Greenland didn't always have glaciers [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

gstelmack

07-06-2007, 03:40 PM

There is no "fight" -- the bulk of scientific opinion is crystal clear: climate change is occuring, and is at the very least exacerbated by man.

This is only because the credible arguments against man's influence are shouted down, ignored by the press, or squelched. There is plenty of credible research against this opinion, but no one wants to hear it or publish it. You don't get money if you are looking into alternative theories.

Discover Magazine at least has been giving some airtime to arguments both for and against mans involvement.

JonInMiddleGA

07-06-2007, 03:40 PM

And by calling some of these whackadoos "credible", path just forfeited his own presumption of credibility.

Thanks for playin', buh-bye.

path12

07-06-2007, 03:53 PM

Misdirect, prevaricate, strawman, insult, AHHHHHHHHHH LIBERAL!!!!!.

I rest my case.

Dutch

07-06-2007, 03:59 PM

And to think the vikings were run out of Greenland due to Global Cooling. That's kind of weird on a couple different levels.

NoMyths

07-06-2007, 04:00 PM

This is only because the credible arguments against man's influence are shouted down, ignored by the press, or squelched.

No, it's because the bulk of the scientific community is worried about all of the side arguments to climate change, not whether it's occuring -- there's no serious argument against it except for amongst the non-scientific public who doesn't have the background, and buys the anti-climate change nonsense being spouted by their political flavor of choice. The evidence is clear.

NoMyths

07-06-2007, 04:05 PM

dola...

And of course you get money if you're looking into credible alternate theories. There's only so much research money that can be funneled into the same vein of scientific inquiry, and plenty of folks like yourself (only with big money and willing to spend it to support their point of view) praying that one of those alternate theories will pan out.

DanGarion

07-06-2007, 04:24 PM

There really is no fight, except if you are using studies that are either sponsored or vetted by oil/energy companies and their government representatives......

Which is why I stay out of the debate, since if someone doesn't want to see the conclusion that virtually every credible scientist has come to there's no way I'm going to convince them otherwise. It's a shame that greed overpowers reason for some.

Yes you don't have your own opinion on what side you are on. No debate here, nothing to see here, move along, move along...

path12

07-06-2007, 04:34 PM

Yes you don't have your own opinion on what side you are on. No debate here, nothing to see here, move along, move along...

Yeah, I'm pretty biased. I guess I trust the national academies of science of:

USA
UK
Russia
China
Canada
Brazil
India
Germany
France
Italy
Japan
Mexico
South Africa

in a matter such as this.

hxxp://nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

Of course, I guess they're all just part of the conspiracy too.

CamEdwards

07-06-2007, 04:34 PM

14 posts in and I'm the first to comment on the state of the art graphical re-creation that accompanied that article? That's sad.

DanGarion

07-06-2007, 04:39 PM

Yeah, I'm pretty biased. I guess I trust the national academies of science of:

USA
UK
Russia
China
Canada
Brazil
India
Germany
France
Italy
Japan
Mexico
South Africa

in a matter such as this.

hxxp://nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

Of course, I guess they're all just part of the conspiracy too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not energy use that's the problem, it's the amount of people on Earth. If there were strict requirements that told people they couldn't have an excessive amount of children there wouldn't a problem in the first place. There is no need for married couple to double their footprint by having 4 children, period.

NoMyths

07-06-2007, 04:44 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not energy use that's the problem, it's the amount of people on Earth. If there were strict requirements that told people they couldn't have an excessive amount of children there wouldn't a problem in the first place. There is no need for married couple to double their footprint by having 4 children, period.

Regardless, population growth isn't going to change. Energy consumption is easier to limit than population size.

DanGarion

07-06-2007, 04:53 PM

Regardless, population growth isn't going to change. Energy consumption is easier to limit than population size.

So let's just put that one under the rug until it really becomes an issue? Regardless if energy consumption is easier, the writing is on the wall that population is the ultimate reason for this and if we control it now we won't have to deal with the inevitable future of mass famines, excessive waste, and overpopulation.

sabotai

07-06-2007, 05:03 PM

14 posts in and I'm the first to comment on the state of the art graphical re-creation that accompanied that article? That's sad.

