Cap and Trade

[nibhaz]

The greatest danger of nuclear energy it that it's used as a guise for nuclear weapons development. I'll leave it at that.

I don't want to put words in annunaki's mouth, but I really think that he speaking to nuclear energy as the solution to America's energy demand, in this regard the argument that it is a guise for nuclear arms is moot, as we pretty much have that front covered already.

Nuclear energy is the only real viable option for America to produce reasonably priced electricity with minimal environmental impact. Solar and wind are nice ideas, but they are never going to cover more than a small portion of our demand.

 

[bandphan]

I've looked at Christopher Brooker's article, it's nonsense. Temperatures are rising, see the IPCC report. If you don't believe the IPCC report, visit*:

The NCAR website:
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/
The NASA GISS website:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
The Hadley Centre website:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/wissenswertes/faqs.html

RealClimate, a site run by climate scientists, debunks the unpublished report Brooker refers to [1]. It's no surprise that this report wasn't published. The EPA probably does peer-review, so I doubt that paper would have had any legs.

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php

On climate models over-predicting warming, this is nonsense. Climate models can't be expected to exactly track global mean temperature because of internal climate variability. This is why you have a fuzziness to individual model runs.

Additionally, the fact that climate models aren't perfect does not undo the basic laws of physics. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and traps heat radiation. No matter what nonsense is spurted from the likes of Christopher Brooker or anyone else, this fact can't be undone.

[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

* Of course, if you don't trust the IPCC, you might not want to trust NCAR, the Hadley Centre, NASA GISS, etc. because some of the IPCC authors work at those institutions.

When any group like the IPCC looks a data, its only the data that benefits them Ask them to provide you with a 300 year perspective, then evaluate

 

[lsiberian]

I don't want to put words in annunaki's mouth, but I really think that he speaking to nuclear energy as the solution to America's energy demand, in this regard the argument that it is a guise for nuclear arms is moot, as we pretty much have that front covered already.

Nuclear energy is the only real viable option for America to produce reasonably priced electricity with minimal environmental impact. Solar and wind are nice ideas, but they are never going to cover more than a small portion of our demand.

While I understand people's general preference to nuclear energy and the fact they have reactors that can't meltdown now. I think it's going to be a hard sale for a variety of reasons. Nuclear energy is highly dangerous this fact is indisputable. And the facilities require an extremely high amount of security along with relying seismic stability.

It's not the silver bullet and I feel some may see it as that.

The best thing we can do is conserve. crank your AC up to 85 when your away.

Get everyone to use tankless water heaters. Encourage LED lights and fluroscent lights.

My best friends mother pays 25 bucks a month on electricity for her house and does it by using efficient appliances. This is in Texas where the heat gets into the 100s most of the summer.

This is how we can help the environment and our own pocket books. Also driving the speed limit would help too. But hey some things are hard to giveup.

 

[lsiberian]

When any group like the IPCC looks a data, its only the data that benefits them Ask them to provide you with a 300 year perspective, then evaluate

I think we can all admit that pollution is bad, but the question is how we curb it. No one I know is opposed to improving our efficiency. Yet this bill does nothing to facillate this. Why not fund recycling programs and appliance upgrade credits with the funds. Make a program for elderly folks to upgrade their home with energy efficient AC units.

Instead we just ban emissions?

I want to curb emissions but let's do it the smart way that we can agree on.

A very easy thing that can be done is a tax credit for buying a front loading washer and dryer. This is a win win for the environment, consumers, and clothes.

 

[griffinconst]

I think we can all admit that pollution is bad, but the question is how we curb it. No one I know is opposed to improving our efficiency. Yet this bill does nothing to facillate this. Why not fund recycling programs and appliance upgrade credits with the funds. Make a program for elderly folks to upgrade their home with energy efficient AC units.

Instead we just ban emissions?

I want to curb emissions but let's do it the smart way that we can agree on.

A very easy thing that can be done is a tax credit for buying a front loading washer and dryer. This is a win win for the environment, consumers, and clothes.

Now you're talkin. I think this is the second time we've actally agreed on a political thread. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[tbewick]

Given such a short sample of time, it really does look like the temperature is rising uncontrollably but starting at 1900 is really useless.

What's wrong with starting at 1900?

Also, the vertical scale isn't really a good representation of the actual change and makes it look far worse than it is. The trend line shows about a .6°F change but the way they show it, time is compressed, relative to the change.

What scale do you think would be more appropriate?

How do they explain the drastic drop in the early 1990s?

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the drop towards the end of the observed temperature record, I don't think it's important. On decadal timescales, a large amount of unforced internal climate variability is present. This makes it harder to detect the temperature change associated with the greenhouse gas forcing.

