While thinking about large cuddly anthropomorphisable animals; here is some interesting info on sea ice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2009%2F05%2F31%2Farctic-sea-ice-time-lapse-from-1978-to-2009-using-nsidc-data%2F&feature=player_embedded
You will have seen from the link in the previous post that 0degC is late this year, the latest fro 50years and since this is plateau time it will be interesting to see what happens during the summer months.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

I watched the ice trying to make it around the tip of Greenland from 1979 to 2008 and did not detect a trend. I especially looked for change during that hot year 1998. I have to admit to a bias against Global Warming. I think if we all became Sun worshippers we could control the heat input better.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

"Educated Opinion??"  Educated on what?  Some engineers since they are educated in a rigrous discipline they are experts on everything.
The whole subject is politically charged, people who don't have a clue are talking like experts ( even in these 4 threads). What a waste of server space.
If your achedemic traing and experience qualifis you to  answer please do so.  If your answer is a non-scientific politically motivated "opinion: chect google groups and find a political forum.  

Oh dear.

In Eng Tips we have our discussions and rants where appropriate.

I don't think we (m)any of us claim to be expert but we do hope to be sufficiently well educated to have some sort of opinions.

This is an important subject, so much so that some engineer websites do have a special enclosure for this topic,
for example, www.Cheresources.com, and I think that if engineers want to discuss it with other engineers (and without Greenies and bubbles heads chiming in) then it is appropriate.
 
Evidently the site operators are happy for this too or else we wouldn't have reached the fourth thread after three very long previous threads.

But, if climate change is beyond our ability to discuss sensibly, are there any other topics we shouldn't discuss?

If you don't think climate change has anything to do with us, please say so and say how we are able to exempt ourselves from the taxes and consequences of policy enacted on our behalf.

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

BJC,
You are out of line.  There is no need for this debate to be only conducted by scientists.  Of course it is political in nature, and we all need to inform ourselves.  Scientists may one day agree on what needs to be done, but engineers will have to figure out how to do it.

Hokie hit the nail on the head.

The reason why I started the original thread was not to debate if climate change was real, it was more to debate if some of the so called solutions were real or just pseudo science. This is mostly the realm of engineers.

Policy is determined by politicians who are no better educated or qualified to judge environmental issues than any other lay group.

What politicians rely upon is properly researched, presented and authenticated reports to inform their decisions.

The Blomberg links suggest that decision taking should be rational.
However, we note that there is contention about the nature of the IPCC report which while the source information is from scientists (some) the summary is political and some of the contributors disputed the final report and campaigned to have their names removed from the credits.

We also note that then and subsequently much of the noise has been deliberately emotional and using emotive words. This is admitted in some quarters as a deliberate attempt to influence policy.

Indeed, I went so far as to consider one aspect of environmental legislation (marine pollution) where there were two different reports that I referenced, the one a report commissioned by the UK's Department of the environment on particulates and air quality and another about marine sulphur emissions. The one talked about morbidity and the other talked about annual deaths.

The language differences were dramatic as was the overall style and content of the reports. One was a report designed to inform policy in a neutral manner. The report's authors were not themselves overtly demonstrating any preferred outcome. The other was a blatant attempt to influence policy.

Another example just recently was the UN report on deaths caused by Global warming that warned that an increase in temperature would result in an increase in deaths in the summer months. It did not indicate how many fewer people would die in the winter due to elevated winter temperatures.

This is increasingly the real problem, that a fully informed scientific debate is not being allowed but instead we have a number of people who are determined on a solution and want to promote that through propaganda.

There are a number of attempts ongoing to provide the most basic of tests of the computer models which is to discover the source code. There was a similar battle to discover the original "undigested" temperature data. There are attempts on both sides of the Atlantic to access computer source code which, unless we are to transform the process of scientific method, is a pre-requisite of the evaluation of the science.

In too many fundamental areas there is obscuration and propaganda.

If we are not to discuss the science then I am quite sure that the members of these fora are well qualified, more qualified than most, to understand the issues with computer modelling, with meaningful data and thus at the very least can consider and comment on the nature of the manner in whci evidence is derived and presented.

Indeed, one might even say that it is fora such as this that in their own way add to the efforts of surface temperature.com and watts up with that in showing the "deniers" among climate scientists that they are not fighting a lost cause (especially if that cause is the preservation of the proper scientific method) and that the debate is not over.



 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8121625.stm

What a great piece of kit..

"Data from the craft, published last year, also suggested that the solar wind - the stream of charged particles billowing away from the Sun - is at its weakest for 50 years"

Wonder if that has any influence on climate change?

 

jmw, well stated.

Is there a book published on this topic.
Not a watered down 'for the public' book but one with all the details of the mathematical models, and the modeling of extraneous sources???

It's the only way to get a grasp on this issue as it has become SO politicized with legions of half qualified nuts chiming in at every angle with their opinions about the methods. Any reading of this stuff leave one with unanswered questions that are fundamental to the validity of the opinion.

NOTE i am not referring to any posters here on this board specifically. I just think this would be the most likely place to find a qualified reference.



 

I guess Educated Opinion means people that have read at least one book on weather in their lifetime?

I only mention it because I bought my first couple weather books over the past few months and haven't done much more than look things up.

Now when the topic comes up I now can't help but to wonder, did they read their books on weather when I couldn't find to?

kontiki99 - we're not talking about weather here, although weather is a by-product of climate.  We're talking about climate, or more specifically the global climate.

I too would be very interested in having the actual climate models (source code) discussed.  While my comprehension of climate is not near what these climate scientists have, I have considerable experience in computer simulations of complicated system (that's what the climate scientists claim their models are of - complicated systems).  Therefore, I would consider myself qualified to offer opinions on the computer modeling.  However, in the event that my opinion of said model were not in line with the current orthodoxy regarding AGW, I would be labeled "unqualified".  If, OTOH, my opinion were inline with the AGW orthodoxy, then my opinion would be hailed as "cross-discipline confirmation".

jmw is right, in my opinion, that we as engineers are highly qualified to opine on the costs of implementing corrective actions to such problems (as may or may not exist) - that's what we do on a day to day basis.

Further to that - we should also be at the forefront of discussions such as "Is the cost of going back to the climate of (insert date here) more costly than simply adapting to the present (or future postulated) climate?"

On that topic - jmw discusses the UN report about global warming deaths.  What that report doesn't do a good job of discussing is how those deaths could be prevented (dams/dikes, deep-water wells, desalination, etc).  If the interest is in saving lives, then let's look at saving those lives directly, and not trying to do something that might indirectly save them.  No?

Everybody clamors for 'data!' when discussing global warming.  

I do not believe that any such singular metric or data presented will ever concisely reflect climate change from a historical perspective.  Delta T, CO2 emmision, Solar Radiation; all discrete measures of an indiscrete system.

The grand system of climate is far too complex, too intracate, too inter-related, too massive, and too subtle to ever exhibit data signals so strongly they can be claimed as 'proof' no matter which side of the debate you fall.

The only value such data offers is validation that the Eath is earfully and wonderfully made; and perhaps it is only human arrogance that presents that we are so powerful as a species to independently change climate of our own will.

 

This is the surprise news:
The UN will announce that Global warming isn;t going to be as bad as thought:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536454/UN-downgrades-mans-impact-on-the-climate.html

I take this badly. This is the French variation of how to stuff the tax payer and a policy much plagiarised by the UK Government.
You proclaim something really bad like, for example, road tax at £1.40 per mile (I did 20,000 miles last year) and when everyone screams loudly enough and long enough they are so relieved when the Government recants and says "Sorry, just kidding; it will only be £0.50 per mile." everyone is supposed to be so releved they will forget they didn't want to pay any road tax since they already pay three times as much money in car tax and fuel tax as is spent on the roads that paying more just means even more money will not be hypothecated.

So here we are expected to see this as reasonable (actually, probably more "affordable") when what we really want to question is whether AGW exists or not and whether we are warming or cooling before we spend anything.

Oh well, we are just a little bit pregnant I guess.

Incidentally, what I was looking for was an article on Orpheus or whatever which is now to be swicthed off but which has measured that the solar wind is at its lowest in a 50 year cycle. But that doesn't matter because the sun has nothing to do with climate  (but everything to do with weather?)

[quote]The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.[/data]

How can data be "improved"? surely we either understand the data better or have more of it? Improved is what they did to the GISS data to "correct" it.

However, what this suggests is that the data so far was so por that some magical "improvement" has reduced estimates significantly. SHould that happen? should it not refine the data better?
How should we measure it? shouldn't the new data mean that instead of 300% errors from the climate computer model we should get 1505% errors not drop below the previously declared limit values?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

rhodie - I wasn't clamoring for data, just the source code for the climate models (i.e. what affects what by how much, what are the coefficients to the various multi-variable equations, etc.).  I suppose that it would be possible to do some empirical curve-fitting that would "reproduce" the past, but if none of that is based on hard, scientific correlations, then future predictions are mere extrapolations from a (potentially) crazy curve-fit.  We've all experienced the 3rd or 4th order curve that is perfectly acceptable for a small range of applicability, but becomes very very wrong outside that range.

jmw - I know what you mean.  Data is data.  It doesn't get better or worse, you either have more of it, or you, as you say, "correct" it.  They likely incorporated additional data points into their curve-fit, found out that the older curve fit didn't "fit" anymore, and reworked it.  I'd be willing to bet that there are some data points that were thrown out because their inclusion in the set didn't fit with the orthodoxy of the investigators (maybe sea levels will go down, or maybe do nothing...).

