Climate change

[Al Wohlstrom]

While I probably cannot convince you otherwise, why else would the feds have
been doling out money to climatologists and other researchers back in the late
80's/early 90's - well before any talk of taxation/fees/fines.

Another sobering issue - read this nifty article:

United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs : Press
Ian

The government doesn't listen to the scientist that believe otherwise. Think of the money in the 80s and 90s as an investment in future massive gains.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

You're right Ian, you're not going to convince me, and I won't convince you, but it's fun trying!

 

[Mark Clapp]

Ian, as you said you have worked with the climate data, do you find fault with the article in Pete's post no. 172. It seems that the 30 year cycle is well correlated with the ocean temps and glacier expansion and contraction.

 

[Ian K]

Ian, as you said you have worked with the climate data, do you find fault with the article in Pete's post no. 172. It seems that the 30 year cycle is well correlated with the ocean temps and glacier expansion and contraction.

Again, all climatologists agree that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.
Two of the things that bother me with Easterbrook's conclusions: 1) he downplays the
steady increase in temp since 1500, even taking into account the Little Ice Age, and
provides no explanation, and 2) he doesn't even mention the significant change in
the rate of rise since the Industrial Revolution, which is where the rise in CO2 comes
from. If he had addressed these issues in some way, and provided some sort of
explanation as to why the cooling trends have not dramatically "normalized" the
temperatures long term, then I would say he has a rock solid argument. By not
doing so, it clouds his conclusions somewhat. Then it makes you ask why he does
not talk about those issues.

There are others who question Easterbrook's conclusions on other bases - that his
assumption of increased Solar Irradiance in the first half of the 20th century didn't
happen based upon other measurements, so it cannot directly explain the warming
trend measured since then. That's not to say there isn't some correlation between
the Sun and our climate, but it might not be as direct as Easterbrook would like.

Now, I am not a climatologist by trade nor by education, I just worked with the
ocean temperature numbers and wrote programs to generate graphs and plots,
so there is much about all of the theories that I do not fully understand. However,
looking at the numbers (ocean temp, solar irradiance, etc.), the fact that a general
warming trend has existed since the 1500s, and has gotten sharper since the late
1800s, points to something disrupting the natural cycles.

Ian

 

[Keith]

Can't contribute much to this thread as I believe that pie in the sky is not collateral, but, as William Wallace once said eloquently (probably while they were removing his guts with a crochet hook) "Scotland Will Rise Again."

Well, so it is, but not in the way that he visualised.

The ice previously endemic in the North of Scotland is melting rapidly, mainly (as a woman pointed out to me last week because I drive a 4x4) resulting in a colossal weight being lifted off the earth surface up there.

Now you all know that the earth's crust is a dynamic thing, tectonically drifting around bashing into each other like drunks in a bar, but what's actually happening is that with this weight removed, Scotland is actually rising!

But, (and this is the worrying thing) the law of physics basically dictates that for every action there's an opposite and equal reaction. (Hope that's right, I got chucked out of school at fifteen) Thus the South of England is sinking at a matching rate. As we are already under serious flood issues down here, there is a prospect (not in my lifetime) that we will lose God's part of the country (just kidding Northern guys).

I'm building an Ark for my Grandchildren as we speak.... :worried:

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

IBD Editorials


Cap-And-Fade


Posted 09/30/2009 06:58 PM ET

Climate Change: The Senate has finally rolled out its long-awaited cap-and-trade bill to slash carbon dioxide. Looking at its draconian restrictions on the U.S. economy, it's hard to believe its supporters are serious.

The Boxer-Kerry bill isn't a whole lot different from the Waxman-Markey bill that was passed by the House of Representatives in June. And that's the problem.

Both bills provide for a "cap-and-trade" system to slash the use of fossil fuels and replace them with solar, wind and other "alternative" energy sources. The idea is to impose strict limits on the output of CO2, a supposed cause of global warming.

If this sounds like a good idea, it isn't. It'll lead to massive new taxes, the demise of entire industries, the elimination of millions of jobs and lost income for all. As the Heritage Foundation found when it ran the numbers on Waxman-Markey, the economic losses entailed in imposing cap-and-trade are enormous.

Over 23 years, a cap-and-trade plan would slash $9.4 trillion from GDP and kill 2.5 million jobs. It would hike gasoline prices by 58%, or $1.40 a gallon. Home electricity rates would soar 90%.

All told, cap-and-trade could cost families an added $1,761 a year in taxes. And no, that's not an estimate cooked up by anti-cap-and-trade activists. That's the White House's own estimate for the costs, which it tried to hush up. Taxpayers will have to pony up as much as $200 billion a year in new taxes, the equivalent of raising everyone's taxes by roughly 15%.

"Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1% of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation," said a confidential White House memo, written late last year and obtained recently by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Worst of all, neither the House's bill nor the Senate's will work.

The Senate version would slash CO2 output by 20% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, from 2005 levels. Waxman-Markey, by comparison, would cut 17% by 2020.

Supporters point out that we've already sliced our CO2 output in the last two years. We could do more, they say. Sure, but we haven't cut CO2 output because of any green initiative. We've cut it by suffering the worst recession in at least two decades.