It's as if they went back in time with a digital camera!

Young Drachma

07-06-2007, 05:21 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not energy use that's the problem, it's the amount of people on Earth. If there were strict requirements that told people they couldn't have an excessive amount of children there wouldn't a problem in the first place. There is no need for married couple to double their footprint by having 4 children, period.

Lemme guess. We'd have a government agency to enforce this? :rolleyes:

Surtt

07-06-2007, 05:39 PM

Wasn't Greenland on the equator before continental drift pushed it north?

DanGarion

07-06-2007, 06:03 PM

Lemme guess. We'd have a government agency to enforce this? :rolleyes:

I don't know, I'd rather not, I'd rather people just get with the times and be realistic about how many children they really need instead of having more and more because they are cute and they are being selfish.

Toddzilla

07-06-2007, 06:06 PM

The Earth didn't always have Elisha Cuthbert, but that doesn't mean its wrong...

http://www.celebritypicturespace.com/images/fulls/elisha_cuthbert_4.0.jpg

NoMyths

07-06-2007, 06:44 PM

So let's just put that one under the rug until it really becomes an issue? Regardless if energy consumption is easier, the writing is on the wall that population is the ultimate reason for this and if we control it now we won't have to deal with the inevitable future of mass famines, excessive waste, and overpopulation.

When you come up with an effective plan for reducing population growth that has any realistic chance of being enacted, please let me know. Last I checked, we're having a hard enough time even keeping abortion legal, let alone legislating pregnancy.

gstelmack

07-06-2007, 06:47 PM

No, it's because the bulk of the scientific community is worried about all of the side arguments to climate change, not whether it's occuring -- there's no serious argument against it except for amongst the non-scientific public who doesn't have the background, and buys the anti-climate change nonsense being spouted by their political flavor of choice. The evidence is clear.

I commented on man's influence, you attacked my opinion on whether climate change is occuring. The point is that man's influence on this phenomenon in particular has lots of negative research against it, but you don't hear about it. And I'm not reading political stuff on this (well, except for the articles I post on CNN), Discover has had some excellent pieces on this both ways (and Discover tends to slant environmental if anything). Check the last issue for the Discover Interview where they interview a scientist that has been key in research on the effects of solar output and the efforts to shut up his research findings as far back as the mid-90s. His research does not contradict that global warming is occurring, he's just showing alternatives to the man-is-at-fault crowd.

I just get sick and tired of CNN posting "Glaciers are receding! Man must cut back!" articles all the freakin' time, then posting the "It wasn't that long ago that Greenland had no glaciers at all" without explaining the contradiction. That's just one example of the politicization of the issue that quashes any contrary evidence.

NoMyths

07-06-2007, 07:09 PM

I commented on man's influence, you attacked my opinion on whether climate change is occuring. The point is that man's influence on this phenomenon in particular has lots of negative research against it, but you don't hear about it. And I'm not reading political stuff on this (well, except for the articles I post on CNN), Discover has had some excellent pieces on this both ways (and Discover tends to slant environmental if anything). Check the last issue for the Discover Interview where they interview a scientist that has been key in research on the effects of solar output and the efforts to shut up his research findings as far back as the mid-90s. His research does not contradict that global warming is occurring, he's just showing alternatives to the man-is-at-fault crowd.

I just get sick and tired of CNN posting "Glaciers are receding! Man must cut back!" articles all the freakin' time, then posting the "It wasn't that long ago that Greenland had no glaciers at all" without explaining the contradiction. That's just one example of the politicization of the issue that quashes any contrary evidence.

The people who know a whole lot more about either of us on these issues have weighed in, and the vast majority of them have made it clear: this isn't a fight or a debate. Climate change is occuring. Man is exacerbating the problem.

I have no opinion on whether man is or is not at fault. The petty public fights by amateurs over the issue doesn't help us resolve it -- I'm willing to give the experts the benefit of the doubt, and will take the word from the many national academies of science and peer-reviewed scientific journals over the odd article in a popularly-focused magazine. If one chooses to reject those positions, I would hope they'd have a heck of a lot of serious evidence on their side to do so. And frankly, Discover Magazine alone ain't it.

