The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, on a different though related subject, this is also interesting.

Clearly, the only solution to this is about $20 billion a year in subsidies for the fossil fuel companies. How else will they stay competitive with this sort of innovation? And thankfully, we're not turning those fossil fuel subsidies into research credits or anything, because all that would do is spur more innovation of this sort and cut the cost of renewables even further. And thank Goodness the Republicans filibustered the bill that required electric companies to generate some fraction of their electricity through renewables, because otherwise there'd be even more incentive to manufacture these things faster.

That is fantastic to see. I've been believing more and more, as I read further into it, that a distributed-model solar array is the best, cheapest and most stable way to get off fossil fuels. At a far cheaper price for the panels themselves, people will start using them at home left and right (and businesses will do the same). Suddenly, roof space becomes energy-producing space. And as energy companies continue to add differential energy capabilites to their systems (the ability for users to contribute in energy as credits, then draw when needed), that will only accelerate growth.

 

I have every intention, when we buy our first house, of exploring the possibility of putting panels on.

 

And I agree with your rant, Balta. You were talking about CFL's earlier... here is a situation where an industry is on the brink of making a breakthrough that would save FAR more money for everyone, and in this case, the government is actually supporting the OPPOSITE with tax breaks and subsidies. It makes me ill. I think that this sort of small-company effort, a grass-roots campaign if you will, is the only way we'll see a real move in the right direction. I'm glad to see that its gaining a little steam.

 

[StrangeSox]

That is fantastic to see. I've been believing more and more, as I read further into it, that a distributed-model solar array is the best, cheapest and most stable way to get off fossil fuels. At a far cheaper price for the panels themselves, people will start using them at home left and right (and businesses will do the same). Suddenly, roof space becomes energy-producing space. And as energy companies continue to add differential energy capabilites to their systems (the ability for users to contribute in energy as credits, then draw when needed), that will only accelerate growth.

 

I have every intention, when we buy our first house, of exploring the possibility of putting panels on.

 

I'll definitely be looking at the same thing. My guess is that retro-fitting will be pretty expensive vs. new construction, though.

 

And I agree with your rant, Balta. You were talking about CFL's earlier... here is a situation where an industry is on the brink of making a breakthrough that would save FAR more money for everyone, and in this case, the government is actually supporting the OPPOSITE with tax breaks and subsidies. It makes me ill. I think that this sort of small-company effort, a grass-roots campaign if you will, is the only way we'll see a real move in the right direction. I'm glad to see that its gaining a little steam.

 

This is more the reason I have a problem with the CFL rule. It's impact will be relatively minor while the government does nothing to enforce or promote significant change.

 

 

[mr_genius]

I for one don't mind it one bit. This is a simple case where the market isn't necessarily going to produce the result that is most beneficial to the country. There is a gigantic benefit in economic and national security to the energy drop that would be created by this shift, and there appears to be almost no downside other than the initial startup cost of purchasing the newer bulb, which would still drive some nubmer of people onto the older ones. It makes perfect sense for the government to mandate these things.

 

I don't like a mandate, but tax incentives are a great way to boost our energy independence. People can write off all kinds of things, I think they should be able to write off stuff like solar panels. Companies that make major strides to cutting energy consumption or cutting down reliance of certain types of fuel could also get a break.

Edited December 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

I don't like a mandate, but tax incentives are a great way to boost our energy independence. People can write off all kinds of things, I think they should be able to write off stuff like solar panels. Companies that make major strides to cutting energy consumption or cutting down reliance of certain types of fuel could also get a break.

As long as that company is producing its energy through fossil fuels, sure. They can have tax incentives then.

[mr_genius]

As long as that company is producing its energy through fossil fuels, sure. They can have tax incentives then.

 

 

Well, the big oil companies certainly don't deserve our tax dollars. There claims of 'too poor for research' is kind of funny seeing their huge profits. Too bad the Dems are too wimpy to put up any kind of fight, at least force a filibuster instead of folding every time they hear a filibuster threat.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Consensus??? LOL!!!!!! Yeah right.

