Global Warming
Global Warming
(OP)
Scientific American Frontiers on the U.S. PBS network aired a program this month about Alaska. One sequence showed a "drunken forest". The ground temperature under the forest increased 3F or so and the permafrost became permaslush. The trees were no longer adequately supported and have started to subside at odd angles.
One of the scary things about the show was the contention that global warming is a positive-feedback loop. The permafrost holds an unimaginable quantity of frozen plant material. The contention of the people interviewed is that when that plant material begins to rot, it will release more CO2 into the air than the sum total of all human emission sources of all time. That CO2 increases the green house effect and further raises temperatures. The higher temperatures thaw the permafrost further and further north and release even more junk.
This loop was in addition to the well-understood loop of the warmer temperatures melting more snow, the water under the snow reflects less light, and the extra energy further raises temperatures.
Evidence in the deep-ice cores show that cycles like this have happened many times in the past. My question is: What is the mechanism of the reversal of the warming cycle? And will the industrialization of the planet make it more or less effective.
David
One of the scary things about the show was the contention that global warming is a positive-feedback loop. The permafrost holds an unimaginable quantity of frozen plant material. The contention of the people interviewed is that when that plant material begins to rot, it will release more CO2 into the air than the sum total of all human emission sources of all time. That CO2 increases the green house effect and further raises temperatures. The higher temperatures thaw the permafrost further and further north and release even more junk.
This loop was in addition to the well-understood loop of the warmer temperatures melting more snow, the water under the snow reflects less light, and the extra energy further raises temperatures.
Evidence in the deep-ice cores show that cycles like this have happened many times in the past. My question is: What is the mechanism of the reversal of the warming cycle? And will the industrialization of the planet make it more or less effective.
David





RE: Global Warming
ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee
RE: Global Warming
Periods of heat and cold come in cycles.
Everything does. One day Boston will have the grand-daddy of all earth quakes. It has before but it is a rare event. When it comes it is said it will make the Califronia quakes seem like a mild case of indigestion.
This doesn't say that we shouldn't worry about the fuels we burn or the waste we create, it just says keep it in perspective.
What fires the imagination kmisleads and panics the all too gullible public are Media Shock headlines which remove any opportunity for rational debate.
Are we entering a phase of gobal warming? If all you have to listen to is one side of the debate, a side which appears to argue from uncertain data as to the inevitability of global warming but don't listen to the equally sane rational and opposing views of equally eminent scientists, we will never be able to make a rational judgement by ourselves.
A couple of years back and the media put El Nino before a gullible public. El Nino isn't new, it's just the first time the general public heard of it and its effects. Hollywood loves disaster movies. The media loves them too.
As usual, voices that do not follow the "party line" are rididuled but not rationally answered.
But, how much air time do they give to those like Bjorn Lomborg? (www.lomborg.com) It's like having an election with only one official candidate and one official party.
Perhaps it is about tme we had properly trained scientists and engineers as journalists and editors.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Global Warming
Also, I'm not trying to generalize the entire profession. Just some bad apples.
RE: Global Warming
To me it's clear that the interests are so huge that there won't be any rational, let alone unbiased debate. My former employer (guess which one! it's from Texas) tried to brainwash all engineers claiming that global warming does not exist, or if it did, that they had nothing to do with it. ("Kyoto is for countries, not for companies" - as if the two are different worlds).
I'm convinced about one thing: we won't be doing anything about it until (if ever) it becomes obvious to everybody that we went way too far.
RE: Global Warming
My opinion is that 1) yes - some, and 2) not really, unless you're one of the people who have an expensive beachfront condo on a Florida key.
Note - I make the previous statement in jest, and realize it will be very detrimental to people in countries such as Bangladesh.
There are more important issues that the environmentalist should be paying more attention to such as: overfishing and deforestation.
However, it seems that environmentalist have a strange focus. They oppose Nuclear power generation. But then, in a stretch of schizophrenic logic they also oppose less impacting technologies: Wind turbine power, solar power, hydroelectric power, and tidal power generation. It would seem that they oppose these types of power generation more than oil or coal-fired steam power generation.
Maybe it should be the environmentalist who have the bumper sticker -- Earth First! We'll strip mine the other planets later.
RE: Global Warming
We need to conserve our fuel...and no..Nuclear power isn't the option.
We can all contribute. Even a small amount helps.
Sowhat if a volcano erupts and makes our pollution look tiny in comparison,...we can't do anything about natural disasters...but we can do something about man made disasters.
We in the UK have to pay an extortionate amount for our fuel. The tax is very high. and we pay around $7 a gallon (Or more). The net result is smaller more efficient cars.
Equally, our gas and electricity isn't cheap, and our building regulations are getting a lot tighter on making the buildings more airtight and much beter insulated.
Boilers will soon be condensing only, and air-conditioning units are tending towards inverter driven in order to meet with tougher energy targets.
For Gods sake don't bury your heads in the sand or leave it to someone else. Don't blame the poorer countries either, they are trying to catch up with the rest of the world.
All nations need to comply with the Montreal and Kyoto treaties. And trading off with poorer conuntries is a big con. We all know who those countries are.
The buck stops with each and every one of us.
Friar Tuck of Sherwood
RE: Global Warming
Are the proponents of Kyoto really so arrogant as to suppose that we can control global climate? The science of climate change is still very much in its infacy; it's far to early for attempts at atmospheric engineering.
Whether or not a reduction in industrial CO2 emmisions would slow the process, only the dreamiest of garden fairies actually believe that this reduction is possible. Developing nations are exempt from the Kyoto protocols, developed resource economies such as Australia and the US would be fools to sign and even the Kyoto ratifiers will not meet the targets. The following table shows how far EU nations are projected to be short of achieving their 2010 goals.
Germany -1.3%
Luxembourg -5.6%
France -9.5%
Italy -10.2%
Greece -10.7%
Netherlands -12.1%
Portugal -14%
Finland -16.5%
Belgium -22.9%
Austria -24.5%
Ireland -26.8%
Spain -33.3%
Denmark -37.8%
Sweden +3.3%
UK +1.4%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1098635,00.html
Climate change is being used as a sop to the green ideologues and a thinly veiled attack on US industrial pre-eminence. Typical of feel-good pseudo environmentalists, the only answer they have is that somebody somewhere must stop what they're doing immediately, and then we will all live in nirvana.