NoMyths

07-06-2007, 07:12 PM

dola...

When looking at the popular media's coverage of such things, one shouldn't be surprised to see them focus on the conflict in the story, rather than the facts. An awful lot of money is being spent by contributors to climate change in order to generate that controversy, and by any measure they've been successful in doing so.

Buccaneer

07-06-2007, 07:40 PM

NoMyths: What were the leading causes of climate changes in the past? If man weren't here, would the earth be or not be coming out of a cooling cycle?

dangarion: The answer isn't limiting populations but for each to be educated enough to take personal responsibilities in limiting energy use and practice conservation.

gstelmack

07-06-2007, 07:57 PM

The people who know a whole lot more about either of us on these issues have weighed in, and the vast majority of them have made it clear: this isn't a fight or a debate. Climate change is occuring. Man is exacerbating the problem.

There is a significant minority of well-respected scientists who disagree. This is far from a closed issue. While I am interested in the opinions of scientists on both sides of the coin (and I try to read from both when I can), I am NOT interested in the opinion of political groups like the UN, etc. There is a lot to be gained politically for a lot of groups pushing this agenda. For much of the world, there is weakening the US economy. For internal groups, it's a chance to take a jab at corporate America. You have to cut through the political BS and take a look at the arguments on BOTH sides. And to blatantly ignore that there IS another side with legitimate backers that are NOT in the pocket of oil companies as you claim is doing yourself and the world a disservice. ESPECIALLY when taking into account that the earth's environment goes through these cyclical swings ALL the time.

And ESPECIALLY when it was only 20 or so years ago that the "vast majority" of climatologists were looking forward to the ice age that was coming up.

If the people on the "con" side of the fence had nothing at all going for them, then I'd be agreeing with you. But the reality is there is some solid evidence and ongoing research out there that man's influence is not nearly what people think it is.

clintl

07-06-2007, 08:10 PM

Wasn't Greenland on the equator before continental drift pushed it north?

Yes, but not that recently.

DanGarion

07-06-2007, 08:11 PM

dangarion: The answer isn't limiting populations but for each to be educated enough to take personal responsibilities in limiting energy use and practice conservation.
Unfortunately there are so man ignorant people it's never going to happen. :(

clintl

07-06-2007, 08:15 PM

There is a significant minority of well-respected scientists who disagree.

The last figures I read, more than 90% of climatologists are convinced that a significant amount of global warmed is caused by human activity. Maybe 10% is a significant minority to you, but it's not to me.

gstelmack

07-06-2007, 08:19 PM

The last figures I read, more than 90% of climatologists are convinced that a significant amount of global warmed is caused by human activity. Maybe 10% is a significant minority to you, but it's not to me.

It is if they've got some legitimate research to back them up, they are respected (at least before they voiced these particular theories), and many of them are attacked and asked to stop doing their research because it's not PC...

gstelmack

07-06-2007, 08:22 PM

It is if they've got some legitimate research to back them up, they are respected (at least before they voiced these particular theories), and many of them are attacked and asked to stop doing their research because it's not PC...

To give a pair of recent examples:

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/discover-dialogue, near the bottom of the interview.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/article_view

clintl

07-06-2007, 08:22 PM

Do you have some specific examples?

EDIT: I see you posted a couple. Thanks.

sabotai

07-06-2007, 11:17 PM

then posting the "It wasn't that long ago that Greenland had no glaciers at all"

Where does the article say that?

"The material was recovered from cores drilled through ice 1.2 miles thick at a site called Dye 3 in south central Greenland. Ice cores from another site farther north, 1.8 miles deep, did not yield any DNA."

The southern part of Greenland wasn't covered with a glacier, not the whole thing.

TroyF

07-07-2007, 10:15 AM

1) I'm not sure what radio stations you are listening to. I haven't heard the "the earth really isn't warming" arguement in a long while. I have hear the "man may not be as much to blame as you seem to think he is" arguement.

2) Nobody throughout this process has ever answered Bucc's question for me. What caused the dramatic climate change the Earth has went through before. The Sahara wasn't always a desert. Tropical forests weren't always tropical forests. We've went through EXTREME cooling and warming periods in history, yet everyone pretends like it never happened.