I read today an article in the NYTimes that equates anyone who questions AGW with treason - treason against the planet!  How does one have any sort of reasonable discussion when the politics becomes Me-Good, You-Bad/Evil.

Hokie66 I am on base,  some people are in wrong ballpark.

"The reason why I started the original thread was not to debate if climate change was real"
Your not going to find out if it's real listening to a bunch of "educated" engineers.

It's not really the realm of engineers.  I don't recall seeing one post by a climatologist, a paleo-climatologist, a geophysicist or any other real scientist.  For all their "education" listening to engineers on this topic is just a couple of froghairs above listening to the same debate in a truck stop.
The debate on the subject has become more political because it will mean someone has to spend money.  Our government is wonderful because if you think your going to have to spend money you can always hire someone to agree with you.  Lobbyist can always find experts to agree with their view.  They will do what they can to stir the debate amongst the public.
After hundreds of post there has been nothing original said about global warming, few if anyone has changed their opinion.
A debate on String Theory-Is it Real? Where's the dark matter in the Cosmos or Intelligent Design might go on for a long  time but when you squeeze the gold out of the mercury there won't be any thing there.
Whats wrong with global warming?  I am already working to set –up a  Carbon Dixode removal system in a power plant.  Global Warming or not it's green to me at the moment.
.  

BJC,

And you won't see any posts by those "real scientists" on this site.  But when they want to sequester carbon or decide that we need more nuclear power plants, they will come running.  And when they want to set up a carbon trading scheme, they will listen to the lawyers, accountants, and other rip off merchants.

Anyway, good luck with your CO2 removal.  You will need it.

BJC,
If you find this discussion irrelevant or offensive, then you should not waste your time reading or throwing stink bombs into the middle of it.  I didn't open any thread on this discussion for nearly a year because I was sick of each side simply talking to themselves and no one ever convincing anyone to change their point of view.

My position hasn't changed in years--the climate is changing.  The climate has always changed.  The climate will always change.  Computer models NEVER EVER prove anything, at best they can only help lead human beings to insights at worst they can be used to manipulate public opinion.  The best data I've reviewed is inconclusive, contradictory, and filled with human manipulation (of the data, not the environment).  If this were a purely scientific/technical discussion then it would be a hoot, but when you add the dimension of governments basing policy on sanitized data then the discussion goes from an interesting academic exercise to a real possibility that ill-informed policies will result in unnecessary injury and death of actual human beings.

Again, please stow your ad hominem arguments and either bring data or just don't open the thread.

David

rhodie:  I'd argue that it's wishful thinking that we humans are incapable of changing the climate as a by-product of what we do.

The Earth will be fine- on the geological timescale.  But we humans have, incontrovertbily, altered the composition of the atmosphere significantly in a geological nanosecond.

The nature and extent of the consequences is unknown- but it would be foolish to assume that there won't be any.  It would similarly be foolish to just continue blindly down the same path that produced the step change in atmospheric composition in the first place.  Doing so flies in the face of all we know and practice in relation to risk management as engineers.

How do you define "significant"?

We may well have altered the composition of the atmosphere.

Not hardly as much as a good volcano, but yes.

Obviously we can measure the changes and the amounts of emissions we release but measurable isn't the same, in this context, as "significant".

"Significant" has to mean that the change has some impact on other parameters. That is what the AGW camp would have us believe and what the "deniers" deny.

Saying we have "incontrovertibly altered the atmosphere in a geological nanosecond" does not do anything but add more colourful and emotive language to the debate.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

No volcano in recorded human history has increased atmospheric CO2 concetnration by anything nearly 100 ppm.  That's what we've done since 1832, based on the ice core CO2 data.  Look at the curve- eruptions the size of Mt. St. Helens hardly register as a blip.

Don't believe the ice core data?  OK, fine.  We did about 80 ppm of that 100 ppm since 1960.  That's not speculation, or model output, or measurements based on trapped samples of gas- those are EASILY PERFORMED DIRECT MEASUREMENTS of the atmosphere itself.

That's relative to a 2009 mean concentration somewhere in the range of 390 ppm.

Increasing a non-trace component of the atmosphere by some 35 percent is what I'd term significant.  More significant than extincting a few hundred or thousand species, which we've also done.  

Is the effect on climate as significant as our alteration of the forest cover on entire continents?  I don't know- but we've done that too.

Still think humans are too puny to affect the earth's climate?!

Since 1832 atmospheric CO2 concetnration has increased by 100ppm

80 ppm of that 100 ppm increase has taken place since 1960

That's not speculation, or model output, or measurements based on trapped samples of gas- those are EASILY PERFORMED DIRECT MEASUREMENTS of the atmosphere itself

Can't dispute any of your numbers - not that I would try but what evidence do you have to show that these changes are wholly or partly attributable to human activity?.

A clear hint is that the shape of the concentration versus time curve happens to map very nicely on anthropogenic CO2 emission estimates over the same time period.  

There is a carbon cycle, with carbon sources and sinks of both natural and man-made variety, which have both steady state and dynamic dependences on numerous factors.  But the basic carbon balance in the atmosphere is far easier to model than it is to model the overall climate.  And the trend in both MEASURED atmospheric CO2 AND estimated total anthropogenic CO2 emissions is unmistakeable.

Those who don't buy that increased CO2 concentrations put us at risk of harmful effects on climate, or who argue that our best efforts to control our CO2 emissions won't be enough so why bother trying at all, or that Gaia will take care of it (or make it far worse) regardless what we do, or who argue that the whole climactic system is inherently too complex to predict any outcomes from so there's no point in taking mitigating action- those people I can at least understand their arguments, although I don't share their point of view.

Those who deny that humans are "big" enough to affect the earth's climate, I sincerely ask to give their heads a shake.  I'm sorry, but I have a hard time respecting that position given the atmospheric CO2 concentration data.

The only question is, are we "big" enough to change it back?  I have no definite answer to that question.  The more I read here, the more depressed I get- the less likely it seems that humankind will even TRY, sincerely, to bring those CO2 emissions down, given the reluctance of even engineers to take a risk management approach to the problem like we do with just about everything else- things with far less consequence to human life than this issue could represent.  No, too many of us want proof- of the smoking gun variety, first, before doing anything- proof we will NEVER EVER HAVE.  

I am utterly convinced that we should be doing whatever we can to preserve those precious, finite and valuable fossil petroleum resources rather than squandering them, whether global climate impact is one of the unintended consequences or not.  Indeed that is the very least we can and should do, regardless what the models tell us.

moltenmetal - very insightful posts - much appreciated.  Does the concentration of CO2 have a direct correlation to global temperature increase?  Not a causal relationship, but a direct correlation - or is the earth heating from something else that coincides with an increase in CO2?  Those are the questions that trouble me the most regarding AGW.

I don't doubt that humans put additional CO2 into the atmosphere, we have been burning a lot of carbon-based fuels, plus we have been cutting down a lot of trees.  But, I don't see the relationship to temperature change.

There are 6 billion +plus human beings walking the earth today.

500 years ago, there were 500 million people walking the earth.

In 1960, that number had increased to 2.97 billion.

From 1960 to now, the delta is at least 3.1 B people.  Of course there is going to be atmospheric differences.  Short of purging 52% of the world's population, that atmospheric data is going to show some change.

World Population Data Source

My statement reflects that the earth has endured significant changes in supported life; and yet it seems only in the past 15 years have we begun a concerted effort to understand that ability.  And even still, the 'culprit' is being identified as the very mechanisms and techniques used to facilitate population growth.

It's not a climate issue, it's a sanctity of life issue.  I see nothing but self-loathing being the tangible result.

"Of course"

The term oft used when there is no real evidence.

- Steve

A clear hint is that...
A hint?? A hint is not evidence, it's just a pointer to something worth investigating further

And the trend in both MEASURED atmospheric CO2 AND estimated total anthropogenic CO2 emissions is unmistakeable.
Estimated? How good is the estimate? Even if the estimate is really good, what does the trend tell us - probably no more than the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are going up - but without other evidence, it tells us nothing about the cause?

The only question is, are we "big" enough to change it back?
This is not the only question - any half decent RCA would consider all posibilities and then go through a process of elimination so that only the most likely causes are remaining - what has happened here is that far too many people have jumped on the man-made CO2 hypothesis because it represents a money making opportunity.
What about CO2 changes resulting from variations in the distance between the earth and the sun? What about the influence of vairations in Solar wind?

No, too many of us want proof- of the smoking gun variety, first, before doing anything- proof we will NEVER EVER HAVE
Being asked to believe without having any proof is a statement of religion. A good balance of probability would do for me, but I don't even see that in the man-made CO2 argument.