If global climate change is really such a credible threat, what are we doing to prepare for it? Where are the harsh new building codes in anticipation of wilder weather? What nations have put a moratorium on development within 20 metres of a rising sea level? Who is investing billions of dollars in infrastructure development for Greenland's agricultural industries? Are the French building new cities in the Alps to accommodate their colonial subjects from drowning South Pacific Islands? No?
The Kyoto protocols are akin to King Canute commanding the tides to stop. No doubt they are politically useful to some governments or opposition parties, but good for the world? The energies that are being wasted on Kyoto would be far better spent in recognising and preparing for the inevitability of change.
RE: Global Warming
a. Do I know for sure if global warming is a reality.
The answer must be NO.
b. Do I believe I can make a difference ..no matter how small.
Simply...YES
I understand some people having serious doubts about the possibility of global warming. I look at like this.
We can't afford to ignore it.
All I can see is that some Nations are taking it very seriously.
Sure, the ice age comes around every 25000 years or so. But maybe, just maybe we are accelerating that time period.
Not something to look forward to if you live in a low lying area.
In the UK, we have recently revised our building codes and regulations. They are a bind, but we have taken a serious step in the right direction.
Oil is running low, fuel and electricity prices are rising and we will be reliant on oil from Russian pipelines in just a few years. No very secure at all.
I don't fancy another European or Worldwide conflict to battle it out over oil.
If we act now, we can slow down the rate of energy use and this will give us more valuable time to source alternative energy sources.
If this has a knock on effect of slowing down global warming, then great.
High fuel prices in the UK mean that most of us drive 'smallish' cars or techinically efficient cars.My car is a family saloon and returns an average 45 Miles per gallon and 56 on a long run. We would all like a 5 litre chevvy but we couldn't afford to drive one. (Our roads aren't big enough anyway)
I believe that there will be some technological developments soon that will help the environment, but until that comes, we should look after mother earth.
The need for going to work,for many might be reduced by the information highway. I can work from home. I don't really need to go to the office every day. I could use video conferencing for my meetings.
I can send emails instead of using 'snail mail' (Sorry Mr. Postman). I can design out air-conditioning in new office block. I can increase natural ventilation to assist also.
We don't have to believe in Global Warming to help the environment.
Education is the Key and it seems like some of US need a bit of that.
Yes, you are right, we are letting the Chinese grow at our expense. We can't stop the machine now, it's rolling too fast. What we can do is help ourselves. What is that saying, 'The Lord helps those that help themselves'.
I'll try to do my bit. If anyone else does, thats a bonus.
At least I can sleep at night.
Friar Tuck of Sherwood
RE: Global Warming
We just have to innovate some new drugs to combat skin cancer and increase CO2 emissions. We just have to invent novel techniques in water and air purification and further complicate the nature. If Chinese are to be blamed for this cycle I hope there is one other nation in the future which Chinese can blame. After all this cyclic effect is natural.
RE: Global Warming
Perhaps we should just go back to the medieval times and all ride horses and farm the land. Life would be so much simpler. Less stress, no traffic jams, etc.
I suppose if we carry on as we are, that will happen anyway???
Friar Tuck of Sherwood
RE: Global Warming
Naturally in our new pre-industrial Utopia the world will support only a tiny percentage of its current population, so we'll have to get rid of several billion souls. Obviously the first to go should be those whos skills won't be of any use in the new world, and those who may have dangerous reactionary ideas, ie the professional classes. This was exactly Pol Pot's thinking in Cambodia/Kampuchea in the early seventies.
Technological society has evolved because it allows more people to live, and to live more comfortably. The challenges that climate change pose will be best met by more technology, not less. This was the whole point of my earlier post, that initiatives such as Kyoto are counterproductive because they focus on limiting industrialisation, and draw resources away from managing the effects.
A sufficiently advanced society may eventually develop climatic engineering processes, but at the very least we should be able to predict the likely changes and prepare for them. If for example global warming shut down the Gulf stream and brought on a new ice age a high-tech society could survive quite successfully. Pol Pot and his Merry Men will starve.
Energy efficiency and waste minimisation are good things, naturally. I have nothing but support for people making a personal effort towards extending the life of our non-renewable resources, but too often this develops into an attitude that resource use is somehow 'evil' and should be stopped.
RE: Global Warming
If global warming caused by human consumption of fossil fuels is even a remote possibility, do a HAZOP analysis for a second and realize that a small probability multiplied by a HUGE, DEVASTATING negative impact is something we should be very concerned about and doing something to avoid. And the science related to human-induced climatic change would suggest that the outcome is PROBABLE rather than merely possible. Surely we should curb our wants- based consumption in response to such a severe risk?
We can argue about the merits and disadvantages of the Kyoto protocol, but that's just an implementation strategy. My personal view on Kyoto is that it's an incentive for industries to reduce cost by wasting less of our grandchildren's share of the planet's resources. Those who get on the bandwagon are going to reap the benefits not only for their own populations in terms of having technologies and consumption credits for sale to others who participate, but also of a healthier planet. Less greenhouse gas emissions and less air pollution are directly linked. And yes, if major players like the US and China and Russia aren't on board, the credits/debits system is pointless- but there should be no less incentive for Western nations to invest in conservation and pay for it by taxing wasteful consumption.
RE: Global Warming
You want to talk about doing a HAZOP, which is certainly a sensible engineering approach. But that requires taking a look at the real potential modes of failure and weighing the impact of those failure modes. You're going to have to be open to the real possibility that the changes you propose can end up doing more harm than doing nothing.
Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas
"All the world is a Spring"
All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.
RE: Global Warming
Energy conservation and a reduction in wasteful consumption isn't equated with a "caveman lifestyle" anywhere else except inside your imagination. What it's really equated with is reduced energy cost by virtue of less waste, less pollution by virtue of less extraction, refining, spillage, evaporation and combustion of fossil fuels, less political and military intervention to secure a cheap supply of these fuels etc. etc.- oh, and engineering jobs, I might add! We engineers have more to contribute to this field than most, that's for certain.
And when you do a HAZOP, as I said, you look at the POSSIBILITY of each failure mode and then evaluate its probability and severity. Only the foolhardy totally drop potentially catastrophic single-jepoardy events off the list because they don't have the imagination to consider them possible. World scientific consensus is that global warming induced by both our increased emission of greenhouse gases and our continual destruction of carbon sinks is not only possible, it's probable. And the consequences are potentially devastating over the long term. Any sensible HAZOP analysis would give this serious weight for future action.