 

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

 

 

400 different climate scientists from a broad range of Universities and Governmental organizations on record as saying the current warming cycle the earth is going through is not man-made.

 

You have to love how the chicken-little enviro-alarmist crowd, headed by AlGore can just declare a consensus and then scream LA LA LA LA!!!! when voices of dissent arise.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well, the big oil companies certainly don't deserve our tax dollars. There claims of 'too poor for research' is kind of funny seeing their huge profits. Too bad the Dems are too wimpy to put up any kind of fight, at least force a filibuster instead of folding every time they hear a filibuster threat.

 

 

Now this I agree with. It's extremely wasteful to hand companies making billions of dollars billions more dollars in subsidies. That is utterly shameful and a total waste with us being so far in debt.

[Balta1701]

Consensus??? LOL!!!!!! Yeah right.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

400 different climate scientists from a broad range of Universities and Governmental organizations on record as saying the current warming cycle the earth is going through is not man-made.

Actually the way you've put it there is distinctly different from what this Inhofe report shows, which is not surprising because that's actually the mistake they were hoping people would make.

 

Here's the first paragraph of what you link:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

And here's your words:

400 different climate scientists

You've made the big jump from saying that these are 400 scientists to saying these are 400 climate scientists.

 

It's also worth noting how they've gotten some of these names. Some of them come from such distinguished institutions as the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, for one example, or "of a Michigan NBC TV affiliate" as another.

 

Heck, the titles of these guys get better and better as I'm reading.

 

Analytical chemist Hans Schreuder who publishes the UK based website ILoveMyCarbonDioxide.co

mFormer Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist who is currently a professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic (It there's one thing string theorists know, it's geology!)

Economist Dr. Owen McShane, chair of the policy panel of the New Zealand based International Climate Science Coalition (Sweet, an Economist, and there's more than a couple of those!)

CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville (Hey, I remember that guy!!!!)

 

It's also worth noting that this isn't exactly a petition. They basically have kept records of every single skeptical sort of statement they could find, of any kind, and stuck that person in there without actually paying attention to what they were evaluating.

Veteran climate researcher Erich Roeckner of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology laments the lack of climate computer model reliability. "Clouds are still our biggest headache," Roeckner conceded, according to a May 7, 2007 article in DER SPIEGEL (LINK) According to the article, "Even the most powerful computer models are still too imprecise to simulate the details. However, the clouds alone will determine whether temperatures will increase by one degree more or less than the average predicted by the models. This is a significant element of uncertainty. Roeckner is a conscientious man and a veteran of climate research, so he, of all people, should know the limits of simulation programs. Roeckner, who constantly expects surprises, neatly sums up the problem when he says, ‘No model will ever be as complex as nature.'" The Der Spiegel article continued, "‘According to our computer model, neither the number nor intensity of storms is increasing,' says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers. ‘Only the boundaries of low-pressure zones are changing slightly, meaning that weather is becoming more severe in Scandinavia and less so in the Mediterranean.'"

Now, this statement is in fact true. The cloud model part is in fact the main reason why we're not certain about whether the temp rise will be 2 or 5 degrees C, as of now. But that doesn't mean that the guy is necessarily saying that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. He's making a note about the quality of one particular part of a model. There are more than a few examples of that sort of quote-lifting...finding people who criticize one little aspect of the consensus and pretending tha thte whole list of 400 threw everything out the window.

[NorthSideSox72]

Consensus??? LOL!!!!!! Yeah right.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

400 different climate scientists from a broad range of Universities and Governmental organizations on record as saying the current warming cycle the earth is going through is not man-made.

 

You have to love how the chicken-little enviro-alarmist crowd, headed by AlGore can just declare a consensus and then scream LA LA LA LA!!!! when voices of dissent arise.

Grasping at straws again I see. Thousands of climatologists and people actually in the field agree that there is some level of anthropomorphic climate change occurring... and this GOP hack manages to cobble together 400 scientists and newscasters who disagree.

 

So yes, concensus is quite right. Concensus doesn't mean unanimous.