 

[Rickster71]

What's wrong with starting at 1900?

1900 is too short a time frame. (even though it's convenient for the Global Alarmists)
The last 2 billion years is the only way to get the big picture, and not just the tiny increase we are experiencing now.

What scale do you think would be more appropriate?

This one:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

 

[nibhaz]

Time range and scale change the whole picture

What's wrong with starting at 1900?



What scale do you think would be more appropriate?



I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the drop towards the end of the observed temperature record, I don't think it's important. On decadal timescales, a large amount of unforced internal climate variability is present. This makes it harder to detect the temperature change associated with the greenhouse gas forcing.

The problem with looking at such a short time frame is that you don't get a true picture of climatic change. Nor do you get a picture of what types of climatic changes have occurred prior to man’s proliferation.

If you’ll note the chart that I’m reposting, you’ll see that I’ve taken the liberty to highlight modern time on the left, and also marked current temps with a line, to compare it with previous high temps.






I think that it is clearly obvious that we are neither at the highest point, and this is not the first time the world’s temperature has risen. If CO2 from human activities is the major push, then how do explain the rise in temperature 120K years ago, or 240K ago, or 340k ago? Obviously the activities of man are not the cause yet it happened, and yet there was also a subsequent cooing with no help from mankind. From this frame of view things it doesn't look so overwhelming or out of control, in fact things look pretty normal from a geological scale.

 

[nibhaz]

While I understand people's general preference to nuclear energy and the fact they have reactors that can't meltdown now. I think it's going to be a hard sale for a variety of reasons. Nuclear energy is highly dangerous this fact is indisputable. And the facilities require an extremely high amount of security along with relying seismic stability.

It's not the silver bullet and I feel some may see it as that.

The best thing we can do is conserve. crank your AC up to 85 when your away.

Get everyone to use tankless water heaters. Encourage LED lights and fluroscent lights.

My best friends mother pays 25 bucks a month on electricity for her house and does it by using efficient appliances. This is in Texas where the heat gets into the 100s most of the summer.

This is how we can help the environment and our own pocket books. Also driving the speed limit would help too. But hey some things are hard to giveup.

We are going to have to disagreed on the dangers of nuclear energy. It exists, to be sure, but many of the risk can be mitigated, and it’s my belief that the benefits far out way the risk. I would be fine with a reactor being built in my community. In fact, I work only 1,750 ft from the only reactor in Indiana, granted it’s merely a 1kw reactor, but it’s there none the less. Here is a pretty cool picture from its core.

Cerenkov Radiation

But I will strongly support you in your call for increases in efficiency. This is without a doubt, an area that should be pushed if we as a nation are be successful in creating a sustainable energy plan, whether it be for environmental or strategic principles.

Incentives are a good start, and are wise in some situations, but we also need to take a closer look at the energy cost benefit analysis for trade-in type programs. More often than not, you’ll find that’s cheaper to let the older equipment run its course than to manufacture a new HE replacement.

We just have to be smart about things, and think things through, which sadly seem to be happening here on an audio site, and not in congress!

 

[rnatalli]

http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-doesnt-know-what-cap-and-trade-is-2009-7

More Palin fun.

 

[lsiberian]

We are going to have to disagreed on the dangers of nuclear energy.

I am not opposed to nuclear energy. I don't want you to get that idea, but I'm concerned about it being allowed in unstable nations. Iran, and North Korea both used the program to develop nuclear weapons. Iran isn't a concern for me because I don't think they'd actually start something, but North Korea likes to sell weapons and I cringe at the thought of a nuke getting into a terrorists hands.

Sure it would be fine in our country, but we couldn't probably use it in california, Cascadia or on the New Madrid system as earthquakes are a series concern, but we could use it in many places.

You may be aware of some type of technology that allows for the safety of such plants in the case of a high magnitude earthquake though.

Still I agree it should be used more often than it is.

Coal is just nasty stuff unless it's anthracite which burns clean. Sadly most of that has been mined and we are left with lignite which is just really nasty.

 

[lsiberian]

What's wrong with starting at 1900?



What scale do you think would be more appropriate?



I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the drop towards the end of the observed temperature record, I don't think it's important. On decadal timescales, a large amount of unforced internal climate variability is present. This makes it harder to detect the temperature change associated with the greenhouse gas forcing.

There are many reasons wrong with starting at 1900 only. There are various ways to analyze this and statistics can often be manipulated to one person's theory. For example the statistics on crime can be made to look like being a minority makes a person more likely to be a criminal or being poor makes a person more likely to be a criminal. You could see how such sweeping statements are only painting part of the picture.