IronGoth:
Your first post equates the overwhelming consensus of climatologists today about global warming with the opinions of a few people who grabbed the media spotlight for a short time in the '70s about the potential for a new ice age- that puts you in league with the likes of those who feel that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, nicotine isn't addictive and cigarettes don't cause lung cancer!
And Kyoto or not, North American manufacturing is moving to China en masse already. The driver is money- the same driver that is the ONLY hope to make people think twice about the massive, needless waste of fossil fuel resources on the planet. The same economic externalities apply- the smog, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions move off-shore with some of the profit, while the unemployment cheques for the laid-off manufacturing workers come out of general government revenue.
Want to change people's behaviour for the good of society at large? Hit 'em in the pocketbook or give up.
You should continue to be free to drive your motorcycle as long as you pay the true and full cost of that pleasure, plus some contribution toward public transit for those who don't have that luxury.
RE: Global Warming
Has anyone heard any more about this research?
------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!
RE: Global Warming
data is too subtle for casual observation. And the
system too complex for anyone but a dedicated professional
to evaluate. Let us acknowledge our ignorance about it.
After this all we can do is examine the consensus from the
scientific community. As a professional I am willing to
let the professionals do their work. I trust that most of
them will report accurate estimations about the subject
and that some will politicize the subject. If we take the
position that the majority of scientist are going to
be dishonest with us about the topic there is no hope
for the future.
Now what do the majority of credible scientist believe??
I would like to know if anyone has identified these people
and conducted a survey of their concerns.
Only by this step can we be informed about the issue.
RE: Global Warming
It would be wonderful if "scientists" would do science and leave the policy to the representatives of the people. Everytime a scientist with a "the sky is not falling, that is just rain" point of view (with data) about global warming he or she is quickly shouted down. The eco-Nazis like the "Union of Concerned Scientists" have made this discussion impossible.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The Plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
RE: Global Warming
Some say the world will end in Fire.
Some say in Ice.
From what I know of Desire,
I hold with those who favor Fire.
But if I had to die Twice.
Ice would also be Nice, and would Suffice.
-Robert Frost.
ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee
RE: Global Warming
I've read contradictory information on GW. One expert says this, one expert says that, blah blah blah. Does anybody recall the tobacco inductry denying that smoking was bad for you. Those who wanted to believe it kept on smoking, and hey, guess what.....a lot of them are now DEAD.
And what else, ...the interested parties (Tobacco companies paying government loads of taxes--indirectly) proved for years that smoking was GOOD for you. Where is the Marlboro man now?
So we can prove that ice levels are increasing, and also that sea levels are rising and that overall global temperatures are not rising (but maybe local temperatures are) etc. confusing eh!
Again, I don't know if GW is a reality. Is it a natural phenomena or not??
We can only make decisions based on fact. The fact is that GW MAY be having an effect.....but I can't afford to wait to see if it really is affecting the world or not. I don't wish to work on the ostrich principle...though it seems some of you are prepared to.
We might or might not have an affect on the climate, but it doesn't seem right to simply stick your head in the sand and wait for things to get worse.
Even if we work on a 'take respnsibility of your own waste' principle is adopted, we can certainly help the environment.
So even if you don't believe in GW, do something positive for the environment. That issue is every bit as important as GW. GW is just part of a larger problem.
Friar Tuck of Sherwood
RE: Global Warming
Those reputable professionals whose advice you are inclined to trust over our skepticism, have admitted IN PRINT, that they sensationalise their results and pick worst case scenarios.
That's not science, it is politics.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Global Warming
You have no information to base any scepticism on.
Really do a significant percentage of climate researchers
admit they are fudging their answears.
Who are they and where in print do they say they are
making it up. I don't doubt you I am just curious to
see who it is and what in what context they have commented.
RE: Global Warming
I spent some time searching the topic and I can
see some of the problem.
I was looking for people who should be able to form
an educated opinion and who had a reputation for accuracy
to maintain.
I found only one person so far.
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of
Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
And he is of the opinion that there is no evidence to
support an alarmist view. He notes the political pressure
and broad array of people who will comment on the issue
even though it is far from their field of experience.
Also allmost none of the sites give references to the
scientific work their conclusions are drawn from.
Still I want to find what more people like Mr Lindzen have
to say about it.
RE: Global Warming
How do you know that? You can apologise at your leisure. Here are some quotes from New Scientist, which tends to be pro-Kyoto, pro-climate change in general.
"The latest findings include the first hint of a slowdown in the Atlantic currents that keep Europe warm. They warn that climate change will have previously unimagined effects. Many of the predictions of standard climate models, including those published last week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, could turn out to be wrong, they say.
The problem is that the Earth is prone to sudden and drastic flips in climate and ecology. This means that predictions from climate models, which assume steady warming and gradual responses from the ecosystem, could be well wide of the mark. In reality, the scientists say, the Earth takes up different stable states-and can change suddenly from one to another. That will play havoc with both human life and nature."
Note the second sentence in the first para
"Disputes about how water vapour and clouds will influence global warming are at the heart of many of the disputes between mainstream scientists and the handful of greenhouse sceptics. Overall, the majority view is that positive feedbacks could amplify the warming effect by perhaps 2.5 times. But some sceptics believe the feedback effect could be neutral or even predominantly negative. "
Bearing in mind that water vapour is the #1 greenhouse gas it seems odd that scientists are unsure whether it is having a positive, neutral or negative feedback effect.
"Analysis of fossils leaves have shown that the standard models used for climate prediction have huge errors when taken out of familiar conditions, say an international team of scientists.
The team, involving researchers from the UK, Russia, Sweden and the Czech Republic, used the leaf fossils to calculate the temperature at various sites during the Late Cretaceous period, 95 million years ago. They then used some of the best climate models researchers have on offer, such as the Hadley Centre's climate model, to calculate what temperatures at that time might have been like. To their surprise, they found their results differed greatly.
Most striking were results in regions far away from the coast, where leaf-based results were much warmer. "We're talking about an error on the order of 20 °C, so it's not small - not by any means," says modeller Paul Valdes from the University of Reading.