 

I would certainly agree that there is plenty of discussion to be had about how MUCH humans are effecting it. But with such a huge majority of climate scientists in agreement of some level going on, it seems hard to believe that its all some fallacy.

 

Maybe we ought to be focusing on what can be done about it.

 

[mr_genius]

Saudi Arabia, using our money we pay them for oil, to buy major stakes in our monetary system.. just another reason to find alternatives to foreign fuel.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/412752ae-afa4-11...?nclick_check=1

[EvilMonkey]

Here is a great way to get off some of the fossil fuel. Personal nuke plants!

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...ear-12.17b.html

There is a town in Alaska that is going to get one for cost as a demo, but of course with all the regulations and stuff, won't happen until 2010.

http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html

[YASNY]

Has Global Warming Stopped?

[NorthSideSox72]

Has Global Warming Stopped?

Maybe. But that very, very short period the article is using as an argument sure as heck doesn't mean anything.

 

[YASNY]

Maybe. But that very, very short period the article is using as an argument sure as heck doesn't mean anything.

 

10 years? Go back 20 more and you are in the era of worrying about the next ice age coming.

[NorthSideSox72]

10 years? Go back 20 more and you are in the era of worrying about the next ice age coming.

Sure, for those who were short-sighted. You want to look at a few years, either for or against climate change arguments, you can make anything you want to fit it. You have to look over longer periods, like decades at a time. And those trends are, to me, pretty clear.

 

[YASNY]

Sure, for those who were short-sighted. You want to look at a few years, either for or against climate change arguments, you can make anything you want to fit it. You have to look over longer periods, like decades at a time. And those trends are, to me, pretty clear.

 

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

 

So you are saying 18 years is definitive and 10 is a small sample size. Keep in mind that prior to '80 the Great Lakes were going to freeze.

[NorthSideSox72]

So you are saying 18 years is definitive and 10 is a small sample size. Keep in mind that prior to '80 the Great Lakes were going to freeze.

1. No, I do not think 18 years is definitive.

2. Yes, I think 20 years is more useful than 10, though it isn't some magical "now its OK" number. Its a sliding scale of reliability.

3. I was referring more to the trends over most of this century.

4. You keep bringing up the idiots who were in a panic during that "mini-ice-age", as if I somehow agreed with those people. There were at the time a handful of scientists, using tiny periods of data, that came to those silly conclusions. If you think that is the same as the thousands of scientists who now in chorus read similar patterns from CENTURIES of data, than you must think the curb on your street is similar to the Great Wall of China.

 

[YASNY]

1. No, I do not think 18 years is definitive.

2. Yes, I think 20 years is more useful than 10, though it isn't some magical "now its OK" number. Its a sliding scale of reliability.

3. I was referring more to the trends over most of this century.

4. You keep bringing up the idiots who were in a panic during that "mini-ice-age", as if I somehow agreed with those people. There were at the time a handful of scientists, using tiny periods of data, that came to those silly conclusions. If you think that is the same as the thousands of scientists who now in chorus read similar patterns from CENTURIES of data, than you must think the curb on your street is similar to the Great Wall of China.

 

I think that global warming is a political boondoggle. The fact is that other planets in the our Solar System is also experiencing global warming. It's cyclical. That's what I've tried to point out to you by refering to the mini-ice-age of the 70's. There are no humans on Mars, Saturn and Uranus to contribute to global warming. The Sun is doing it. Global warming, as presented by the southpaws (since leftists is not acceptable, I thought I'd try this term) is pure and utter bulls***.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that global warming is a political boondoggle. The fact is that other planets in the our Solar System is also experiencing global warming. It's cyclical. That's what I've tried to point out to you by refering to the mini-ice-age of the 70's. There are no humans on Mars, Saturn and Uranus to contribute to global warming. The Sun is doing it. Global warming, as presented by the southpaws (since leftists is not acceptable, I thought I'd try this term) is pure and utter bulls***.

You're free to see things that way. But to me, since the great, great majority of climatological scientists see at least some degree of anthropomorphic climate change, I'll go with their view.