Also Global warming is slowing down according to the Nasa sattelite observations. This is due largely to the drop in CFCs in the stratosphere. CFCs were a real problem and a much more potent Greenhouse Gas. This has been demonstrated. Much of our warming I would actually attribute to their presence which reduced our ozone layer because of their prevalence.

CO^2 is a very bad greenhouse gas and is not nearly as powerful as many other gases.

Urban Islanding is actually a big contributor to our rise in global mean temperature too. For example when I drive north on I 35 from Hillsboro, TX to fort Worth. I usually experience a 2 degree rise in temperature. This is clearly caused by urban islanding. As I see this when I drive into many large cities.

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=147

Check out this article for some explanation.

 

[Rickster71]

There are various ways to analyze this and statistics can often be manipulated to one person's theory. For example the statistics on crime can be made to look like being a minority makes a person more likely to be a criminal or being poor makes a person more likely to be a criminal.

While I do agree with much of what you're saying; the crime and race issue has a good dose of political correctness involved.


The FBI 'Cooks The Books' in it's Unified Crime Report.
Whites and Hispanics are combined to throw off the total number of crimes, when the FBI ranks them by race.

I find it interesting that a person can be ‘Hispanic’ when the government is handing out racial preferences with Affirmative Action or taking the census, but the same person will be 'White' when the FBI is compiling crime statistics.

 

[lsiberian]

While I do agree with much of what you're saying; the crime and race issue has a good dose of political correctness involved.


The FBI 'Cooks The Books' in it's Unified Crime Report.
Whites and Hispanics are combined to throw off the total number of crimes, when the FBI ranks them by race.

I find it interesting that a person can be ‘Hispanic’ when the government is handing out racial preferences with Affirmative Action or taking the census, but the same person will be 'White' when the FBI is compiling crime statistics.

Hijacker! Are you poor or a minority?

Oh yeah woman outnumber men so I guess you are a minority!

 

[Rickster71]

Hijacker! Are you poor or a minority?

Oh yeah woman outnumber men so I guess you are a minority!

Sounds like LOTR got a hold of your computer.
I'm not sure I follow. The 'Hijacker' comment, or any of your reply.
I responded and quoted (Below) your mentioning of, Statistics, Crime, and Minorities.

There are various ways to analyze this and statistics can often be manipulated to one person's theory. For example the statistics on crime can be made to look like being a minority makes a person more likely to be a criminal

I simply choose to shed the blinders of Political Correctness after college.
The FBI's Unified Crime Report is public domain BTW

 

[highfigh]

The greatest danger of nuclear energy it that it's used as a guise for nuclear weapons development. I'll leave it at that. Since this isn't the place to discuss that. Also remember negligence is a common attribute in our society. The motor vehicle is the perfect picture of this fact. Every year people are still killed by drunk drivers. People even pros in magazines still stop a radial saw after they lifted it from the work piece.

I got a degree from an engineering college and was already well aware of trade-offs. I'm also aware there are many areas where improvement is possible.

I also believe that engineers will and are making more efficient devices. Once we are aware of a need we are pretty good meeting it.

Engineers are problem solvers, for sure, but if people don't demand what they're selling, they won't sell any. Look at SUVs- people bought them like mad. Did they need one? Most of them, no. Did they drive like they could stop on a dime? Absolutely. Did they justify this by thinking that they were safer than in a small car? Damn right. Was there any real reason to drive one? Nope. The automakers took car frames and made SUVs- was it an engineering solution? Other than the fact that engineers/technologists did the math and testing, no. It was a marketing issue.

Sales and marketing still rule, as much as that causes more problems than it solves. It's not logical, but it makes money for the corporations involved and that's really what they care about.

 

[highfigh]

While I understand people's general preference to nuclear energy and the fact they have reactors that can't meltdown now. I think it's going to be a hard sale for a variety of reasons. Nuclear energy is highly dangerous this fact is indisputable. And the facilities require an extremely high amount of security along with relying seismic stability.

It's not the silver bullet and I feel some may see it as that.

The best thing we can do is conserve. crank your AC up to 85 when your away.

Get everyone to use tankless water heaters. Encourage LED lights and fluroscent lights.

My best friends mother pays 25 bucks a month on electricity for her house and does it by using efficient appliances. This is in Texas where the heat gets into the 100s most of the summer.

This is how we can help the environment and our own pocket books. Also driving the speed limit would help too. But hey some things are hard to giveup.

If you think of it, find out how many KWh she uses in a month and what the charges are. I'd like to compare hers with mine, in WI.