"
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Global Warming
Instead I did find the fllowing:
"Since his 1988 testimony, Hansen's vision of global warming has come under increasing attack. (Hansen also testified that the observed warming in the past century was 0.6C to 0.7C. This is 20 to 40 percent higher than any objective trend analysis using the global records considered most reliable. See Michaels, op. cit.) Reid Bryson, a respected expert in climate research and Emeritus Professor of Geography, Meteorology, and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, dismissed the Hansen testimony as a "phenomenal snow job" and the global warming theory as "a triumph of sociology over science." (Laing, "Climate of Fear," op. cit.) In fact, the theory that substantial global warming will occur is bitterly disputed by many highly respected scientists. Global warming is not a fact. It is a theory that is widely challenged. In a recent survey of atmospheric physicists and meteorologists, for instance, almost all of the scientists agreed that catastrophic global warming predictions are unsupported by scientific evidence and that climate models showing warming cannot be relied upon. ("Survey of U.S. Participants in the IPCC Report"
"Many of the delegates at UNCED will demand action to reduce the levels of human-generated greenhouse gases on the grounds that a large rise in the Earth's temperature would be harmful. Among the studies generating these demands is a report to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ("The Scientific Assessment of Climate Change," The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, August 1990.) This summary concluded that global warming had already occurred, would continue to occur, and was causing a rise in the ocean levels. (The executive summary, however, was not representative of the body of the report, according to 40 percent of the scientists who worked on the document, and was termed "misleading" by half of those scientists. "Survey of U.S. Participants in the IPCC Report," The Science and Environmental Policy Project, August 1991.) "
So at least 20% of scientist working in the field who contributed to that report think that misleading documents are used by policy makers.
If you tpye
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Global Warming
Your post about global warming potentially causing glaciation is supposedly correct. The Atlantic currents circulate water in the Atlantic, taking warm surface water from the equatorial region and moving it north towards Europe's northern latitudes, where it cools and sinks, and then is circulated south where it resurfaces. It's called the Atlantic conveyor belt, or something like that. Supposedly if global warming (whether it be man-made or natural) melts the ice caps enough, the coveyor belt is stopped. What happens is the fresh water that melts off is denser than salt water, so it sinks and the salt water floats on top of it, which prevents it from sinking and continuing on its normal path. The tipping point is supposed to be very quick, and would cause massive climate changes. The North would get very cold, and the South would get warmer temporarily. It's supposed to cause glaciation in the northern hemisphere until at least about the 30 degree line, but it's almost impossible to predict. Obviously its effects would not be limited to the souther or western hemispheres, as such a massive change would have global consequences, including glaciation in Asia. If you saw the movie The Day After Tomorrow you could get one idea (greatly tainted by hollywood) of what could potentially happen. There is some evidence that this has happened before periodically from fossil records, but I have no idea who or what or what they concluded. It's an interesting theory either way.
RE: Global Warming
The point is that a needless, stupid, wasteful activity is having actual, measurable harmful consequences on people's lives right now. Fossil fuel extraction and consumption results in needless deaths from smog and fine particulate emissions, plus a myriad of other harmful effects on the world. And regardless how much you may wish it to be otherwise, the majority of people whose area of study is the earth's climate concur that there's a PROBABILITY of serious, potentially irreversible HARMFUL consequences for the WHOLE PLANET from this same activity.
You can either stick your head in the sand (or up some other orifice), deny the reality, listen to the people who tell you what you want to hear, and keep doing what you're already doing and leave this for your kids or grandkids to sort out, or you can get off your duff and do something about it NOW, while there's yet hope of fixing things for the future. As I said before, it's fundamentally a problem of values, not one of technology.
We know which of these IronGoth will be doing. He's hoping for someone to invent a perfect biofuel for his hog that's cheaper than gasoline. Keep riding with your head in the clouds, man! But you can't fault him much- he's not dragging two tonnes of metal and an acre of frontal area around with him everywhere he goes.
Hopefully enough sensible people will prevail and realize that the sky WON'T fall the day we decide to stop wasting fossil fuels and invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. Some of the Europeans have got it figured out- let's hope it creeps across to stodgy old oil-addicted North America sometime soon. Maybe there's still hope we'll get real about energy consumption and generation by curtailing people's so-called "right" to drive their idiotic SUVs and taxing wasteful consumption.
As to aspearin1's quote from Bob Frost, the last stanza is incorrect- to paraphrase Frost, he says that from what he knows of Hate, ice would work as well as fire at destroying the world. Maybe the analogy isn't too far off- how hateful is it to needlessly squander your children's resources and leave them holding the bag?
RE: Global Warming
http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php
The point, of course, is that facts don't necessarily matter when forming opinions on this matter (no matter which side you're on).
RE: Global Warming
I do not mean to offend. I mean we all get this info on
a second and third hand basis.
I read your two above posts and I see that a lot of
sensationalizing is occuring but I find the that to be the
only conclusion I can draw.
Just because some researchers skew their results to show
a result does not mean the result is not a correct one.
I would not expect the climate models to work far into the
past on computer simulations because of the many unknown
factors that are needed for the model and that can only
be inferred from historical data.
To form an opinion we must get the opinion of many other
climate researchers apart from any respective groups who
may use their ideas to further an agenda. I will look for
more references that come directly from the people
qualified to comment and then form my opinion.
RE: Global Warming
The scientific method requires that everyone put their data out there and then have a public discussion about whose hypotheses are supported by the data and whose aren't. Over time, the prevailing understanding is the one that best represents the physical reality as we know it. There's room for dissent in the climatological field just as there is every other scientific endeavour- and no room for "religion" (i.e. the maintenance of a belief which either is unsupported by fact or runs contrary to fact). But the presence of dissention on a topic where a consensus has developed is NO excuse for inaction!
I argue that there's enough wrong with the wasteful consumption of fossil fuels that quite frankly it doesn't matter whether or not global warming is one of them. We should be curtailing their WASTEFUL misuse because of all the other harms they cause, and because the overwhelming scientific opinion is to SUSPECT them of causing global warming on top of all that other bad stuff.
RE: Global Warming
You couldn't be more correct. Wasteful misuse of any commodity should always be curtailed. I think the core of the dissention in this thread is means and methods.
If you say to the masses "you must conserve fuel because it will run out" the response will be that those few people who believe you will store a few dozen gallons of gasoline in their garage (and a few of them will die in the resulting fire). The rest will just turn up the "Gilligan's Island" repeats and hope you go away.