I am utterly convinced that we should be doing whatever we can to preserve those precious, finite and valuable fossil petroleum resources rather than squandering them, whether global climate impact is one of the unintended consequences or not.  Indeed that is the very least we can and should do, regardless what the models tell us.
At last, something we can agree on - I am 100% with you on this

@ SomptingGuy

My response is in reply to data that reflects atmospheric change.  Short of making my head implode due to nested root cause, I'm not sure that your 'of course' comment is applicable...

rhodie:

I was just questioning your basic argument strategy/language.  Phrases like "of course", "quite clearly" and "obviously" are aimed at slipping in a position sans evidence.  No personal slur.  No real position in this argument.  Just being vigilant.

- Steve

This is just a general response not directed at anyone in particular.  

This whole issue regardless of the side taken is not going to be solved by policy or politics or technology.  Technology has just enabled population to increase.  The population needs to stay warm in the winter, and wants to stay cool in the summer.  The population must consume certain things to survive, and wants to consume frivolous things when survival is not thier top priority.  A major catastrophy is the only thing that will cause the population to make a step change in required and desired behaviour.

I take the stance that I really don't care what happens as I have no control over the outcome.  I can only worry about my immediate responsibilies of supporting my family. I will adapt or perish either way, as will my children.  The more we conserve now only enables the population to grow further.  I do not waste needlessly, but I don't obsess over conservation either.  There is too much to enjoy in this life to allow issues such as these to taint one's soul.

 

I do think Man can have an influence on the environment.

Forget CO2.

Forget volcanoes and CO2.

Think instead that one good volcano can produce sufficient particulates to bring about a noticeable chilling.

9/11 saw global air travel shut down for a while.

The drop in particulates was measurable and possibly significant... the temp went up.

Of course, the temperature might have gone up because it was a weather thing, not a climate thing and not a pollution thing.

But we do know quite a bit about the effects of particulates on our weather and if we do something really big or keep it up long enough, just maybe we can even affect climate.
We have far fewer uncertainties with chilling.
Worse, we can get significant effects from comparatively small changes - e.g. fuel sulphur reduction. Maybe the shift from coal to oil and gas has so reduced particulates that we think we are seeing warming and really all we are seeing is less chilling.
Maybe chilling has been masking warming (Anthropogenic or not).

But particulates could be the Weather Nuke while CO2 is a damp squib.
That's why the ecoengineers want to go for artificial volcanoes - particulates!
And SOX in particular (no pun intended).
 
Of course, it could be these guys like the dramatic end of the reel finish: clip the blue wire or the green wire?

Or nuke the asteroid.

Of course, what they're proposing is pretty drastic and damned expensive.

BUT we're not 100% sure what the problem is we're supposed to be trying to fix.
A lot of people argue we are in a ice age, or coming out of one.
And solar activity is at a 50 year low; maybe the sort of low associated with the "Maunder Minimums." e.g. the little ice age.

So we do something really clever to stop global warming and bingo! we freeze our butts off.

The really scary thing is that IF we have caused global warming, we've done it over quite an extended period of time through a steady stream of pollutants.

These Jokers want a quick fix. The big bang and everyone a hero.

Think about about it.

WE don't have a good record of well-intentioned meddling and what we propose isn't a long term series of tinkering with a park where hopefully we put what we learned wrecking one park into saving a park that can be saved, we're going to fix an entire planet all in one go.

If I didn't think we could affect our atmosphere, our weather, and even our climate, not even if we really put our minds to it, "Fine" I'd say, "fine, go ahead and see if I care" - at least we'll still have a planet.

But these guys won't want to mess around for years with some incremental solution where at every step you pause, collect the data, consider what you've achieved (learn) and then adjust your response; these guys are going to want to go for the  one time fix it big and fix it quick solutions.

Tell me where in all these fix it scenarios is the project plan with the KPIs and the milestones, the check and balances? When do we stop and take an objective look at the achievement so far? Is it in any of the plans? If we get it wrong, where is our recovery position? Where are the contingency plans if we discover CO2 is ineffective or hat we fired aup a few volcanoes we can't switch off and we are actually in a new little ice age.. even a little tiny one, coupled with our AGW plans could see an irretrievable disaster.

When you let go with a nuke, its an either/or situation, you're never just a little bit pregnant.

The assumption appears to be:

• Man caused global warming. Don't argue.
• Man can Fix it. No question, just give us enough money
• There is no argument. Give us your money.
• We know we're right and we don't need cehcks s o therefore we are going to just go ahead and fix it.
• We don't need any delays or long drawn out processes, let's just do it (for the Gipper?)!

I recall that Boeing report (I mentioned t on another thread) where they claimed that 80% (or some such figure) of failures are caused by maintenance.

This is the biggest maintenance project in town and this ain't a 747. If something goes wrong it we'd better have a reserve planet to hand.

So yes, I'm worried.

I'm worried that some of these guys have latched onto schemes and mechanisms that we know only too well can have a significant effect on climate.

I'm worried they may want to fix in an afternoon what took a few decades to create.
I'm worried they may even be addressing the wrong problem.




 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

TPL:  I bet you don't "believe" cigarettes cause cancer, either.

Engineers don't need a firm causal relationship to take precautionary action.  Low probability times high severity STILL merits mitigating action- and I for one don't confuse uncertainty with low probability in relation to this issue.  Calling that "religion" is a total misrepresentation!

We ARE working on the preponderance of the evidence, analyzed and agreed to by the majority of people who actually study the subject for a living.  The systems in question are FAR too complex to permit a firm causal link to be established to everyone's satisfaction FIRST before we do something about it.  Too many here and elsewhere confuse the normal scientific process of debate, alternative hypothesis, analysis and the generation of a normative consensus, with some kind of fantasyland notion of science where everyone agrees and there's no need for debate.

Even if we do agree on the risk of anthropogenic climate change, we can still argue about what mitigating actions make sense, what they'll cost and how they should be paid for.  

I view the AGW risk to be yet another compelling reason we should be spending money- serious money- toward kicking our fossil fuel addiction.  I'm of the opinion that only those actions which actually minimize the consumption of the fossil fuels themselves merit serious consideration.  Actions such as carbon sequestration, which actually HASTEN our consumption of the source fossil fuels by reducing the overall energy efficiency of the process of obtaining energy from them, should be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

 

laplacian:  none of us here are any less entitled to the resources we need to survive than anyone in previous generations were.  

None of us are entitled to waste, though.

We're squandering a finite resource at a shameful rate, and generating huge negative consequences at the same time, whether you consider AGW or not.

Unfortunately, far too many people feel that they are entitled to consume whatever they can "afford".  Since I bear consequences from their consumption, their consumption becomes my business.  So yes, I care what you do- I just wish I didn't have to.  

The first step toward making everyone mindful of how much they consume is by making fossil energy EXPENSIVE- not simply by permitting those who won the geological lottery to charge more for it as it becomes scarcer.  We need to tax fossil fuels to provide both a disincentive against unnecessary, wasteful consumption AND to provide assistance to those who want to reduce their consumption but can't afford the capital to do so.  And we need to adjust the taxes until we see the behavior changes we all need- energy consumption has a lot of price "elasticity".

Moltenmetla;
smoking is associated with cancers, yes. But that isn't the whole story.
Smokers are at risk from a range of cancers but they are also at less risk to a range of other cancers than non-smokers.

But don't lets have any red herrings.

The precautionary principle has been decried by a number of people and discussed before in these threads.
It isn't a "no-brainer".

Quote:

Engineers don't need a firm causal relationship to take precautionary action.

Science does require a causal relationship which is why the climate change camp have criticised solar scientists who would link sun spot activity with climate change - the attraction of the link between the "Maunder Minimum" and the little ice age not-withstanding.

But I'd be happy to accept your proposal and say that on that basis, the sun does provide major forcing of the climate and the "evidence" at the moment, suggests we are in for some cold weather.

BUT note: what that acceptance of solar activity as a factor in climate does suggest is that the climate models are imprecise because there is a possible mechanism that cannot be and is not accounted for in their model. For solar activity to be excluded requires that either they can show that solar activity is not a forcing factor or that hey declare this an interesting hypothesis and that we need to investigate further before we can make any sort of predictions.

Quote:

...and agreed to by the majority of people who actually study the subject for a living.

Er, the Manhattan declaration?
Some consensus.
And no, consensus isn't what science is about either.
The test of the science is for the raw data to be separately interpreted to see if the original results can be duplicated.

If only the fundamental work were more reliable and if only they would release the computer code so the means by which predictions have been made could be analysed independently.

Then too there is a great deal of concern over the way in which the data is presented, analysed and interpreted.

This link, for example, looks at another of the claims about temperature rise:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/

We still have yet to establish that getting warmer is worse than getting colder... Yes, OK, warm weather leads to more deaths in the summer but it also leads to far fewer deaths in the warmer winters... yet that isn't waht the latest UN panel report said.