3) This has been said over and over and over again, but it's worth repeating. A majority of climate specialists thought the Earth was in a cooling trend in the 70's. They weren't right. Scientists also though the Earth was flat. A majority doesn't mean 100% correctness.

4) I'm all for protecting the planet, using the resources we have wisely, and being good stewards. I'm against throwing billions of dollars against the wall without knowing what the hell we are doing. Kyoto? The biggest F'n joke I've ever seen in my life. Yeah, we'll all spend billions on a project those same scientists say will have only a moderate impact and some of the biggest polluting countries in the world won't be on board.

Yeah, sounds like a great thing to get involved in. We were right to back out.

5) I'd love to be convinced the world was coming to an end and be on the global warming side of things. When you are there, you are NEVER wrong. It's 116 degrees? Global warming. It's -25 degrees. That's global warming too. Lots of snow, global warming. Hurricanes? Yup, global warming.

Global warming is an issue. How big of an issue? I dunno and I don't think a lot of guys being paid millions in grant money know either.

cartman

07-07-2007, 10:33 AM

clintl

07-07-2007, 10:40 AM

3) This has been said over and over and over again, but it's worth repeating. A majority of climate specialists thought the Earth was in a cooling trend in the 70's. They weren't right. Scientists also though the Earth was flat. A majority doesn't mean 100% correctness.

This argument in particular has always struck me as a particularly stupid argument for the skeptics to make because it assumes that scientists do not learn anything over time. How much more do we know about genetics now than we did in the '70s? Quite a bit. Is it not possible (actually is not probable) that we know just as much more about climate, considering how much better the tools we have to work with are compared to what was available in the '70s?

sabotai

07-07-2007, 11:07 AM

2) Nobody throughout this process has ever answered Bucc's question for me. What caused the dramatic climate change the Earth has went through before. The Sahara wasn't always a desert. Tropical forests weren't always tropical forests. We've went through EXTREME cooling and warming periods in history, yet everyone pretends like it never happened.

There are a lot of reasons why there could be regional or global cooling and warming, none of which can be summerized into a nice little sound bite that everyone wants. But it's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, the earth has cooled and warmed in the past due to totally natural reasons. Just like one side doesn't deny that the earth is warming, the other side doesn't deny that the earth warms and cools due to natural processes. That does not mean that this warming is natural.

Saying "The earth warmed naturally is the past, therefore this warming is natural" is a fallacious argument. That the earth warmed naturally in the past puts the burden of proof on the climatologists that claim that human activity is partly or fully responsible for the warming (aside from the fact that they are asserting the claim), and probably raises the standard for supporting their point a bit higher, but it is not a counter-argument.

3) This has been said over and over and over again, but it's worth repeating. A majority of climate specialists thought the Earth was in a cooling trend in the 70's. They weren't right. Scientists also though the Earth was flat. A majority doesn't mean 100% correctness.

Yes, this myth has been said over and over again. Journalist who do not understand science wrote about "scientists" saying that another ice age was coming, they would take quotes out of context and write fear-inducing articles to get people to buy their magazine or watch their TV show, but there are no peer-reviewed papers from the 60s, 70s or 80s that claimed or predicted another ice age was coming. And the report that the NAS wrote in 1975 is oftan misquoted while being taken out of context (for the rare, but effective, double-whammy).

Maybe there were some climatologists who claimed this, and maybe there were peer-reviewed papers that predicted this. But I've seen this brought up countless times and the only thing people have to back this up is "I remember seeing on the news" and "I remember reading in Time or Newsweek". If there actually is a peer-reviewed paper that claimed an ice age was coming from the 70s, I'd like to see it.

Buccaneer

07-07-2007, 11:13 AM

I don't think it is the fact that the climate itself is changing, it is the rate at which it is changing that is raising the alarms. No one disputes that the planet has gone into and out of various Ice Ages and Fire Ages during its history. "Dramatic" shifts in the past occurred over a period of several hundred years. Changes are currently being observed that are happening in months and years, where previous examples of these changes occurred over decades and centuries.

And for a lot of regions, a simple 2 degree change can have a huge impact. There isn't much of a difference between 78 and 80 degrees, but there is an enormous difference between 31 and 33 degrees.

