxes on taxes and more taxes aren't enough August?

Who knows?

Should the strategy be to raise taxes higher such that it discourages and reduces emissions? or to generate enough money to repair the damage (is that even possible?) caused by the emissions? or simply to generate revenue?

I do not think there is an objective answer.

Why not outlaw polluting activities? We have the strong arm of the state. We outlaw smoking indoors because the smoking is dangerous. Why not outlaw emitting pollution?

If I owned ALL of Canada, I would want my business to stay profitable for my life and for my children who will inherit Canada. Thus, would it make sense for me to permit my tenants to damage my environment in the short term if they pay taxes? I think not. I would outlaw polluting activities. Should that not be the strategy of the state?

[jdobbin]

Why not outlaw polluting activities? We have the strong arm of the state. We outlaw smoking indoors because the smoking is dangerous. Why not outlaw emitting pollution?

If I owned ALL of Canada, I would want my business to stay profitable for my life and for my children who will inherit Canada. Thus, would it make sense for me to permit my tenants to damage my environment in the short term if they pay taxes? I think not. I would outlaw polluting activities. Should that not be the strategy of the state?

You always think in terms of business and that people will make rational choices based on economics.

Lots of times, people look to pass on the costs for a later undefined time. Too often that choice is too late to save themselves.

[Charles Anthony]

You always think in terms of business and that people will make rational choices based on economics.

Not always but I try because I can not think of any other rational approach to problem solving. I prefer to focus on "who owns what?" to arrive at the source of statist issues. Economics is just a method of balancing competing interests. People use economic thought all of the time without even knowing it. Have you ever had to run and catch a bus?? People with heart conditions make instaneous economic decisions when faced with such time constraints.

Do you recommend that we do NOT look at things in terms of business? From what you say, it seems that leads people to be "too late to save themselves" with that approach. What is your criticism? You sound like you want your cake and eat it too.

I would like to refine my snarky commentary in post #111 above.

Of course we can not outlaw ALL emissions and I do not think that we have to do so. I should properly ask:

Why not figure out what level of emissions our ecosystem can tolerate?

After that, forbid emissions in excess of what can be tolerated. Sell permits or something.

[Riverwind]

I prefer to focus on "who owns what?" to arrive at the source of statist issues.

There is a lot more to society than a simple struggle over who owns what. Most people feel that every human has some intrinsic worth that is more than simply a sum of the material goods they own. That is why most people think people deserve to have more than what they might be entitled to based on the free market value of the labour they are capable of providing. You can try to pretend that a person is nothing more than what they own but you will find that no one agrees with you. What do you do then?

[Saturn]

Also CO2... this is Carbon Dioxide right??? Like what comes out of my lungs when I exhale? Or is it Carbon MONOXIDE they are refering too? If MONOxide, then you can make a pretty good guess that burning fossile fuels for transportation purposes increases the level of Carbon Monoxide, then you have an argument for that affecting climate change. But regular C02?? Trees baby, lots of them.

WTF??? What planet are you from? Or century?

[Saturn]

All those excise taxes, taxes on taxes and more taxes aren't enough August? If we just paid for the gas and not it's impacts on society it'd be nearer to $0.40 or $0.45 per litre.

We'll be paying for the impacts when we find a way to bury 2 kg of CO2 for $0.40 or $0.45. Any ideas?

[Saturn]

Why not outlaw polluting activities? We have the strong arm of the state. We outlaw smoking indoors because the smoking is dangerous. Why not outlaw emitting pollution?

If I owned ALL of Canada, I would want my business to stay profitable for my life and for my children who will inherit Canada. Thus, would it make sense for me to permit my tenants to damage my environment in the short term if they pay taxes? I think not. I would outlaw polluting activities. Should that not be the strategy of the state?

That should be the strategy of the state but those who run the state are there for only 4 years at a time. Hence, we'll limit pollution in 2050 when they are long dead (and so will be many of us). It's always nice to think that we have more time to deal with the problem and it won't hit us in our lifetimes. As for our kids, we are always more concerned about our own convenience than about our kids, no?

[Saturn]

Not always but I try because I can not think of any other rational approach to problem solving. I prefer to focus on "who owns what?"

Are you looking to privatize the atmosphere?

[Saturn]

Of course we can not outlaw ALL emissions and I do not think that we have to do so. I should properly ask:

Why not figure out what level of emissions our ecosystem can tolerate?

After that, forbid emissions in excess of what can be tolerated. Sell permits or something.

I don't want to disappoint you but your great ideas have been thought up long ago. Those are called emissions trading systems.

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

Perhaps the most successful emission trading system to date is the SO2 trading system under the framework of the Acid Rain Program of the 1990 Clean Air Act. Under the program, which is essentially a cap-and-trade emissions trading system, SO2 emissions are expected to be reduced by 50% from 1980 to 2010 [2].

In 2003, New York State proposed and attained commitments from 9 Northeast states to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions. Also in 2003, corporations began voluntarily trading greenhouse gas emission allowances on the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The European Union Emission Trading Scheme is the largest multi-national, greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in the world. It commenced operation in January 2005 and all 25-member states of the European Union participate in the scheme [4].

The Kyoto Protocol will bind ratifying nations to a similar system, with the UNFCCC setting caps for each nation. Under the proposed treaty, nations that emit less than their quota of greenhouse gases will be able to sell emissions credits to polluting nations.

[Saturn]

Economics is just a method of balancing competing interests. People use economic thought all of the time without even knowing it. Have you ever had to run and catch a bus?? People with heart conditions make instaneous economic decisions when faced with such time constraints.

People use "economic thought" all the time but many forget that the conclusions this "economic thought" will lead to are only as valid as the information the thought it based on. If you grossly underestimate your chances of having a heart attack and using "economic" thought you decide to run for the bus, you may very well have a heart attack. Nothing wrong with the "economic" thought, just your info on your chances of having a heart attack was bad.

People have a simple cognitive bias which leads them to underestimate risks and to expect a better outcome than they should. Everyone would prefer to dismiss global warming as a problem that will occur at some very distant point in time, and if it's not so distant then it doesn't exist, and if it exists, then it's not caused by humans and we can't do anything about it, and if it is caused by humans and we can do something about it then it's not worth our time and money because it won't be nearly as bad as projections show. If you convince people that the costs of addressing the problem will exceed the costs of not addressing it, they will choose to not address it. Nothing wrong with "economic thought", just their info is bad.

[jdobbin]

Not always but I try because I can not think of any other rational approach to problem solving. I prefer to focus on "who owns what?" to arrive at the source of statist issues. Economics is just a method of balancing competing interests. People use economic thought all of the time without even knowing it. Have you ever had to run and catch a bus?? People with heart conditions make instaneous economic decisions when faced with such time constraints.

Do you recommend that we do NOT look at things in terms of business? From what you say, it seems that leads people to be "too late to save themselves" with that approach. What is your criticism? You sound like you want your cake and eat it too.

I would like to refine my snarky commentary in post #111 above.

Of course we can not outlaw ALL emissions and I do not think that we have to do so. I should properly ask:

Why not figure out what level of emissions our ecosystem can tolerate?

After that, forbid emissions in excess of what can be tolerated. Sell permits or something.

Now you are starting to sound like the Liberals with that phrase of "sell permits."

I think people make emotional moves with a certain frequency that defies economics, rule of law or any higher thinking. In other words, what might have started as a rational thought can quickly devolve to raw emotion.

For this reason I have argued against your rational split of a country for economic reasons. You might think it will follow a logical progression but it can stir up emotional anger where people kill each other for no other reason than they no longer abide by rational thought.