If you build bicycle lanes people will use them for turn lanes. If you come up with a tax break for improving your family's fuel economy most people won't understand the hoops required to claim it and others will claim it without qualifying.
As has been said many times above, the only way to reduce consumption is to raise prices to the point where the cost of fuel is a significant portion of an entitiy's budget. This method has been proven to work all over the world, but politician's never look past the next election and lack the fortitude to approve any energy policy - let alone one that raises gasoline prices from $2/gallon to $6/gallon (still less than the UK). The only fix that is economically feasible is not politically feasible, check and mate - we die gasping in our own filth.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The Plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
RE: Global Warming
Quote "I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.
I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief."
And I think on that note I'll bow out of this thread, religous wars are a waste of time.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Global Warming
As I stated in my original post, the article emphasizes the point that facts don't seem to matter much on this issue (it is this point with which I agree). Our "faith-based" viewpoints tend to influence our interpretations of what the facts mean, sometimes to the point that opposing viewpoints even cite the same facts in support of their differing conclusions.
(BTW, for clarity, faith, as used in this post, should be understood in the most general manner possible, certainly not intended to be construed as solely religious faith, but more so along the line of anything we accept based on things other than logic / facts.)
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
At one moment we were being told we were adding so much pollution we were changing the planets albedo and the ice caps would melt and we will roast. Then we are warned that all this pollution will block the suns rays and we will freeze. For every facet of what we do there seem to be at least two contradictory theories, often more and often with the ranks of scientists on every side of the argument defaming there oponents.
Add in politicians and activists and we have a nice mess.
I think sometimes they are arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin.
While it has been correctly pointed out that we are wasteful of resources it does no good to have a panic reaction every time some one propounds a new alarmist theory.
The acid rain debacle in Europe saw pressure groups and politicians respond in a most in-appropriate way to a badly stated and mis-understood problem.
Here we are again, arguing about climate change without learning the lessons of the past and when there are some desperate current situations where it is blatantly obvious all is not right and yet where little is being done.
The annual loss of rain forrest is something we can and should be alarmed at and which it is within our remit to do something, or the fact that in recent years slash and burn in Indonesian forrests caused a smoke pall that closed airports hundreds of miles away and caused a major pollution problem for the populations living there. Again, something unnecessary and about which something can and should be done.
There are many things we should worry about and many that it is pointless worrying about until we an seperate the politics and the over the top activists out of the equation and let the scientists examine the situation for a clear understanding of the situation.
As it is, there is controversy and disenting voices are being supressed on the "faith" issue.
We are being brainwashed into accepting that if it is bad and if the blame can be laid at our own doors, ergo it is true and we should imediately panic and pressure the politicians to do something rash and possibly counter-productive. It may be that there is lttle that can be done short term to produce a dramatic effect and it is drama that many seem to wish for.
Not the best way to run a planet, especially if we allow ourselves to be stampeded into a course of action that may have more downs than ups in the solution.
But this is an argument we have had many times on many issues e.g. the catalytic converter which is covered in other threads and never satisactorily resolved.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Global Warming
Now some of you may live in rather stable climes. I cannot count though how many times I shoveled a few inches of "clear to partly cloudy" skies off my driveway during wintertime.
Regards,
RE: Global Warming
I'm not suggesting a link to global warming, but at the moment there seems to be only two items on the TV, one is Iraq and the other is Hurricane Frances, Ivan and whatever next.
We in the UK are interested parties as to the weather in the US because believe it or not, we sometimes get the tail end of them after a few weeks of crossing the Atlantic. Thankfully not category 5.
Is there a 'typical activity level' of Hurricanes i.e. 3 a year or do you get 1 every 3 years or what?
Also, do they generally hit land or stay out to sea?
Any meteorologists out there?
Friar Tuck of Sherwood
RE: Global Warming
On the other hand the day to day weather variations are difficult to predict but there is a different perspective on long term weather analysis. While I am sanguine about much of whta i have heard (and think i have understood) about the validity of artic ice core sample dissolved gas analysis or whatever, as an analysis of what has happened, I am rather less convinced about what is "predicted".
I am distinctly concerned when I hear politicians and journalists spouting what appears complete nonsense about global warming.
In debates of this sort, with so many experts lined up on both sides, what hope have we of finding the "truth". In a numbers game the global warming alarmists have it. In quality of data, analysis and deduction, who knows?
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Global Warming
Tied to the carbon cycle is the symbiotic relationship between animals and plants: most animals absorb O2 and most plants absorb CO2. Historically, animals go through periods of overpopulation and exhaust their food supply (plants), converting plant matter back into CO2 and resetting the cycle.
Slowing down the carbon cycle seems to be a noble cause. However, I think our species can survive several more ice ages if we focus more on helping each other cope with a changing world, rather than tearing each other down in an attempt to keep it from changing. You can't stop the carbon cycle, it's too big. Plant a tree and call it a day.
RE: Global Warming
I'm not a meteorologist, but have lived near the southeast coast of N America for many years. I have read that hurricane seasons go through cycles (10 year cycles if I remember correctly), from a few not so severe storm per season to the more numerous and powerful storm seasons such as we are seeing now. They do go ashore, but tend to lose their energy rapidly after doing so.
RE: Global Warming
But if you are really interested in the number of strikes, this is the page: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Based on this chart, it seems to me that the number of storms that strike the US is pretty constant...
RE: Global Warming
Hurricanes that affect the U.S. are the result of direct solar heating of the Sahara desert and the ocean surface in the northern tropics, helped along in the Atlantic by a prevailing easterly breeze off the Sahara. Thermal gradients between the Gulf of Guinea and the Sahara typically get the tropical waves started. When the ocean temperature in the tropics is 82F or greater, a tropical storm usually then develops. Global warming would not impact gradients that much, since by definition it would just be raising the ambient temp of each region the same. Global warming would not intensify storms, but might lengthen the hurricane season since the surface temp would reach 82F a little sooner and cool off a little later.
The Sahara has been a desert for a long time, so the hurricane cycle has been fairly constant over recent history. Turning the Sahara green with vegetation (or paint?) might help reduce the heating of the hydrosphere in that region and stall the engine that converts solar power into hurricanes. It would be interesting to know if there is an upward trend in Pacific typhoon activity, in the wake of the recent deforestation of the rain forests in South America.