My belief is that we may have exacerbated the predicted warming trend a little (since it got extraordinarily cold during the Medieval Ice Age) but we could tax everyone greatly to solve this "problem" and after all of that, we will still wonder why it is not getting cooler.

I am also of the belief that not all is negative. We will produce some great technologies out of this, with some being revolutionary. I also think that Northern US, Canada and Russia will benefit as making up for the croplands that would be lost further south.

I recycled 5 pounds of aluminum cans this week as well as about 100 pounds of paper and cardboard (I was cleaning out my closet). I also drove only 40 miles this week using about 2 gallons of gas.

cartman

07-07-2007, 11:20 AM

"Dramatic" shifts in the past occurred over a period of several hundred years.

Just to clarify, I'm referring to shifts that weren't attributed to a single event, like a meteor impact or an enormous volcano eruption.

TroyF

07-07-2007, 11:26 AM

Thanks for missing the point guys. (not Bucc)

I don't think I argued that just because the Earth went through extreme temperatures in the past means that it isn't happening now. I don't think I argued that just because scientists were wrong in the '70's they are 100% wrong now.

What my point was is that we simply don't know right now. I don't think we are close to understanding this problem despite all of our advances. I don't even think we are in the ballpark. We can't figure out why the Earth had radical changes in the past, but we are now going to fix the "problem" for the future? We still can't calculate how much CO2 is playing a part in global warming, but it's time to spend BILLIONS of dollars to take care of the issue? (see the links above)

We are making incredible suppositions based off our advances. And scientists make the same type of causation effects I gave above daily with this arguement and others. I think it needs a hell of a lot more research and it needs to be done by people on both sides of the debate.

As of now, the governments of the world gladly spend billions to research one side of the arguement and people with differing views are slammed as idiots. There are a TON of scientists who disagree with the theories being presented now and they are being shut out because of this asinine political debate. This "discovery" is an example of more informatin being found. Does it mean CO2 isn't causing global warming because Greenland was really green in the past? No. But it's not something that should just be swept under the rug either.

To truly understand the future, we damned well better understand what the causes were BEFORE CO2 emissions. It's kind of a critical point that many people want to sweep under the rug. I think that's a shame.

Surtt

07-07-2007, 11:29 AM

This argument in particular has always struck me as a particularly stupid argument for the skeptics to make because it assumes that scientists do not learn anything over time. How much more do we know about genetics now than we did in the '70s? Quite a bit. Is it not possible (actually is not probable) that we know just as much more about climate, considering how much better the tools we have to work with are compared to what was available in the '70s?

I would guess the scientists in the 70s were just as certain as the current ones that they were right. The point of the argument is that we are 30 years advanced, but still far from perfect. Who knows what they will conclude in another 30 years.

st.cronin

07-07-2007, 11:35 AM

So, what do the vast majority of scientists advocate as policy?

Buccaneer

07-07-2007, 11:36 AM

There is a lot to be gained politically for a lot of groups pushing this agenda. For much of the world, there is weakening the US economy. For internal groups, it's a chance to take a jab at corporate America.

This bears repeating because I have seen many causes come and go (and continue) solely motivated by the above. As long as this is the motivation and unspoken agenda, many will not get on board to make a difference.

Glengoyne

07-07-2007, 12:05 PM

NoMyths' posts are more evidence that the "The Debate is over. This matter is settled" tactic has worked wonders for the Global Warming policy wonks.

My take closely follows what TroyF has posted above.

On the bit about scientific advancement. Back in the mid ninties the UN's report on Climate Change stated that man's role in global warming couldn't be determined because there were simply too many variables involved. I don't buy that that issue has been surmounted. I don't buy computer models/simulations that "prove" the phenomenon. I believe that if you are aware of the results you want to achieve, you can write code that will produce those results.

As for the rapid speed of climate change, wasn't the change over the twentieth century something like 1 degree Fahrenheit? Is it just me, or is that not near as rapid as it is being portrayed. This is in response to Cartman's post above. I'm just not certain that the rate of change is all that out of line. I've seen predicted rates of change that are out of line, but that is a different thing. This particular issue isn't something I've really looked into, nor am calling this out as a falsehood. I'm just saying that it doesn't fit with my understanding of the issue.