Some advocates seem not to mind that they would hobble the economy permanently due to totally arbitrary CO2 output "targets."

Unfortunately, as of today, the technology to radically reduce fossil fuel use without crashing the economy simply doesn't exist. So to reach the goal means, inevitably, massive economic contraction.

And it's not clear that even the bill's authors fully understand what their bill's about, preferring word games to clarity.

"I don't know what 'cap-and-trade' means," Democrat John Kerry said. "I don't think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill; it's a pollution-reduction bill."

This isn't the only foolish or deceptive thing supporters have said.

As Stanford engineering professor Stephen Schneider, a leading cap-and-trade advocate, recently noted: "We're betting the planet. There's no such thing as a safe level" of CO2. Earth to Schneider: CO2 is a byproduct of human respiration. And plants use CO2 to create oxygen for our planet. "No safe level"? That's insane.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that CO2 output is likely to plunge 6% this year after dropping 3% in 2008. A success? Not really. It's all due to recession. Once the economy starts growing again, so will our energy use, the EIA says.

The only way to meet Boxer-Kerry's goals will be to push the economy into a state of permanent recession — which, based on the new taxes and costs they plan to impose on the U.S., seems to be exactly their goal.



© 2009 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved. Investor's Business Daily, IBD and CAN SLIM and their corresponding logos are registered trademarks of Data Analysis Inc. Copyright and Trademark Notice | Privacy Statement Terms | Conditions of Use

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Read above people, you will not see it published in the popular press because to many see an opportunity to make big bucks out of this type of legislation, not only in America but in my country also.
We both have governments running huge deficits and the only way they can get out of the debt abyss is to increase tax. Cutting spending is not on the agenda.
This climate change "religion" they see as a fantastic way to increase tax while appearing to do something good for the planet.

You are being conned people!
Thanks for posting Al.

 

[Ian K]

Earth to Schneider: CO2 is a byproduct of human respiration. And plants use CO2 to create oxygen for our planet. "No safe level"? That's insane.

Just a few points:

1) Plants use CO2 to create oxygen during the day, but consume oxygen and create CO2 at
night. People also falsely believe that increases in CO2 in the air will lead to better plant
growth, though studies show that the opposite actually occurs.

2) Too much CO2 can kill you. So, yes, there are actually fatal levels of CO2. 4% concentration
is thought to be the danger point.

Ian

 

[Chris P.]

Earth to the numb-nut that wrote the article: all because something is good doesn't mean it has absolutely no bad points. It comes down to toxicity. Too much CO2 can kill this planet (as we know it and depend upon it) just as too much water can kill a person.

It cracks me up when someone blurts out something they think is supporting their argument when it is actually acting against them. Yes, people create CO2 - THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. I'm not saying that people alone are causing a dangerous increase in CO2 from breathing, but the point is that every one of us leaves a trail of byproducts due to inefficiencies in everything we do. Yes, other lifeforms may use some of these and it works the other way too. When everything is in balance it's great, but when things begin to get out of balance, its not. That's the crux of the matter here - the population of the only species that is capable of creating so much by product is ever increasing and there is a limit to how much this planet as a whole can support.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Earth to the numb-nut that wrote the article: all because something is good doesn't mean it has absolutely no bad points. It comes down to toxicity. Too much CO2 can kill this planet (as we know it and depend upon it) just as too much water can kill a person.

It cracks me up when someone blurts out something they think is supporting their argument when it is actually acting against them. Yes, people create CO2 - THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. I'm not saying that people alone are causing a dangerous increase in CO2 from breathing, but the point is that every one of us leaves a trail of byproducts due to inefficiencies in everything we do. Yes, other lifeforms may use some of these and it works the other way too. When everything is in balance it's great, but when things begin to get out of balance, its not. That's the crux of the matter here - the population of the only species that is capable of creating so much by product is ever increasing and there is a limit to how much this planet as a whole can support.

The publication was Investor's Business Daily, if you contact them I am quite sure they can tell you which "numb-nut" wrote the article.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

200 years ago the CO2 level was at 275 PPM, it is now at 375 PPM. It is supposedly rising at the rate of 2 PPM per year. Why is no one concerned with companies like Mac Donalds clear cutting thousands of acres of rain forest to raise cattle, and they burn the teak, etc instead of harvesting it. Forest fires and volcanoes put more CO2 into the atmosphere than man does, we let forest fires burn every year, no worry there!

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

200 years ago the CO2 level was at 275 PPM, it is now at 375 PPM. It is supposedly rising at the rate of 2 PPM per year. Why is no one concerned with companies like Mac Donalds clear cutting thousands of acres of rain forest to raise cattle, and they burn the teak, etc instead of harvesting it. Forest fires and volcanoes put more CO2 into the atmosphere than man does, we let forest fires burn every year, no worry there!