Openness is an essential requirement yet getting the unadulterated GISS data out into the open was like pulling teeth and we still have a problem getting a public servant to release computer code written and funded by the taxpayer so that it too may be scrutinised. These are not great conditions for the precautionary principle to operate under.   

If we had that openness and we had honest debate then maybe, just maybe the precautionary principle could move up the agenda.

The temperature data manipulations are questionable. The original temperature data is suspect (www.surfacetemperature.org) and the corrections for urban heat island hotly debated.

Quote:

Even if we do agree on the risk of anthropogenic climate change, we can still argue about what mitigating actions make sense, what they'll cost and how they should be paid for.  

see the links to Blomberg.
We can benefit far more people through a modest investment in malaria than we can through the much higher cost of addressing CO2.

But if you want to look at cost/benefit then the ecoengineers who want sunshades in space and artificial volcanoes may be right.... if global warming is the problem.

But how ironic that the climate change camp have moved on from "global warming" to "abrupt climate change" to some other damn expression coined by Obama's climate advisor/guru, but the mechanisms proposed (and according to the precautionary principle we should do it anyway even if we are wrong about change)are not actually about climate change, abrupt or otherwise; they are still all geared to just one scenario - warming.

If it is truly about change then we need a solution that will allow us a cooling mechanism to counter a trend for warming and a warming mechanism for when the trend is to cooling.

We also need to be able to monitor the relationship between the warming or cooling and our response to it and be able to manage the effect effectively (I'm sure engineers would agree to that).

And we need to apply the right solution at the right time.
Because of the control lag we need some kind off feed forward control and we need to be able to make much more reliable predictions than now - in fact a major problem with the climate change models is that they are proving very poor at predictions.

In other words, even though we don't have a clear unequivocal idea of what the problem is neither do we have a good solution. Without that we have no way to implement a precautionary principle that is effective against change.

Of course, if the activists would revert back to a single problem, global warming, then we might get somewhere because we could just consider countering warming.



 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

TPL:  I bet you don't "believe" cigarettes cause cancer, either

So how did you draw that conclusion? Actually I believe that there is more than enough evidence to show that smoking does signifciantly increase the risk of developnig cancer.

From the 1940's and 50's 'Big Tobacco' companies also knew that their products were extremely damaging to the health of those who used them and used denial and suppression of this evidence, along with massive cover ups, and campaigns of misinformation to present a more benign image of the product to the consumer. All this was done to maintain their financial well being. Sound familiar??

Michael Crichton, in his book "State of Fear" draws a comparison not with the smoking campaigns but more appositely, with the Eugenics theories of the early 20th century.
The similarities between eugenics then (California, one of 23 such states, passed sterilisation laws and enthusiastically employed them) and climate change now are alarming.

The precautionary principle at work?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

TPL:  yep, go for the ad hominem, just because you don't like my analogy.  That's a sure sign of a weak position.

Does the cigarette analogy sound familiar?  Umm, to me it sounds EXACTLY like the petroleum-industry funded anti-AGW camp.  Spend the money to sew the seeds of dissent in the hope of staving off the inevitable for a while, to maximize the ability to generate profit in the interim.  Ethics aside, it's a very sound business investment! It bought the tobacco industry another 30 years- why wouldn't the petroleum industry get on board?

I don't disagree with you that there are vested interests who stand to benefit on BOTH sides of this debate- it just seems to me that one group has one of the planet's most profitable industries on its side, while the other for the most part makes do with government research funding.  If it's a battle of vested interests, I know which side wins.

jmw:  consensus determines the prevailing theory.  A better theory may yet  present itself, shifting the paradigm.  But for now, we DO have a prevailing theory with a vastly smaller camp in dissent.  You can argue that the consensus is wrong, and you can rightly remind people that it is not a universal monolithic consensus, but you can't deny that a consensus exists on this issue amongst climatologists.

I'm not advocating "doing something"- I'm advocating NOT doing something- reducing the rate at which we burn through our precious and FINITE reserves of fossil fuels.  I'm not advocating population control, carbon sequestration or planetary climate engineering- to do those things in response to the finite but unquantified risk of AGW are not sensible in my view.  

You can argue that there are better places for us to spend our money rather than on reducing our fossil fuel consumption, such as your suggestion to tackle malaria. I don't disagree with you on that poin.  However I understand full well why malaria isn't receiving the attention it deserves as a global issue and ALSO know that the money we don't spend on mitigating AGW will NEVER be spent on reducing malaria.  The whole argument is a straw man, just like those who feign concern for what will happen to the poor if we make fuels more expensive.  Honestly I don't think you can legitimately argue that reducing the rate at which we piss through these precious feedstocks is anything other than to humankind's collective benefit.

Quote:

I'm not advocating "doing something"- I'm advocating NOT doing something

Actually, you are advocating doing something.  You're advocating the introduction of socialistic tax policy so that rich pays for the consumption by the poor.

Quote (moltenmetal):

We need to tax fossil fuels to provide both a disincentive against unnecessary, wasteful consumption AND to provide assistance to those who want to reduce their consumption but can't afford the capital to do so.

Tax the rich to pay for the poor.
 

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Better than taxing everyone to pay for the waste of a few-

But even if you put the tax money in a pile and burn it, rather than giving it to the poor (or the landlords of the poor, more properly), we'd still be farther ahead than we are now.  Suddenly there'd be a payback on investments to reduce energy consumption and to generate renewable energy.

What I meant was that the actions I'm suggesting are entirely reversible.  If we discover tomorrow that CO2 emissions are actually beneficial, we can switch back to squander mode the next day.  The analogy to eugenics etc. is total hogwash.

OK, so if you are proposing we use less fuel then to the extent we can and to the extent that we are ot chasing diminishing returns I don't think there is too much argument that we ought not to waste and we ought to care for our environment.
Good so far as it goes but investing in wind farms is pretty disruptive.
In the UK they today claim that it will create 250,000 jobs... yes, 250,000. I guess they learned from the US experience where the jobs claimed were compared with jobs lost in the rest of the power industry and found to be significantly out of balance... the job gains were fewer than the job losses.
Of course, the small print on the UK declaration (by the industry itself so pretty self serving and if we are going to cast a clout at the oil industry we have to remember that the billions pent on these issues go to the proponents of these schemes) we have all sorts of caveats.

But once you've done away with gas, oil and coal fired facilities you can't just put them back overnight. There is a degree of commitment that requires, in my opinion, better and more robust evidence than so far presented.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

==> Better than taxing everyone to pay for the waste of a few-
I completely disagree.  Moreover, I think that policy would have the exact reverse effect as intended.

In your post of 2 Jul 09 7:53, you stated that

Quote (moltenmetal):

far too many people feel that they are entitled to consume whatever they can "afford".

The rich, precisely because they're rich, are not likely to curb much on their consumption because despite the additional taxes, they can still afford it.  Further, with respect to the poor, they're just as likely to increase consumption because their consumption would now be subsidized by the rich and/or government. The net effect is that overall consumption would probably go up and the only entity to suffer is the environment.  That's not the goal, at least I don't think it's the goal.

Quote:

But even if you put the tax money in a pile and burn it, rather than giving it to the poor (or the landlords of the poor, more properly), we'd still be farther ahead than we are now.  Suddenly there'd be a payback on investments to reduce energy consumption and to generate renewable energy.

That doesn't add up.  As stated above, consumption by the rich is not likely to go down substantially, so there is very little benefit there.  Giving the money to the landlords of the poor is just giving the back to the rich so the only thing you've done is introduce a cost layer of overhead in the collection of taxes and subsequent redistribution.  No benefit to the environment there, but the middle man is now making money.  And if you don't render those tax receipts back to the poor, then all you've is tax and hurt the poor - the people least able to absorb such a tax policy.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

This discussion is rapidly reaching the exact same point with exactly the same participants that #3 was at when I stopped opening that thread.

I work in the Oil & Gas industry so I guess folks will say that I'm just a "stooge".  Oh well.  I can't find any evidence that any of my clients are in any way pushing an agenda like

Quote (moltenmetal):

Umm, to me it sounds EXACTLY like the petroleum-industry funded anti-AGW camp

If they're going to fund it, I want to know where to get my share.

In 1996 I worked for BP.  I did a project that was both "green" and profitable.  When I was writing it up for an SPE HSE conference, the Enviro-weenie on the board insisted on reviewing my paper before submittal.  It came back with my phrase "This project reduced the amount of so-called greenhouse gases that some people claim are affecting the global climate" marked out and replaced with "This project reduced greenhouse gas emissions".  That was the only change.  Also, that same company is the world's largest producer of solar panels.  I don't see anyone in Big Oil with an anti AGW agenda.  I also don't see space in anyone's budget to fight this battle.  Think about it--no matter what happens, the Petroleum industry is going to produce all the oil and gas that is economically recoverable regardless of Kyoto, the UN, or us gnats buzzing around.  

The conspiracy theory of life is a staple of the world's Environ-Weirdos I'm thoroughly sick of it.  Companies cannot have an opinion.  People have opinions and I can assure you that in every level of every industry, there are people with every imaginable opinion.  Let's talk about published data, not about the evil executives that are spinning the data.