Glengoyne

07-07-2007, 12:08 PM

Oh and now that I've read this thread and weighed in, I'll go actually read the article posted on the original topic. Also the articles posted by gstelmack above.

Warhammer

07-08-2007, 02:26 AM

On the bit about scientific advancement. Back in the mid ninties the UN's report on Climate Change stated that man's role in global warming couldn't be determined because there were simply too many variables involved. I don't buy that that issue has been surmounted. I don't buy computer models/simulations that "prove" the phenomenon. I believe that if you are aware of the results you want to achieve, you can write code that will produce those results.

I've argued this very point before and know that it happens in other avenues of research.

What concerns me about this debate is that the Man is Guilty crowd has painted a scenario where they can't be wrong. If people do take precautions and reduce CO2 output and the world does not warm appreciably, then they were right and man was responsible, etc., etc., etc. If people go along as is, the world gets hotter, "See we told you we were right." If people go along and take precautions and the world gets hotter, we didn't do enough, etc.

The other thing that concerns me is when supposed news channels like MSNBC cover something like the Earth Concerts. Is that news, or is it entertainment? Why do you need to show a concert and present that as news?

If there is a study that finds that everything regarding global warming research was incorrect and this was just the earth going through a normal transition period, who would read it? What entertainment is there in that? Yet, if the earth is going to cool down, or heat up, that is great news. And we have had reports over the last few years about both issues. One of the big focuses a couple years ago was that this global warming would lead to a new ice age! It just astounds me that no one really thinks things through. Again, no matter what happens, the man's guilty crowd wins.

Dutch

07-08-2007, 02:46 AM

The USA needs approximately 425 new nuclear power plants of varying sizes to become 100% nuclear. How much would that cost?

Desnudo

07-08-2007, 02:52 AM

In 100 years people will be laughing at the scientific conclusions we've drawn. That's about the only thing that I think is definite.

tarcone

07-08-2007, 06:21 AM

Manbearpig

Crim

07-08-2007, 09:57 AM

The USA needs approximately 425 new nuclear power plants of varying sizes to become 100% nuclear. How much would that cost?

Priceless.

clintl

07-08-2007, 10:22 AM

On the bit about scientific advancement. Back in the mid ninties the UN's report on Climate Change stated that man's role in global warming couldn't be determined because there were simply too many variables involved. I don't buy that that issue has been surmounted. I don't buy computer models/simulations that "prove" the phenomenon. I believe that if you are aware of the results you want to achieve, you can write code that will produce those results.

This would be a more compelling argument if the predictions of previous models were seriously off. However, Jim Hansen's mid-range prediction from the late '80s is pretty close to what has actually been measured. Obviously, you can write code to achieve what you want to achieve, but I do not see any evidence that is happening. I see quite a bit of evidence that scientists are doing what scientists normally do, namely trying to figure out what is really happening.

Most of the skeptics' arguments sound very, very similar to the arguments they were making about whether CFCs were depleting the ozone layer during the '80s. And you know what? The skeptics were wrong, and the scientists were right. Once CFCs were banned for most purposes, the ozone layer depletion rate slowed dramatically.

I think it's pretty clear which side has the credible track record here.

clintl

07-08-2007, 10:24 AM

Buccaneer

07-08-2007, 10:36 AM

Dola...

By the way, another assumption I question that the skeptics make is that doing what needs to be done to stabilize carbon dioxide levels will cause serious harm to the economy. A lot can be done pretty easily and cheaply.

That is not true. We have two coal plants that come in an average 30% under EPA standards for emissions (CO, NO2, VOX, etc.). We burn the cleanest and most effecient coal (out of the Power River Basin) and are involved in energy credits because of how clean we are (which also includes exceeding EPA's standards on clean air only one day in the past 7 years). Anyway, here's where they are going on a CO2 tax and how much it would cost our relatively small utilities:

Coal plants are thought to be one of the biggest contributors to climate change, leading Congress to consider charging utilities for carbon emissions to force the industry to find ways to make plants burn cleaner.