RE: Global Warming
Without joking now, I think it gets complicated because the world population just doesn't act as a perfectly organised bunch of people with one common goal (like ants). Instead, everybody and every country/company/organisation have their own private goals. As a result, information gets blurred and distorted (accidentally or on purpose) and it becomes impossible to have an accurate and unbiased opinion on such a topic. The missing actual information can easily be replaced by "religious" (in whatever sense) beliefs, catalysed by the same private goals and interests. We can fire bold statements at each other but will never reach agreement if our interests are not the same...
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
I would like to ask for comments regarding a different spin on things. What if we reduce the question of changing global warming to one of effective use of resources; this is plays more directly to the strenghts of engineers.
My contention would be that the cost of dealing with global warming is lower than the cost of changing our activities. This is likely a result of my bias towards free markets making effect use of limited resources so I'm interested to hear other opinions...
Gruß Scott
RE: Global Warming
Again- Hazop this thing: there's a substantial consensus amongst the scientific community that we are very likely affecting our climate. The exact effects are uncertain, but there is a probability of very significant and PERMANENT harm arising. Do we take actions to avert this NOW, or don't we?
An added benefit- any damned fool can solve a problem by throwing energy, raw materials or other resources at it, but it takes an ENGINEER to develop an optimal solution. Increasing energy efficiency and reducing non-renewable energy consumption in particular, will create engineering jobs, minimize environmental harm AND save money in the long run- particularly with increasing energy prices. So again, why WOULDN'T we do it?
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
* Patent office executive in the 1800s who stated that there would be no new inventions because "everything had already been invented,"
* Computer guru Bill Gates, who said in the early 1980s that "64 kilobytes of memory should be enough for anyone."
* The 1970’s environmental movement discussing, “The Cooling World, The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”
When climatologists can get a world forecast correct 90 days into the future, I might listen to what they have to say about a weather forecast a few years out. I also know that our planet has been supporting life in recent geological times when it was both warmer and cooler than it is now. I do not plan to barter my standard of living on the unproven remarks of a few climatologists being touted as fact by environmentalist. If the past is any indication of the future, our planet will be both colder and warmer at some point in the future regardless of human presence on the planet. I am prepared for change. It seems that many are afraid of the natural changes in our world’s climate. But then again, my knowledge is very limited at this time.
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
So DrillerNic, how do you propose to “encourage more energy efficiency- higher mpgs, smaller cars, better building insulation, better building design & construction so that air conditioning requirements are reduced and so on” without somehow raising taxes, fees, surcharges, etc... ? My experience is when the government encourages choices; it costs more money than if we had made the choices on our own. What is the very good argument for spending more tax money so we have fewer choices? What makes you think that people can’t figure out the advantages of energy efficiency on their own? I have a great deal of faith in people when they are given the choice how to spend their own money that they will make the right choice. In contrast, I don’t have much faith in my government setting my spending priorities and getting it right.
RE: Global Warming
You make several excellent points, but your argument is still founded on a misunderstanding of economics. The price of fuels and electricity currently is only a FRACTION of the "true" cost of these energy sources. Fuel extraction and consumption generates negative externalities (unaccounted or incompletely-accounted costs) resulting from the exclusion of numerous factors from the economic analysis. One of these is global warming, but there are numerous others that are significant enough to convince me of the merits of energy conservation regardless of whether or not global warming is one of them.
We agree that celebrities or anyone else preaching environmentalism as a religion isn't going to solve anything. Religion implies belief which is not subject to reason or debate, and religion has no business in public discourse on technical matters. The values that these people attribute to the natural environment, though, ARE important- and currently are assigned a ZERO cost in the economic equation. Disasters actually INCREASE GDP, remember, so it's a poor measure of our societal values in composite.
We also agree that the only way to convince people to consume less energy, and a smaller quantity of energy-intensive products, is to hit them in their pocketbooks. They can then decide which priorities are more important to them and spend their money accordingly. For some, it might be the gas for a huge SUV or the fuel to heat a house with thousands of unnecessary square feet, but for most it probably won't be. Once the "choice" is made a truly fair one, rather than being subsidized by unaccounted environmental harm, people's "tastes" will change too. They'll moderate their consumption of these things based on their ability to pay, NOT based on somebody's "religion".
You don't want governments messing with people's "lifestyle decisions". You also tout the truism that governments are necessarily inefficient at everything they do- no doubt you support the notion that the so-called "free market" is necessarily more efficient in everything it does too. So basically you don't believe in doing anything to make sure that the cost of fuel includes ALL the costs of that fuel, including a penalty for the environmental harm its emissions cause. I understand your point of view but utterly disagree with it.
What we need to do is to tax fossil fuels and the devices which consume them on a sliding scale based on how much harm they cause. Since I'm convinced that global warming is a very serious global risk, I'd use CO2 emissions as one of those harm factors. We then need to SEGREGATE that new tax revenue and put it to use in funding PUBLIC energy-efficiency projects like better mass transit, cogeneration projects linked to district heating, renewable electricity generation and any number of other, similar projects which need to be done at a PUBLIC scale. If there were anything left over after that, I'd use it for the more popular but more problem-filled and inefficient rebate-type programs for private household energy efficiency improvement etc.
People who choose to make the investment in smaller, more efficient homes and cars would reap comparative advantage- greater comparative advantage because of the greater input cost and hence quicker payback. And yes, the poor would be left out in the cold by this because they lack the capital to make the necessary investments in energy efficiency, so you'd have to do something to help them out too.
Inefficient? Probably so- but no more so than wasting huge amounts of land to build roads and infrastructure for subdivisions, parking garages and all the other stuff that our car-dependence requires of us as a society. And this money generally comes from the "public purse", and is paid for by taxes, so it's totally legitimate for government to intervene in these matters. Certainly more efficient than warring over diminishing supplies of low lift-cost crude oil...
We're energy gluttons, addicts and morons in the so-called "developed world". We need help to kick this addiction- as societies, we rather like cheap oil and aren't going to give up this particular fix voluntarily as individuals. That's where government is required to provide LEADERSHIP- when the current will and behaviour of the majority is also against the long term interests of the majority. Yeah, I know, probably totally hopeless...
RE: Global Warming
And simply changing existing regulations and codes can encourage many changes without additional taxes, fees etc amking better insulation etc or natural air conditioning a requirement in building codes; changing electical code to encourage things like CHP plants.