Plus 1,
Al, it's not about saving the planet, it's about raising revenue/taxes.
I was in Singapore last week and the place was a haze of smoke because of the Indonesians burning their woodlands to clear them for farming. No concern from the climate change zealots about that either.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Again, all climatologists agree that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.
Two of the things that bother me with Easterbrook's conclusions: 1) he downplays the
steady increase in temp since 1500, even taking into account the Little Ice Age, and
provides no explanation

Ian, Wouldn't you say that an increase in temp begining in 1500 was most likely natural? Not a lot of cars, cow & Gore flatuence, and industrial polution 1500 to 1900.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Plus 1,
Al, it's not about saving the planet, it's about raising revenue/taxes.
I was in Singapore last week and the place was a haze of smoke because of the Indonesians burning their woodlands to clear them for farming. No concern from the climate change zealots about that either.

You're exactly right. The governments of the world have found a new and huge source of revenue! Governments don't give a damn about the wholesale slaughter of their armed forces, why should they care about the quality of the earth?

 

[Jeff Young]

I think we would all benefit from not citing to Investor Business Daily for climate science.

Good science and debate out there on both sides, but certainly not in the IBD or WSJ.

 

[Garry]

Interesting debate that I have been following for what seems like an eternity. There seems to be a lot of opinions either way. One thing is for sure that I have picked up on in doing some reading on this topic...nobody can say with any authority what is causing anomalies in the climate. Funny thing is, both sides could be right.

Either way, each side claims to have figured the cause out and manipulates the data is such a way as to bolster their hypothesis. What I mean by that is every test or experiment has to start with a general belief or hypothesis and then work backward to determine whether it is supported by the results of experiments or data;or is false,and then hopefully determine where the experimenty went wrong. The problem with any experiment is the observer. The observer brings with him certain preconceived ideas and prejudices that manipulated the outcome...that is basic physics that engineers and scientists on this forum can readily agree with. That is why we are still working with theories that were postulated over a century ago and still discovering "truths" that were not anticipated in earlier experiments. Science changes all of the time.

My long winded point is..of course the money is a factor. The Pols want more revenue so they will adopt any and all findings that support their conception of what is happening. This also furthers Man's ego that "he can and must do something!" If we look at the world governments today and see the mess that thought process has rendered, then you say to yourself "how's that working for you?" It seems that the world takes one step forward and then two steps back.
This is not to say that climate alarmist are not correct that there is a problem that is man-made; Most of them are. I just am skeptical of the political solutions (ie-taxes) that have been proposed. So far the track record of the last century for these political geniuses is terrible.
By the way, all of this change could be just a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do at all but adapt and overcome.
Garry

 

[Ian K]

200 years ago the CO2 level was at 275 PPM, it is now at 375 PPM. It is supposedly rising at the rate of 2 PPM per year. Why is no one concerned with companies like Mac Donalds clear cutting thousands of acres of rain forest to raise cattle, and they burn the teak, etc instead of harvesting it. Forest fires and volcanoes put more CO2 into the atmosphere than man does, we let forest fires burn every year, no worry there!

People are concerned with companies like McD's clear cutting forests.

Forest fires and volcanoes actually put out insignificant amounts of CO2 into the air when
compared to man. There are plenty of sources and studies that show this.

Ian

 

[Ian K]

Again, all climatologists agree that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.
Two of the things that bother me with Easterbrook's conclusions: 1) he downplays the
steady increase in temp since 1500, even taking into account the Little Ice Age, and
provides no explanation

Ian, Wouldn't you say that an increase in temp begining in 1500 was most likely natural? Not a lot of cars, cow & Gore flatuence, and industrial polution 1500 to 1900.

Actually, starting in the 1500s, the rate of population growth started to increase
significantly. Without knowing for sure, I would say that the increase in fires to
keep people warm probably helped start the climb in temp due to increases in
pollutants in the air. The world population is estimated at 310 million in 1000 AD,
hitting 450 million in 1340, before the Black Plague reduced it back to about 350 million in 1400, and then reaching about 500 million in 1500 AD, and almost 1 billion by 1800 (1804 is
thought to be when 1 billion was hit).

And, as I said before, my problem is that Easterbrook doesn't even try to explain
why, but his theories really hinge upon some sort of explanation about the temp
increase starting in 1500 that might support them. To dismiss it off hand as he
does is rather self-serving and not at all scientific. And, on top of that, he doesn't
even touch on the sharp increase starting around the Industrial Revolution, for
obvious reasons.

Ian

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

It seems that this debate although very interesting is going nowhere.
Both sides will not accept the others point of view.
Interesting that the politicians that are pushing this barrow are flying all over the world in their (sorry our) jets to climate change conferences. Jet aircraft measure their fuel loads in thousands of pounds. The 747-400 for instance has a fuel capacity of 390,000.lbs of fuel.
Al Gore the guy who started this CO2 fantasy flies his private jet all over with no regard to the atmosphere and his mansion uses extravagant amounts of energy
The hypocrisy of these people is .....I was going to say is unbelievable, but sadly it is very believable.
I hope that those of you who are pushing the climate change/ carbon trading barrow in three or four years time are not on this forum moaning about the increase in taxes and the cost of fuel, food, energy,transport and housing.

 

[Garry]

Pete +1!
Garry