“We’re making additional model runs to incorporate the possibility of a carbon tax,” said John Romero, Utilities general manager of energy acquisition, engineering and planning. “It’s difficult to know exactly what that’s going to look like.”

One scenario assumes a charge of $9 per ton of carbon; another, $30 per ton.

Utilities emits about 5.3 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, which at $9 a ton translates to a total annual charge of $47.7 million. At $30 per ton, it’s $159 million.

The impact on rates is obvious. Utilities’ annual budget is about $1 billion.

Romero said it’s unclear whether legislation will exempt a portion of emissions. One idea is to exempt the first 4 million tons, which would slash Utilities’ obligation markedly.

clintl

07-08-2007, 10:53 AM

One of the purposes of a carbon tax is to discourage the use of fuels like coal. That's a worthwhile goal. What I'm talking about that can done cheaply and easily are things like more efficient cars, more efficient appliances, etc. And guess what - fuel efficient cars are usually cheaper cars. The technology already exists. In large portions of the country, encouraging the installation of solar panels on new homes and commercial buildings would help a lot. They're not that expensive compared to other building costs, and they generate excess energy during exactly the time of the year (summer) when electrical demand is highest. My neighbor installed solar panels on her house a couple of years ago, and they generate more electricity than she uses during most of the year. She gets a credit rather than a bill from the utility.

wade moore

07-08-2007, 11:05 AM

And guess what - fuel efficient cars are usually cheaper cars.

er? Is that why the Hybrid versions always cost more?

clintl

07-08-2007, 11:06 AM

er? Is that why the Hybrid versions always cost more?

You know what I'm talking about. I didn't say "always."

Hybrids cost more because they have two motors.

Buccaneer

07-08-2007, 11:08 AM

One of the factors in the models we ran is the significantly increases in electric-fueled hybrids, which would add even more to power generation/consumption needs.

clintl

07-08-2007, 11:13 AM

One of the factors in the models we ran is the significantly increases in electric-fueled hybrids, which would add even more to power generation/consumption needs.

How would hybrids have any effect on power generation needs? They're never connected to the grid. I could see how that would be the case for all electric cars.

Buccaneer

07-08-2007, 11:20 AM

How would hybrids have any effect on power generation needs? They're never connected to the grid. I could see how that would be the case for all electric cars.

When we passed a regional transportation authority tax, nearly all of our public buses went to electric. But I would fully predict that 10 years from now, the technologies would be very different.

wade moore

07-08-2007, 11:40 AM

You know what I'm talking about. I didn't say "always."

Hybrids cost more because they have two motors.

I actually don't. I think that at least a fair amount of your premise is wrong.

Well made, fuel-efficient cars are not cheaper on the whole than well made, gas-guzzlers. Sure there are a lot of cheap, poorly manufactured, light fuel-efficient cars taht are cheap. But you just can't compare them to more well-built cars.

NoMyths

07-08-2007, 12:37 PM

One of the purposes of a carbon tax is to discourage the use of fuels like coal.

Yep. At the current rates of growth, we may only have about 50 years worth of coal left, counting untapped reserves.

MrBigglesworth

07-08-2007, 02:18 PM

Premise: Science says we have a problem
Premise: Science will be better in the future
Conclusion: We shouldn't believe science

:confused:

MrBigglesworth

07-08-2007, 02:27 PM

dangarion: The answer isn't limiting populations but for each to be educated enough to take personal responsibilities in limiting energy use and practice conservation.
Which will never happen, which in turn is one reason that fiscal libertarianism is doomed to absolute failure.

Buccaneer

07-08-2007, 02:38 PM

Which will never happen, which in turn is one reason that fiscal libertarianism is doomed to absolute failure.

You have such a narrow-minded, warped view of things. You go ahead and continue to put your faith and monies into the federal govt to solve all of the problems. No need to discuss anything further with you.

MrBigglesworth

07-08-2007, 04:44 PM

You have such a narrow-minded, warped view of things. You go ahead and continue to put your faith and monies into the federal govt to solve all of the problems. No need to discuss anything further with you.
If you want to explain to me how getting rid of government regulations will magically make everyone take personal responsibility and reduce carbon emissions, I'll listen. But common sense and human psychology tells me that it will never happen. I don't believe the govt can solve every problem, because that's just as dumb as saying the govt can not solve any problem. There is some things the govt can do well, and some things it can't do well. Giving incentives for people to use alternate fuels is one of the former.

clintl

07-08-2007, 05:43 PM

I actually don't. I think that at least a fair amount of your premise is wrong.