RE: Global Warming
Previously, the taxable benefit depended on how far you drove in a year. 0-2500 miles = 35% list price, 2500-18,000 =25%, and 18,000+ = 15% tax. Private fuel benefit was a flat rate based on engine size. So, the more you drove, the cheaper it got - sales reps loved it!
Now it's based on CO2 emissions.A 40mpg petrol(about 150g/km CO2) equates to a taxable befefit of 15% list price, rising to 35% for 25mpg. The fuel benefit is calculated in a similar way. This has been in force for about 3 years, and has certainly changed peoples behaviour.
My business mileage is very variable, and under the old system, I would frequently be taxed at the highest rate, irrespective of the car I drove.
Now, through choice, I drive a good sized turbo-diesel, and pay tax on 15% of list price - like most of the people in our organisation.
The performance is at least the same or better than the petrol version, so I can't say that I feel hard done by.
Most people now view this as being an intelligent form of taxation, which gives people an incentive (through lower taxes) to lower their energy consumption, by (slightly) modifying their behaviour.
If they are honest, most people really don't give a toss about energy efficiency for it's own sake. But they do care about how much money they have in their pocket.
Regards,
Tom
RE: Global Warming
Tom you say, “Most people now view this as being an intelligent form of taxation” and then you say, “If they are honest, most people really don't give a toss about energy efficiency for its own sake.” So you have an intelligent tax for things that you don’t give a toss about? If honest, I don’t believe people in your country are really happy paying higher prices for fuel because of the taxes.
It seems like you are paying higher prices for gas in the name of conservation and in effect subsidizing others nations to use more fuel at a lower price, and then call this intelligent.
RE: Global Warming
There are several things which are now coming to fruition. Perma frost is melting in Canada at an ever increasing rate. Glaciers in Europe and the U.S. are shrinking and oceans are rising. The current oil comsumption has reached production capacity.
Wind power is being exploited in some areas and already some environmental groups are complaining about wind farms. Technical issues abound about "renewable" resources. Example North Dakota could produce enough wind energy for the United States. How do you tranport the energy across 3000 miles of transmission lines? Build more transmission lines across which state?
My top two issures are population control world wide and replacing our ever diminishing fossil fuel supply. Population control is not for this forum but replacing fossil fuel is.
Short term, conservation, solar and wind power are some good opportunities however the long term answer is fusion. Why aren't the environmentalist demanding more research money for fusion research? Current funding is about $300 million while taxpayer support for oil and coal is at a minimum $6 billion (direct tax U.S. benefits). Oil and coal are both profitable business ventures yet need government subsidies? The scientific and engineering community should take a position supporting additional fusion research funding.
Currently I believe the EU is leading in fusion power research with the U.S. concentrating on containment filed research. The Chinese follow as they were the recipient of the old EU fusion experiment and are doing their own investigations now.
I personally do believe we are experiencing global warming caused by CO2 emissions. I will be dead before the worst affects of global warming impacts Earth but I would like to believe I can impact some peoples ideas about controlling and maintaining our world not for 100 years but for 10,000 years.
RE: Global Warming
You misunderstood the point I was making.
I was referring to the taxation on company car use, not fuel tax.
It is generally acknowledged that the UK has the highest fuel taxes in Europe, and make no mistake we're not too pleased about it. However, most people would be reasonably content if fuel costs were similar to those in France and Germany.
Just because a commodity like fuel is cheap now, does not mean it makes good long term sense use it inefficiently.
During my engineering training, the importance of achieving the desired result for the least weight or cost was always brought home to us. Energy conservation is just an extension of this philosophy.
As countries like China becomes progressively more industrialised, their apetite for oil will increase further. Constantly rising fuel costs are going to be a fact of life - wherever you live. Irrespective of the scientific and political arguments concerning global warming, energy efficiency is fast becoming an economic necessity.
Tom
RE: Global Warming
Imagine if the US could increase fuel effiency (by smart taxes on engine size say), reducing US reliance on imported oil- mainly from Venuzuala. Imagine depriving Chavez of his main foreign currency earner!
And most people in the UK generally accept the existing fuel taxes- there were widespread disputes about an automatic, year on year, fuel tax increase a few years ago, but nothing since. (BTW tomaspin, UK fuel taxes may be high, but we don't yet have toll roads like most of the rest of Europe!)
RE: Global Warming
Cutting off 20% of our (USA) supply would certainly increase prices for us significantly in the short term. It would drive a cultural shift to make us more energy efficient and sooner. This would be a nice kick in the pants for all of us to take energy conservation more seriously. The gradual cost increases over time make us the proverbial "frog in the saucepan". As long as the heat is slowly added, the frog won't jump out. We need to jump out, or we need to start climbing out, but we can't just keep swimming around like we are, oblivious to what is happening.
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
The folks pedalling this junk also believe that cow flatulence is a major contributing factor. These people have zero understanding of the natural methane cycle. Natural methane sources include vast sea-bed gas hydrate deposits and coal seams. Oil production operations also release vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere. I'd estimate that cow flatulence accounts for maybe 0.000001% of all methane emissions. Guess we'd better pipe the cows up to the gas grid!! ;)
Yes, the climate is changing. It has NEVER been constant. The most likely cause is as plain as day.....the sun. This is all a ploy to sap American industrial prowess while China trys to play catch-up....a much more plausible theory than global warming.
RE: Global Warming
I for one welcome our new bovine leaders.
corus
RE: Global Warming
Actually, we do. The first one opened around a year ago providing an alternative route through the M6 / M42 nightmare around Birmingham. I am uncertain whether it is a positive move.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/motorway...
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!
RE: Global Warming
Prince Charles also said in 1987:
RE: Global Warming
When I logged on just now there is a banner at the top of the page that says "Stop Climate Change"
Huh? How? Would that be good or bad?
I think it's safe to assume that NOBODY is in FAVOR of dirty air, water, etc. Resources, financial, time, effort, are limited. The ability to be concerned about the environment is a luxury enjoyed by affluent populations. As the developing countries increase in affluence they too will have the luxury of worrying about the environment.
Real progress is being made, some driven by government, some by market forces.
I don't see Kyoto as providing benefits that are worth the cost. I know that if I had to reduce my energy consumption 30% overnight my standard of living would nosedive. I'll bet yours would too. Some could die as a result, for instance, elderly people without air conditioning during a heat wave. (See France). I don't believe in risking these people's lives and well being over unproven theories and half measures.