 

And before you go into the "they have an interest in it" thing, keep in mind two things. One, scientists make their name by showing something new or different than others have done - so at this point, the motivation is for them to find against it. Two, look at some of the groups of people who would rather this was not the case. For example... I know someone who does a lot of gardening - she consults with people and helps them do landscaping, etc. All the trade books and data that people in that field use are now, at great cost, being updated and changed because the climate zones they use for planting have changed quite dramatically. What do they get out of it? How is it political for them? It just means their product is more likely to fail and be difficult to maintain.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that global warming is a political boondoggle. The fact is that other planets in the our Solar System is also experiencing global warming. It's cyclical. That's what I've tried to point out to you by refering to the mini-ice-age of the 70's. There are no humans on Mars, Saturn and Uranus to contribute to global warming. The Sun is doing it. Global warming, as presented by the southpaws (since leftists is not acceptable, I thought I'd try this term) is pure and utter bulls***.

Here is another thought too. If its a political boondoggle, that means that politicians have something to gain from it. Does that make any sense here? I mean, they are all so heavily influenced by big oil, not to mention trying to get money for projects in their districts, that the last thing they want is to spend money on something that doesn't have a reward for their peeps. I just don't see the motivation they supposedly have. Quite the contrary I think.

 

[YASNY]

You're free to see things that way. But to me, since the great, great majority of climatological scientists see at least some degree of anthropomorphic climate change, I'll go with their view.

 

And before you go into the "they have an interest in it" thing, keep in mind two things. One, scientists make their name by showing something new or different than others have done - so at this point, the motivation is for them to find against it. Two, look at some of the groups of people who would rather this was not the case. For example... I know someone who does a lot of gardening - she consults with people and helps them do landscaping, etc. All the trade books and data that people in that field use are now, at great cost, being updated and changed because the climate zones they use for planting have changed quite dramatically. What do they get out of it? How is it political for them? It just means their product is more likely to fail and be difficult to maintain.

 

I don't deny 'climate change'. I do think it's because the sun is putting out more heat. Nothing more. Back in the 11th century, they were growing grapes in England. That was 'global warming'. It happens and it is real. But it is cyclical and beyond the control of man. Do we need to keep our output of CO2 down? Yes. Do we need to improve on environmental responsibility. Of course! But to say that man is causing global warming is just jumping to conclusions that just cannot be backed up.

[Balta1701]

I don't deny 'climate change'. I do think it's because the sun is putting out more heat. Nothing more. Back in the 11th century, they were growing grapes in England. That was 'global warming'. It happens and it is real. But it is cyclical and beyond the control of man. Do we need to keep our output of CO2 down? Yes. Do we need to improve on environmental responsibility. Of course! But to say that man is causing global warming is just jumping to conclusions that just cannot be backed up.

Ah, one of the contrarians finally gives me a reason to insert the detailed description of the history of english wine production that Realclimate did a few months back.

The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) - an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively 'frenchified', the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lamb's 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.

 

Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren't many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it's probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don't necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England.

 

Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in 'Punch' (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it - one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

 

Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production - more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate…

 

Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one 'rather improbably' located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn't count, it not being in England 'n' all…), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.

 

So what should one conclude from this? Well, one shouldn't be too dogmatic that English temperatures are now obviously above a medieval peak - the impact of confounding factors in wine production precludes such a clear conclusion (and I am pretty agnostic with regards to the rest of the evidence of whether northern Europe was warmer 1000 years than today). However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a 'counter-proof' to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not…. well, why talk about them in this context at all?

[YASNY]

New and more detailed information. Thanks, Balta.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318686,00.html

 

10 reasons enviro-alarmist propaganda isn't worth getting all steamed up about.

[kapkomet]

Here is another thought too. If its a political boondoggle, that means that politicians have something to gain from it. Does that make any sense here? I mean, they are all so heavily influenced by big oil, not to mention trying to get money for projects in their districts, that the last thing they want is to spend money on something that doesn't have a reward for their peeps. I just don't see the motivation they supposedly have. Quite the contrary I think.

Their "gain" is power and control of how the money is spent, not who is making it.