David

moltenmetal stated "Actions such as carbon sequestration, which actually HASTEN our consumption of the source fossil fuels by reducing the overall energy efficiency of the process of obtaining energy from them, should be viewed with a jaundiced eye." While capture, transportation, and sequestration (css) will undoubtedly require more energy than venting CO2 to atmosphere, I am disappointed that he casts css in such a negative light. It seems to me to be the best way a company in the oil sands business can hope to meet CO2 emission standards which are bound to come in the next few years. Even if such a company spent a lot on reducing customers' consumption of oil, the company would be hard pressed to book the credits. As a group of engineers, I would like to see discussion on carbon capture from power plants in particular.
 

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

owg,
He's not wrong (about that).  I recently looked at a sequestration project that was going to require 130% of the energy output of the plant (really high injection pressure and the client insisted on liquid transport).  There's just no justification for adding that much capital, fuel consumption, pollution for a "green" project, but the client is pretty certain that government disincentives to venting CO2 will make it work (a power plant that puts nothing on the grid and has to purchase power over and above its capacity to run back end processes can't be smart).  

The "carbon tax", "cap and trade", and whatever voodoo follows those potential disasters will cause some good projects to become uneconomical, and will spin off many very bad projects that the artificial nonsense will make locally and temporarily profitable.  When politicians are relying on Kate Couric for technical data, the outcome has to suck.

David

I could not agree more, David.  Carbon trading and carbon sequestration are the most illogical ideas to come down the track.  Politically motivated in the main to be seen to be doing something.  Then the opportunist money grabbers got involved when they saw a chance to make a buck.  Neither scheme helps, and they take attention away from things that would.

Cajuncenturian:  if a carbon tax behaved the way you described, I wouldn't be in favour of it either.

First off, rich or poor, I don't think people relish the idea of spending a large fraction of their money on electricity and fuel.  What they want is the convenience and comfort that these sources of energy offer them.  Some of that comfort and convenience is going to be gone forever, but most of it can be achieved for far less energy input than we're using now with only modest investment.  The trouble is, energy is SO cheap at present that those investments are foolhardy.

A carbon tax would need to be implemented as only one of a series of initiatives all related to the same goal:  weaning people from their fossil fuels addiction.

The biggest problem in your argument is that you assume that governments would fund the energy consumption of the poor, such that there would be no impetus for them to reduce their consumption.  That would be an idiotic program indeed.  Rather, the carbon tax money would be used to fund energy efficiency programs, public transit etc.

Here, the landlords of the poor are often public housing organizations, funded by the taxpayer.   Public housing units are some of the most energy-inefficient (and uncomfortable) places in Canadian cities, yet no capital funding is forthcoming to upgrade them- even though the public is also on the hook for the utility bills.  A carbon tax with a grant program for energy efficiency upgrades would make a world of difference.

You are probably correct that for the very rich, nothing you might do on the tax and credit level will be effective in reducing their consumption.  That's where regulation and other public policy measures would be needed.  Energy efficiency standards can be improved in building codes, regulations for new vehicles, appliances etc.

Will any of this matter given China and India's development?  Probably not.  On the other hand, China and India's development will eventually do for fossil carbon pricing what a carbon tax would- without the benefit of the tax money to fund the efficiency upgrades.
 

David,
Thanks for that information on the very inefficient capture, ship, and sequester project. Is there anything in the public domain on it?

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Quote (moltenmetal ):

The biggest problem in your argument is that you assume that governments would fund the energy consumption of the poor, such that there would be no impetus for them to reduce their consumption.

No, I am making no such assumption; I'm responding to what you proposed.  You proposed the subsidy, which is why I don't think it's a good idea.

In your post of 2 Jul 09 7:53, and I quote,

Quote (moltenmetal):

We need to tax fossil fuels to provide both a disincentive against unnecessary, wasteful consumption AND to provide assistance to those who want to reduce their consumption but can't afford the capital to do so.

Those are your words, not mine.  You are explicitly suggesting to provide assistance to those who can't afford the capital to do so.  That IS a subsidy.  That being said, we agree to the conclusion that providing such assistance removes the impetus to conserve.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

OWG,
No, I did the analysis in February of this year and my report was covered by an NDA, I won't be writing that one up or talking about where it is or what sink they were planning to use.  I was pretty discouraged when I saw the magnitude of the negative energy balance.  It was interesting that on that project, dense-phase injection used considerably less energy than liquefaction (and less than the total plant output, but not much).  Liquefaction required as much refrigeration hp as it did compression/pump hp even with turbo expanders (J-T valves were a non-starter because the energy lost in the dP exceeded the energy required to get the same dT with a refrigeration plant by quite a bit).

I may write up a generic version of the project one day, but I don't have any plans right now.

David

My two cents,  that's all its worth.

From a cursory inspection of the temperature charts that have been produced using historical reconstruction and recent actual temperature measurements it appears as though the warming is NOT a natural event as the rate of rise is unprecedented over the measured span.

Independent of anything else, greenhouse gasses do trap heat through a lop sided absorption spectrum. That solar radiation is broadband, and the earth absorbs and re radiates a narrow band of radiation which interacts with the atmosphere is commonly understood.

Thus viewing the Earth as an isolated thermodynamic system it does and always has absorbed more energy than escapes from it.  

So greenhouse gasses increase the rate at which the earth captures heat. But whether this heat is "stored " in some form like a very high specific heat medium or it disperses into a very large volume thus minimizing actual temperature rise is THE most important question.

What mechanisms shift thermal energy around the globe and what is the overall specific heat of the planet in a broad sense. It just could be that the added absorption rate is "handled" by natural dispersion mechanisms. On the other hand maybe these thermal energy transfer systems would change their operation due to the excess, and this by product could endanger our existence.

The answer lies in the vast pool of data available and computer modeling and estimation procedures.
In the meantime what is wrong with curtailing the usage of greenhouse gasses until we understand it better.

Like any investment it causes temporary pain but pays off later. We could easily learn to live with less energy usage.

 

Quote:

From a cursory inspection of the temperature charts that have been produced using historical reconstruction and recent actual temperature measurements it appears as though the warming is NOT a natural event as the rate of rise is unprecedented over the measured span.

Take a look at www.surface temperature.org (and http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf)

Quote:

"In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report
a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government
agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable."

And the killer quote:

Quote:

The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the
twentieth century.

Then allow that this record has been further manipulated by adjusting the GISS data for various effects including, for example, Urban Heat Island effects... and the corrections also exceed the magnitude of the threatened warming.


 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

There a "clean coal" power plant proposed to be built in Miss. with an 800MW capacity.  500MW will be used for base plant load.

Cajun:  providing subsidy on the CAPITAL investment required to conserve energy DOES provide an incentive to conserve.

Providing subsidy on the energy CONSUMED by subsidizing fuel or electricity costs we both agree would be wrong-headed and counterproductive.

jmw.

I don't really buy the temperature stations study. It is rife with lack of scientific method.

In the picture the latex station is positioned between the other two control stations. Their proximity would guarantee a bias toward higher reading in the latex station.

Then he enlisted a group of "volunteers" to evaluate the quality of other stations around the country, were they qualified and unbiased ??

Not to say he didn't find some stinkers as the station in Chico which is obviously mis placed.  

He misrepresented the meaning of the guidance given by NOAA in placing temperature sensors.

""Changing the technology and locations of temperature stations and a blatant disregard for NOAA's own rules about
keeping sensors at least 100 feet away from heat sources and radiative surfaces""

Is he speaking of any surface that can reflect radiation.
That is NOT what the NOAA directive means. The NOAA directive means item emitting heat radiation not absorbed first through the atmosphere. Otherwise it would be pretty hard to site a sensor 100 ft from anything, even grass emits infrared radiation.

That's all i need to read of that to know it is partisan motivated.

By the way NOAA has attempted to estimate the biases at stations and adjust them out of the data. Which is not very difficult to do.

If an unbiased study is available i would like to know about it.


  

Thanks for the summary of the capture, transport, and sequester study. I see from HSE that supercritical CO2 is not nice if it escapes from the pipeline. "This rapid, violent expansion causes the temperature of escaping CO2 to fall very rapidly, frequently below -80°C. while the particles of solid CO2 formed (dry ice) will result in projectiles expelled at very high velocities."
 

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

2dye4
I wish I could be so sanguine and assume that those in charge "know what they are doing."

If anyone knows of the official response to Surface Temperature please let us know.

The condition of some of these stations ought to make it pretty clear that something is at the very least questionable in the data.

If these stations had been intended for the purpose to which their dat is now put then no doubt there would be proper routine audits of the stations and measurements just as you would have your instruments calibrated and certified.

It has to be evident that from the condition of some of these stations that they have been forgotten about.

SO, they have corrected the data, have they? well how do we know that the standard they assume for a particular station is the standard achieved?

If you were going to use the data for a short term comparative means or whether or not to have a cook out, OK.