Follow "no regrets" policies towards reduction of CO2, etc. Use common sense. As I said in another thread, it's a question of what does it cost and who pays?
My 2/100.
RE: Global Warming
That global warming is man-made and will lead to environmental catastrophe is junk science at it's worst... This is all a ploy to sap American industrial prowess while China trys to play catch-up....a much more plausible theory than global warming.
It sounds to me like you'd have said the same thing about the earth being round, if you'd only been born in time. Those yellow heathens are at it again, eh? And this time they've got the whole of the scientific community in on the scam. We should've known that the scientists would eventually join the communists. The scientists are the intellectual elite, after all, who continually try to gain the upper hand over the common man, so they can tell him how to live...
RE: Global Warming
corus
RE: Global Warming
As a cautionary tale once upon a time we employed a consultant to model a complex phenomenon. As we continued testing, they would redevelop their mathematical model, and got good agreement with our data, as we added more and more design variables.
BUT... what were they doing? Were they analysing the system from the basics, or were they just adding corrections based on statistical analysis? If it was the latter, had they really EXPLAINED the system, or merely improved the fit of an empirical model?
Which of those two sorts of model can be used to extrapolate?
(Incidentally they were basically curve fitting, so the model was only useful inside the existing design space)
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Global Warming
http://ne
Scientific Consensus
To prove a scientific consensus on global climate change, Oreskes searched the scientific literature for papers published between 1993 and 2003 with the words "global climate change" in their abstracts. She found 928.
"Not one of the papers refuted the claim that human activities are affecting Earth's climate," she said.
According to her review, the scientific literature indisputably links greenhouse gas emissions from human activities—such as driving cars and burning oil and coal to generate electricity—with a rise in surface-air and subsurface-ocean temperatures.
However, Oreskes goes on to write that "many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics."
RE: Global Warming
the problem is that the data sets used by researchers is flawed. Keeping that in mind, of course people will come to the conclusions they do.
BobPE
RE: Global Warming
For more facts see http://www.flat-earth.org/
corus
RE: Global Warming
You are that old??? I mean, to have a good understanding of what the impacts are in your home, a good data set would be 2+ million years....and as for your HVAC system, well, we will factor that out of the equation because it is providing the largest impact to your recorded temperatures, and after all, the data wouldnt look right if the HVAC was factored in....
BobPE
RE: Global Warming
http
RE: Global Warming
that contribution is in the form of the taxes on fuel, licenses, and so forth.
Others don't have the "luxury" because either they haven't earned it or they don't want it bad enough to pay for it.
Jay
Jay Maechtlen
RE: Global Warming
ht
RE: Global Warming
I want these fees to go into a separate fund so that uses of these funds for energy conservation projects, public transit etc. don't have to compete with schools and hospitals. Giving government more money in directed consumption taxes without constraining how they use the revenues generated is nearly pointless- schools and hospitals will ALWAYS win because that's where people's values are. Most members of society have no grasp of the bigger picture on issues like this and shouldn't be expected to have one. Note that I said that such taxation is NEARLY pointless- even if the money is just dumped into public coffers, the taxes will do PART of the job by making people pay more for a finite resource and hence motivating them to CONSERVE it.
RE: Global Warming
It will create more pollution than a modern car per gallon used, not necessarily per mile.
The comment referred to a "motorcycle", not "car", or "personal vehicle in general".
It may be that we should pay more in taxes on fuel, to encourage conservation. Personally, I'm not in favor of it.
Comparing to Europe is ridiculous, because they tax puniitvely to subsdize all the wonderful rapid transit that costs so bloody much. It also acts to control trade balances for those countries which have little or no home-grown fuel reserves.
Fuel taxes, afik, are set aside for highways and related.
Passenger rail is a loser in most applications- only good in heavy metro areas, where destination has enough public transport that cars aren't needed or usefull.
But- that belongs in another thread!
Jay Maechtlen
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
Jay: city design determines which form of transportation is "bloody expensive" or practical. And one thing you can't argue with is that an electric train is a more energy-efficient way to move people around en masse than a freeway packed with idiots in SUVs (or Harleys- take your pick!). Subsidize roads from the public purse yet charge public transit riders for every trip, and subsidize consumption of fossil fuels (or fail to charge the full and true cost for them, what's the dif?) and guess what you get? A typical North American city. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy- build a North American city predicated around the car, and presto! you get a city for which public transit is expensive. It's going to take a couple of generations to undo this idiotic, wasteful mode of city design even if we make a determined effort at it, and ultimately we'll get nowhere unless we start increasing the taxes on fuels NOW to pay for it. We'll reap all sorts of fringe benefits from this move as well, primarily in the form of more liveable and vibrant cities.
RE: Global Warming
Who will decide the True and Full cost of consumption of a product? The bureaucracy of a government agency or a private concern. Neither one are my choice, free markets which aren't truly free has been the current method for a long time and I'll keep that. Subsidized roads? I don't know where you live but roads are supported with fuel taxes. Public transportation on the other hand is usually subsidized and the riders pay only a portion of the true cost of operation.
You also assume that cities are designed, hardly. Most modern cities are not even a single city. Most are a conglomeration of many cities which we call a metro area. LA is a prime example, many cities within a city. If LA doesn't convince you look at Kansas City. There are three different Kansas Cities. Kansas City, MO, Kansas City, KS, and North Kansas City, MO. Which one of those cities was designed?
I will agree it will be some time before we change methods of using energy but price will be the driving force. If gasoline becomes $5.00/gallon you can bet alternatives will be used to reduce fuel expenses. It already is that expensive in Europe and you don't see as many SUV's in Europe.
RE: Global Warming
And don't forget that high speed rail offers a real alternative to air travel for journeys of up to a couple of hours, reducing air pollutiona nd CO2 production.
Incidentally, the proportion of pump price that is tax in the UK is one of the highest in the world, and the UK is an oil exporter...however the UK train system has suffered from decades of underfunding, so the average milage per car in the UK is higher than in other parts of Europe: hihger fuel taxes alone aren't enough to get poele out of their cars. Several polls in the UK have indicated that hypothecated fuel taxes would be popular and poeple would even accept higher fuel taxes if the revenue was hypothecated towards public transport schemes.