Well made, fuel-efficient cars are not cheaper on the whole than well made, gas-guzzlers. Sure there are a lot of cheap, poorly manufactured, light fuel-efficient cars taht are cheap. But you just can't compare them to more well-built cars.

I disagree. There are plenty of well-made fuel efficient cars, and size of the car seems to be the most important factor in determining price. And big cars cost more than small cars. Look at the what the Japanese automakers have done - they make the world's highest quality cars, but (excepting hybrids), the most fuel efficient cars are the cheapest. And in large part, that's because they use less material and require less labor to build because of size and simplicity.

DanGarion

07-08-2007, 06:04 PM

I disagree. There are plenty of well-made fuel efficient cars, and size of the car seems to be the most important factor in determining price. And big cars cost more than small cars. Look at the what the Japanese automakers have done - they make the world's highest quality cars, but (excepting hybrids), the most fuel efficient cars are the cheapest. And in large part, that's because they use less material and require less labor to build because of size and simplicity.

I'm not sure about that, some of the most fuel efficient cars are diesels, and they usually are a little more expensive. But of course once again the US for whatever reason thinks diesel is bad!

sterlingice

07-08-2007, 10:17 PM

The USA needs approximately 425 new nuclear power plants of varying sizes to become 100% nuclear. How much would that cost?

I dunno about making all 425, but I'd like to see us make some more.

Tho what I'd really love is to see us figure out useful fusion or warm superconductors. Get one of those right and everything else falls away.

SI

Surtt

08-14-2007, 01:13 PM

An interesting article by Freeman Dyson
He is a physicist not a climatologist.
As a non-specialist can look at the science instead of the results.

He is obviously a skeptic, but brings up some points I have never heard anyplace else.

hxxp://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

gstelmack

08-14-2007, 02:04 PM

Thanks, that was a good article that raises lots of the questions I've been hearing that the Global Warming folks don't like to answer.

CU Tiger

08-14-2007, 08:04 PM

The earth has been around what 1-2 million years? (seriously I dont remember, buts its a long time since dinosaurs wwalked around)
At best we have data that goes back 500 years (and thats interpretting ice core samples)

I think that is enough to call our data insgnificant.

sabotai

08-14-2007, 08:52 PM

The earth has been around what 1-2 million years?

4.5 billion or 6000, depending on the source.

At best we have data that goes back 500 years (and thats interpretting ice core samples)

There have been cores in Antarctica that go back 720,000 years.

gstelmack

08-15-2007, 08:35 AM

I can't believe I missed this a week ago. I'm finding this discussion fascinating, as it goes along with a point I made earlier about our local airport station reporting temperatures 3 degrees above what everyone else was recording for a few years, thus skewing temperature data for RDU:

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

It's fun to follow some of the links and see some of the other data. The quick point is that 1934 is now the warmest year on record, and 5 of the top 10 predate WWII, and all the warming curves have been thrown way off.

CU Tiger

08-18-2007, 11:33 PM

4.5 billion or 6000, depending on the source.

There have been cores in Antarctica that go back 720,000 years.

Ok, thanks.

So if the planet is 4.5 billion yeears old and we have records that go back 720,000 years we have officially plotted (regardless of the accuracy of said data points) 1/6250th of the curve. Is that significant?

Front Office Midget

08-19-2007, 12:39 AM

Well, that's longer than modern humans have been on earth, so I think it's pretty significant in relation to our species.

We've based our society with over 6 billion people on the current climate. If we drastically change the climate, that's a lot of people's lives we're messing with. Not to mention that we'd be messing with tons of other species ways of life.

Obviously, climate change is NOT significant in relation to the earth's 4.5 billion years. Earth has gone through tons of climate change experiences over its history, with many catastrophic events. I personally think we should avoid causing a catastrophic event of our own when it's not necessary.

The negatives of environmental destruction are way worse than the pro's that come out of thinking that there is no problem.