You can't tell me that you are happy with this set up? Have you visited the sites?
Has their work been audited? Its fine to criticise the volunteers but where is the official audit?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

My mistake, www.Surfacestations.org

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

At www.Surfacestations.org in the FAQ is this:

Quote:

Q: Why are you doing this? Isn't all the data discontinuity and urban biases accounted for by all the adjustments made to the climate data sets as described in the   USHCN home page?

A: Yes adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases, such as Time of Observation and station moves, but the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Flight (GISS) who are the main collectors, analyzers, and modelers of climatic data have not done a site by site hands on photographic survey to account for microsite influences near the thermometer. To date all such studies conducted have been data analysis and data manipulations used to spot and/or minimize data inconsistencies.

Published works by Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Dev Nyogi of Purdue University, and Georg Taylor of Oregon State University have demonstrated that a significant number of USHCN and other weather stations used in the climate record have some significant, and in some cases severe measurement biases near the thermometers in these climate stations of record. There have been instances recorded of air conditioners being located directly adjacent to the thermometer, vehicles parked next to thermometers head-in, heat generating electronics and electrical components being placed in the thermometer shelters within inches of the sensor, and sensors being located in the middle of large areas of asphalt/concrete and directly attached to buildings all in violation of standard published NOAA practices for temperature measurement. None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers. See the Odd Sites page for examples of these types of issues with USHCN stations.

This website exists as a repository of such information to compile a list of stations with issues and a list of stations that are issue free. Knowing this will help produce better data and hence better climate predications.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

OWG,
Liquid CO2 has that problem in a big way.  A while back, Montmayor posted a description of a failure of liquid C02 that resulted in a nearly isothermal pressure drop to the saturation curve, then following the saturation curve to atmospheric pressure at approx -110F.  The vessel wasn't designed for that temp and failed dramatically next time it was pressurized.  I'm sure the potential for freezing and launching projectiles during the leak is real.

On the other hand, dense phase (i.e., super critical) CO2 can't exist below 88F and 1070 psia.  If (say) you have dense phase CO2 at 90F and 2,000 psia then it is feasible that you could have a rupture that was small enough to cause J-T cooling into the liquid region and then you have the liquid CO2 problems.  If you are going to mess with super critical CO2, you really have to make sure the temperature stays well above 90F so a failure drops the pressure below 1070 psia before it drops the temperature below 87.7F and the CO2 stays in vapor form.

David

Thanks David. I see Genesee IGCC CCS project is going ahead in Alberta with provincial funding. I think this is to convert natural gas into electical power and "carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery or permanent storage in deep saline aquifers." I suppose it makes a very big difference to the economics and possibly t the energy balance, depending on who is counting, whether you get oil or nothing in return.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

I don't think the co2 injection is a capture stragity. It is a stradigy to increase oil production. The co2 capture is just a feel good after thought.

Has any one consitered tree farms? They capture co2 and produce building materials. The trees can also be converted to home heating fuel (wood or pellets).
Probally to expencive because of taxes, but a good goverment activity.

Correction - The Genesee IGCC feeds coal not natural gas. See url attached.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

• http://www.ptac.org/eet/dl/eetf0801p22.pdf

Both Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and Enhanced Coalbed Methane (ECBM) can have some great economics.  There are several companies today that are trying to link people with emissions "problems" with people who want to do EOR or ECBM.  I looked at one of these projects last year and the total economics were marginally positive, then the price of natural gas plummeted and the project got shelved.

ECBM is pretty cool because coal has a huge capacity to actually capture CO2 into the coal matrix for nearly permanent storage.  EOR is not so great since the gas sits in the pore volume which really can't hold all that much so you start getting breakthrough pretty rapidly.

The biggest problem with both EOR and ECBM as a carbon capture scheme is proximity.  A power plant in Maine probably doesn't have economical access to a field that could benefit from injecting the gas.  Where the proximity is reasonable, it makes more sense than the rest of the "carbon capture" ideas floating around.

David

cranky,

Tree farms are everywhere, to produce building materials, as you said.  Ever been to Georgia?  Driven by economics, but they are good for the environment when properly managed.

I must confess, much as I like trees, I can't see why people argue that tree farms are carbon capture systems. Sure, while they grow they absorb CO2, but when they are cut down some huge proportion is immediately returned to the environment, and the bit that is taken offsite has rather finite life, unless it gets turned into part of a building, or a book that never gets burned.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

I recall Georgia from the 70's as being like one big pine forest in the piedmont area - from Stone Mountain, Atlanta was visible as a couple of tall buildings rising above the trees.

All these years later, there are far fewer trees.

However, I understand that managed woodland in the US is quite healthy.  

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Maybe I like trees because in the West there isen't that many because of water issues.

Coal may have an ability to capture CO2, but it also can produce CH4 in harvestable quantities. And in fact if it isen't harvested it is usally released anyway.
Sort of like U238 which will divide anyway if left in the ground.


What if harvested trees are surmurged under water? Would that be a good method to store carbon? Yes eventually it will reappear, but it coult be stored for several hundred years. Sort of like dying fish sinking to the ocean bottom, to become part of the bottom muck.

Cut trees and dump them in the ocean?  How do you make them sink?  Sounds as good as some of the other harebrained schemes around.

Coal does not "produce" CH4 as in a conversion of the coal matrix becoming methane.  Methane is stored at "adsorption sites" on the coal surface.  These sites cam hold any molecule that fits.  In many Coalbed Methane (CBM) or Coalseam gas (CSG) fields, the adsorption sites are more suited to CO2 than CH4, so injecting CO2 into a field like the San Juan Basin in New Mexico or Fairview in Queensland will actually sequester CO2 and liberate CH4.  That is what ECBM is all about.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

Remember, being ignorant isn't your fault; staying ignorant is.  

Some interesting politically charged comments here, but I think some people have got the wrong end of the stick.

Carbon tax is not about reducing consumption of electricity e.t.c. it is about encouraging the market to come up with more environmentally efficient methods.

At the moment, if there is a choice between a super dirty coal plant and a very clean gas plant (or whatever) that costs 10% more to build then it will be the coal plant that gets built.

Consumers will tend to buy the cheapest fuel regardless of their economic status.

There is also the question of global fairness, at the moment the richest 10% of countries is consuming more than half of the resources. When china and india reach economic prosperity there will not be enough resources to go around at current consumption.

We will pay for it either way, either now by a carbon tax, or later when the resources finally run out.

I'm no environmental scientist, but I believe the whole thing is pure bunk intended as a revenue strategy for world governments, and to incite us lackeys into a state of fear so we will "remain in our proper places".

Anyone up for a good read?  Google "peak oil myth".  Sadly a number of anti-Semitic websites come up, one has to filter through the garbage.  The Russians began trials in 1970 with ultra deep bore holes and under-reaming techniques and had some amazing results.  Also check out White Tiger field info in Vietnam.  

If CH4 can be extracted from a coal seam, and it will become exausted at some point, then it would be ripe for CO2 insertion. Why would you want to waste the CH4?

If as on TV, some logs sink whan water loged, then this could work as a carbon storage stradgy. Not perfect, but possible.

Actually natural gas power plants are cheeper to build than coal plants. But given the price difference in the two, and the limits on the production and importation of natural gas, coal plants are perfered. Except for peaking plants where the opertional time is rather short.

Exception: new ICCG plants are soon to be under trials to prove the theory, which provides coal as a fuel, and lower construction cost, as well as higher efficency.

So far I haven't seen much talk about co-fuel firing. Where coal and saw dust are used for power production. (Maybe coal and wood chips).
 

Holy cr@p!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/07/07/carbon.emissions.allocation/index.html

It's already starting.  

 

Quote:

The method sets national targets for reducing carbon emissions based on the number of high-income earners in each country, following the theory that people who earn more generate more CO2.

"It's fairer than some other ideas out there in the sense that we attribute responsibility for emission reductions based only on the number of high-emitting people in the country -- if the country has large number of people who are high-emitters then it has more work to do," said Shoibal Chakravarty, a research scholar at Princeton Environmental Institute.

When researchers at Princeton started working on the project two years ago, one of their first aims was to find a reliable way to estimate the average emissions of high-income earners.

Note how they are only looking at ways to estimate the emissions of high-income earners.  What about others?

 

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

Hi Controlnovice,

Isn't that nice?  Just another thinly veiled form of communism at its best.   

This whole carbon cap/tax/credit/permit/trading thing just looks to me like a new arena for the brokers, traders, wheelers and dealers to make truly large sums of money while providing no useful goods or services, said money being provided by all consumers in the form of increased costs for everything.

Until the bubbles burst, the schemes collapse, etc. then guess who gets stuck with the bills (again)?

Regards,

Mike

Like buying a carbon offset when you fly somewhere... what the hell is it and what do they do with the money?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

SnTMan,
I think you nailed it.  This cluster is going to make the UN "Oil for Food" fiasco look like petty larceny.  The magnitude of opportunity for graft, corruption, and outright theft is going to be staggering.  A 500 MW coal-fired plant puts 1.2 million metric tonnes of CO2 up the stack each year.  Current estimates put the opening trades in the $30-50 USD/tonne so this one moderately sized plant would be subject to some portion of $50 million USD/year.  Multiply that times 10,000 power plants and 100,000 large industrial concerns with nearly as much emissions and the number gets really big.  Lots of room for Bernie Madoff and his ilk to do reasonably well.