 

[tbewick]

There are many reasons wrong with starting at 1900 only. There are various ways to analyze this and statistics can often be manipulated to one person's theory. For example the statistics on crime can be made to look like being a minority makes a person more likely to be a criminal or being poor makes a person more likely to be a criminal. You could see how such sweeping statements are only painting part of the picture.

Also Global warming is slowing down according to the Nasa sattelite observations. This is due largely to the drop in CFCs in the stratosphere. CFCs were a real problem and a much more potent Greenhouse Gas. This has been demonstrated. Much of our warming I would actually attribute to their presence which reduced our ozone layer because of their prevalence.

CO^2 is a very bad greenhouse gas and is not nearly as powerful as many other gases.

CFCs are very strong greenhouse gas relative to carbon dioxide, of that there is no doubt. This is hardly the complete picture, however. You need to calculate the radiative forcing associated with these gases (IPCC report):

You mention that NASA satellite observations show a cooling effect. I was only able to find the temperature measurements I referred to earlier on the NASA GISS website. These measurements show a clear upward trend in global mean temperature.

There's no reason to automatically trust satellite data ahead of the surface temperature record. Roy Spencer, who analysed the contradictory satellite data a few years ago admitted that the data had been misanalysed. This was, as I recall, due to changes in the satellite orbits not being accounted for. Measurements were misread, e.g., a measurement meant to be taken at 12 pm would be taken several hours later, thus a spurious cooling trend became evident. See RealClimate for more details, and the IPCC report (below):

It appears that the satellite tropospheric temperature record is broadly consistent with surface temperature trends provided that the stratospheric influence on MSU channel 2 is accounted for. The range (due to different data sets) of global surface warming since 1979 is 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade compared to 0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade for MSU estimates of tropospheric temperatures. It is likely, however, that there is slightly greater warming in the troposphere than at the surface, and a higher tropopause, with the latter due also to pronounced cooling in the stratosphere.

RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/
and:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/satellites-show-cooling.php

 

[tbewick]

There are many reasons wrong with starting at 1900 only. There are various ways to analyze this and statistics can often be manipulated to one person's theory. For example the statistics on crime can be made to look like being a minority makes a person more likely to be a criminal or being poor makes a person more likely to be a criminal. You could see how such sweeping statements are only painting part of the picture.

Of course, statistics can be manipulated, and scientists would prefer to have more data to work with. The point I'd make is that the theory of human-induced climate change is not solely based on statistics. It is based principally on an understanding of the physical processes at work in the climate system.

Urban Islanding is actually a big contributor to our rise in global mean temperature too. For example when I drive north on I 35 from Hillsboro, TX to fort Worth. I usually experience a 2 degree rise in temperature. This is clearly caused by urban islanding. As I see this when I drive into many large cities.

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=147

Check out this article for some explanation.

There are no urban heat islands in the sea. Sea temperature measurements are part of temperature reconstructions. Sea level rise cannot be explained by the urban heat island effect. From the National Academies:

Temperature readings from around the globe show a relatively rapid increase in surface temperature during the past century (see Figure 2). These data, which have been closely scrutinized and carefully calibrated to remove potential problems such as the “urban heat island” effect, show an especially pronounced warming trend during the past 30 years—in fact, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Furthermore, the surface temperature data are consistent with other evidence of warming, such as increasing ocean temperatures, shrinking mountain glaciers, and decreasing polar ice cover.

"Understanding and Responding to Climate Change."
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

 

[tbewick]

The problem with looking at such a short time frame is that you don't get a true picture of climatic change. Nor do you get a picture of what types of climatic changes have occurred prior to man’s proliferation.

If you’ll note the chart that I’m reposting, you’ll see that I’ve taken the liberty to highlight modern time on the left, and also marked current temps with a line, to compare it with previous high temps.






I think that it is clearly obvious that we are neither at the highest point, and this is not the first time the world’s temperature has risen. If CO2 from human activities is the major push, then how do explain the rise in temperature 120K years ago, or 240K ago, or 340k ago? Obviously the activities of man are not the cause yet it happened, and yet there was also a subsequent cooing with no help from mankind. From this frame of view things it doesn't look so overwhelming or out of control, in fact things look pretty normal from a geological scale.

Perturbations in Earth's orbit due to the gravitational pull of other planets resulted in temperature changes. These changes in temperature were then amplified by the feedback of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

"Understanding and Responding to Climate Change."
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

See also Prof James Hansen's lecture, 'The Threat to the Planet: Implications for Intergenerational Justice and Energy Policies':
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16048