David

This is just like going to a medieval priest and paying a handsome sum to pardon our (environmental) sins.

It could also be yet another way to hose the 'rich' for more taxes.

I understand piggybacked on the cap and trade bill is a measure to create yet another federal branch of government to enforce new building standards akin to the standards of the State of California.  Basing national policy on a failed state's policy only makes sense!

SNTMan: I agree with you completely- I'm totally against the cap and trade process for that reason.

A carbon tax is simpler to implement and harder to evade, with fewer parasites able to make a buck from it.

jmw:  the carbon offset analogy to buying "indulgences" is also dead on.  If we value the things these offset folks are doing, we should be paying for the work directly out of the carbon tax revenue, not through some little green middleman.

NewtonFP, rich, meaning "has an income"

I am getting so cynical of government and quasi-governmental entities that I don't believe the real goal has anything to do with "helping" the enviroment (a term I find a little curious), but rather with increasing the scope and power of govenment and the quasi-governmental entities.

The expansion we have seen due to "economic relief" is bad enough...

Mike

==> with fewer parasites able to make a buck from it.
Except for those in government who have the privilege of deciding who and what to subsidize.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

"yet another federal branch of government to enforce new building standards:
I also read that they are going to include legislation to require that all real estate (houses) have to be upgraded for efficiency before they are allowed to be sold.
What planet are these people from?  Someone who is fighting to not be foreclosed upon won't be able to sell because of the expense involved, so it's just another plum for the banks.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

I just finished my annual re-read of Atlas Shrugged it is scary how much Mr. Obama's administration is starting to look like Mr. Thompson's.  I expect the head of the new department will be named Wesley Mooch.

David

You just don't understand.
You haven't been using your energy and money in the right way. That's why the goverment and the UN have to make you do it the right way.

You need the CHANGE that only more goverment can give you.


Actually goverment has shown us the way. Just look at the TVA, which is one of the dirtest emitters of carbon, and what have they done? (Not to pick on them, but a good example of Federal goverment electric companies).

"one of the dirtiest emitters of carbon"

How sad.  The brainwashing is complete when engineers start to describe carbon (dioxide) emissions as dirty.  CO2 may or may not affect our global climate, but dirty it is not.

- Steve

A whole lot of scaremongering.

I see it as, those companies that have been polluting for free now have to pay the price for it.

When this comes in, you will be amazed at how quickly industry will be able to cut their emmisions in order to stay competitive. The bottom line is always a good motivator.

Communist this is definately not - it relies on capitalist market forces in order to work!

Sorry, but no force on earth will allow this to "work".  The grand ideals (which I find amazingly wrong-headed) will quickly be ground into the muck but the profiteers.  The small percentage of companies that see carbon reduction as their duty will be swamped by the rest that feel their only option is to lie, cheat, steel, and hire progressively sleazier lawyers.  Cap & Trade is going to be yet another windfall for the legal "profession".

David

Csd72:  capitalism has always had a problem with communal resources like air and water, because they so easily cross private property lines.  Making sure we all get along with respect to these communal resources is the legitimate role of government- I think even zdas04's heroine Ayn Rand would agree with that.

The problem right now is that peeing in the collective swimming pool is free of charge, yet we all foot the bill for the water treatment costs.  

A carbon tax will fix that, assigning a portion of that collective cost of dealing with negative impacts of emissions to those who are doing the consuming- directly in proportion to their consumption.  The beauty of it is that it doesn't really matter whether or not you consider CO2 to be an emission of concern:  it just so happens that the other, undisputedly toxic and harmful emissions associated with fossil fuels happen to be very closely related to their carbon content, with methane being the cleanest and coal being the dirtiest fuel choice.

A carbon tax makes sense whether or not you believe in AGW.

We can argue about what to spend the tax revenue on- what sorts of projects to support etc.  Personally I wouldn't waste any of it on carbon sequestration projects- I'd sock it all into energy efficiency improvement projects because these reduce ALL emissions, not just CO2, as well as preserving the fundamentally non-renewable fossil fuel for higher value future use (i.e. as feedstocks rather than mere fuels).  But the carbon tax will work to deter wasteful consumption even if the tax revenue is "wasted" on schools and hospitals- something else that most of us view to be a legitmate public good.
 

Plus, unless it's somehow compensated for imported items from countries not doing similar won't it place US (or other countries that do similar) industry at even more of a disadvantage?  Though this starts Tarif talk & free trade which gets messy so forget I said anything.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies recently, or taken a look at posting policies: http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

==> A carbon tax makes sense whether or not you believe in AGW.
I have no objections in theory to a carbon tax, provided the tax is based solely on carbon consumption and no other criteria.  Where is becomes difficult is exactly who to charge and how much.  It's not a problem if it's levied at the gas pump on a per gallon basis, but it's quite another to do something like tap it onto someone's utility bill.  Especially if you don't understand the source of that electricty.

The TVA is a good example.  Yes, they run some coal plants which have emissions that are legitimately taxable, but the TVA also runs around 30 hydroelectric plants that do not have have those emissions, as well as I think three nuclear plants.  So if a consumer buys power from the TVA, is that consumer buying the clean hydroelectric or nuclear power, or the not so clean coal generated power?  So how do you measure that consumer's carbon consumption so as to appropriately and fairly assess the carbon tax?

As far as how the revenue is spent, yes, that is a separate discussion.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Moltenmetal,
You are correct, sir.  There are legitimate roles of government (not many, but some), and one of them is to protect the "common areas", which include air and water.

I've been saying for many years that another legitimate role of government is to "stay the hell out of commerce".  They have failed to do this.  Gasoline should currently sell for $8-10 USD/gallon, and would if the governments of the world had not provided trillions of dollars of incentives to accelerate energy production far beyond the requirements of supply and demand.  They did this knowingly, with malice aforethought to keep energy prices outrageously low to act as an economic catalyst.  It worked.  We've had a golden era of sustained growth since WWII.  Now the piper must be paid, and the price is going to be excessive.  

At required prices, people would have a real incentive to conserve.  At actual prices, people bitch but don't conserve.  Consequently we have urban sprawl, more vehicles than people, and horrible public transit which is often dangerous.  These problems are all directly related to a clandestine energy policy by that payed the Oil & Gas industry to develop far more hydrocarbon resources than the world needed.  Call the "fix" a "carbon tax" or an "energy policy" and if it reduces the $500 million USD/day that is bleeding out of our economy to oil-exporting countries then I'm for it.  Many countries have realized the risk of importing a major portion of their energy requirements and have applied tax policy to the problem--these countries on average have a much smaller trade deficit than the ones that didn't and even a smaller "carbon footprint".  Both the "carbon tax" and "cap & trade" are a continuation of clandestine energy policies and could drive imports in the right direction, but the price will be an amazing amount of inflation and a bunch of sleazeballs getting pretty wealthy.

Hard nosed economics I can buy, if mushy "save the planet" rhetoric is required to implement it then I guess I can try to control my gag reflex.

David

I am sure we can all agree that improved efficiencies are desirable, we'd be pretty poor engineers if we thought otherwise.

I am also sure we can all agree it is better to pay as we go, and not defer the costs of cleaning up our messes. Sometimes it is better done through the market, sometimes better through the government.

But, subject to the above, I find it odd that the only thing anybody ever says is "too cheap" is energy.

I have said before, I happen to think that cheap, abundant energy is the answer to a lot of life's problems:)

Regards,

Mike

moltenmetal,

When they talk about CO2 they really mean CO2 equivalent, other gases such as methane are far worse per ton.

zdas04,

I agree, here in the UK gas is much more expensive and people are also much more efficient with their gas consumption (smaller cars, used less).

You may not wish to call it communism, maybe people have a hard time admitting that it is precisely the direction that the "free" world is heading.  Shall we call it forced redistribution of wealth, or financial incentive to do what is "right". (who defines "right"?) Perhaps we can even call it chopped liver, or better yet, a pig with lipstick????  Sadly, too many people subscribe to the theory that the government knows what is best for the poor illiterate slobs known as "citizens".  Sorry folks, not to rant, just a particularly sore spot with me.  I'll have my liberty, thank-you.  I already drive a car that gets 35 mpg, without having some gladhand bureaucrat in my pocket pushing me toward their Orwellian utopia.  I have the latest thermal windows in my home, the water heater turned down to the low limit, etc, etc.  I'm intelligent enough to know how to conserve my monetary resources. Rather than slapping all of humanity with these fines and taxes, perhaps promotion of research would be a better end.

To me the communism analogy does not work. If you look at the past few decades, you will see that the communist governments of the past were among the worst polluters. Actually, the communist governments of today have a terrible record of contamination and lack of health and safety standards.

josephv, true, when eveybody owns things, nobody owns them.

Recommend "All The Trouble In The World", by P.J. O'Rourke for a look at the environmental record of the Soviet block.

Regards,

Mike

Communism in a philosophical and political view, not historical, gentlemen.  We will shortly see that the "politburo", whether Russian, American, whomever, will be the worst offender of any of their own rules.

I just love this American tendency to call any manipulation of the market communism. It is a typical political statement that tries to engage the emotional part of the brain before the logical part sees the reality.

If you use a piece of land that is not yours, you pay rent for it. If you use up clean air, you should pay rent for it.

Dont give me this nonsense about communism, if it was truly communism then there would be no market to manipulate. The US is still the farthest away from communism of any country I know of.

Cajun:  it's obvious how you get the utility to figure out what to charge their customer for their electricity.  The utility would pay the carbon tax on ALL the fuels they buy.  The end user pays what the electricity cost to generate, which includes the effect of these FUEL taxes.  You tax the FUELS, not the energy!

Do that and all of a sudden, wind and solar and tidal and geothermal and hydro and anything else you can do to generate electricity WITHOUT fossil fuels starts to make economic sense- but ONLY if the apparatus to make use of that energy- all of it- is worth the investment.  All this argument about "embodied energy" and "lifecycle costing" would go away.  If solar PV cells actually contain more fossil energy than they displace in their useable life, it would be easy to determine that based ENTIRELY on their purchase cost, which would include the carbon tax on all their fossil energy inputs.  No more complex, politically charged lifecycle calculations with unjustified assumptions or inputs or outputs forgotten accidentally on purpose to provide the most palatable answer...and preferably, no more governments attempting to pick technological winners and losers based on lobbying effort, buzzword-worship and the vain hope of a magical "technological fix" for our energy woes at some point in the future.

Zdas04:  how I ever got to agree so completely with someone who reads Atlas Shrugged once a year like the bible is totally beyond me, but there you go- I agree with your last post pretty much in its entirety.  Don't for a moment take that as any kind of endorsement of Rand's "objectionableism" though!  I suspect we're WORLDS apart in regard to what each of us thinks is the limit of the legitimate role of government, for sure.

Any attempt to solve the problem of fossil fuels which does NOT use the market as its primary tool will be an abject failure.  But creating an artificial "carbon credit" cap&trade "market" is a recipie for speculation, hoarding, price manipulation, fraud, graft and corruption- the worst features of real-world capitalism.  A tax is far easier and cheaper to administer and suffers from these problems to a far smaller extent, though it is not immune to them.  How to deal with the revenue from the tax is another matter entirely- but we at least have a chance to control it via our democratic institutions, and the object of the tax (consumption-reduction) will work even IF the money is squandered or stolen.
 

Hmm.
Then come winter the UK government has to increase is "winter Fuel allowance" for pensioners.

However, many who don't qualify for rebates or any kind find yet another drain on their finances.

Yes, it may result in less fuel being used but how many people actually use significantly more fuel than they need? How much reduction can be meaningfully targetted in the budget of the average low income earner who makes up the bulk of the population.
Yet, the main impact of all these taxes is that they target the poor i.e. those who can least afford it.

If a low income earner has a choice between fuel to get to his work and car tax (also increasing for same reason), insurance, maintenance and MOTs, then fuel comes first.
Does that matter?
Yes, of course it does and we should anticipate the other areas the low income earner have to economise or make poor choices. Food? clothes? books for the children?

There are an awful lot of financial sticks being brandished (mainly because these ideas are first sold to governments who love to make money) but damn few genuine carrots that can make balance the equation.

Simply increasing subsidies to enable the poor to pay their bills is a likely outcome and the poor are also the least likely to have invested in double glazing, extra insulation etc.

These sound like nice simple solutions but it is the law of unintended (but not necessarily unpredictable) consequences that will dominate. It may even prove counter productive unless well managed.

By how much must fuel prices increase to impact on useage? Experience of gas prices suggests it must be very significant. The higher the burden the less well received it will be and the more problems it will cause to those who can afford it least.

I wonder who owns all the old gas gazzlers? When will a Prius become the affordable used car for the poor?

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

==> The utility would pay the carbon tax on ALL the fuels they buy.  The end user pays what the electricity cost to generate, which includes the effect of these FUEL taxes.
Sure, that's the easy on paper, but it's also totally ineffective.  The people paying the taxes aren't the ones buying the fuel.  The utility company is the one buying the fuels, but it's the end user who ends up paying the taxes in the costs to generate electricity.

Since the utility company is simply passing on the costs directly to the consumer, the utility company has no incentive to reduce their costs.  If you raise the carbon tax, they pass that on to the end user.  And the end user, the ones actually paying the carbon tax, have no control over what fuels are used to generate that electricity.

Like I said, if levy that tax at the gas pump, then you're taxing the consumer, and that's fine.  But if you levy that tax on the middle man or a front man, such as a utility company, then the tax is passed on to the wrong person, thus undercutting any incentive on the actual polluters.
 

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

JMW,
The "don't harm the poor" argument has been used as a cudgel against the rest of us for generations.  Had communities invested in public transit instead of facilitating sprawl, then the number of poor people who had to have vehicles to get to work would not have become epidemic.  We didn't make those investments and kept building mega-malls and supermarkets instead of encouraging community shopping districts, so people feel that they must have multiple vehicles in each family.

The "fuel tax" that moltenmetal is talking about is really the only sledgehammer that has any chance of slowing the trade deficit.  Your "protect the poor" rhetoric comes down to a cusp--do you cause disruption in the community by making fuel expensive with all the requisite hardships; or do you wait for the total collapse of the world economy?  Don't doubt that when the U.S. economy falls into chaos the rest of the world follows within weeks.  We are not the world economy, but we are most decidedly the lynch pin.

Moltenmetal,
It is interesting how much we can agree on.  I've been concerned about imports since 1981 when I saw that they had gone from nearly zero in 1974 to nearly 50% in 1981.  That kind of bleed is just not sustainable.  Low energy costs have gotten a lot of politicians elected and re-elected, long-term be danmed.  A Fuel Tax will not get anyone elected and may get some of them thrown out of office.  Probability of it passing is near zero.  Cap & Trade on the other hand will take a few years to fail and the amount of misery and stuipd decisions it causes will be epic.

David

"If you use up clean air, you should pay rent for it."

Ah, I see.  Tell me, who owns the air that they are allowed to charge for it?  How much power are we as citizens comfortable to bestow upon our overlords?  It seems that I have been correctly identified as an American, but I spent enough time in the "Former" Soviet Union that this kind of thing, IN MY OPINION, mind you, just reeks of Communism of whatever flavor you care to call it.  It's not about the environment, and it's never been about the environment.  It's about power and control.  What better way to control someone than to control their financial potential?  Yes, communism.

Apologies to anyone I may have offended, that certainly was not the intention.

It's Friday boys and girls.  I for one have been taking this post too seriously.  Enjoy the weekend everyone!

With a carbon tax, would it not hit steel hard? At least new steel.
So with the in mind, why are we substidiseing wind power? Why isen't the push tward nucular which is much lower carbon producing?

The whole issue with cap and tax isen't is it fair? The issue is why are we trusting the goverment to fix the problem they created?

And a question on cap and tax, would a tax be placed on wood, or other biofuels? Would there be a credit for companys that convert natural sources of CH4 to CO2, which is far less... What ever, I'm not a greenie.

And would we cap and tax plastics which are made from carbon fuels?

Lets face the facts, this is a goverment assult on the coal industry.

I wasn't saying "protect the poor", but because I live in this society I don't want to see it degenerate any further or any faster than absolutely necessary; not just because it affects the poor (if that offends) but because I don't want to have to live in a society that degenerates even more than it already does (if you prefer a selfish motive) and poverty is already blamed as being the cause of most of the ills in society without introducing measures that will aggravate the situation.

I was also saying that the effect of using the big financial stick might not be as effective as everyone would like to think besides maybe causing more problems than it attempts to solve.

Simply, that many other things may be given up long before a fuel tax bites and with unpleasant effects on society.

Then if you try to moderate the effect via subsidies etc you neutralise the effect you are targeting, or you create a means tested society with ration coupons designed to ensure that subsidies are spent not on fuel but on other things.

Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The effect of increased fuel tax has already been demonstrated to contribute to a rise in the incidence of uninsured drivers in unsafe vehicles to mention the most obvious effects.

But what level of tax would be necessary to make a significant difference?

Fuel use has proven very robust at withstanding taxation - it is why in the UK every budget has included a tax increase on petrol, alcohol and tobacco. It is a safe tax.

The revenue from fuel taxes is already very high and it might be expected that to seriously or significantly impact on fuel use, it might have to get very much higher still.

But if usage drops meaningfully then it will then impact on tax revenues significantly, how can it be otherwise?

That means either the tax will continue to rise (chasing higher returns from a smaller turnover) or the revenue will be replaced by taxation elsewhere adding another burden to the poor.

It isn't as if fuel is tax free so that by reducing fuel use through taxation there is still a net revenue gain for the government, it will necessarily result in a net loss as fuel tax is already a substantial revenue raising mechanism.
 
So, if you believe in a carbon tax, show that it will work or find a better way to do it.

If the goal is to reduce inefficient use of fuel then it has to also include a provision that it doesn't create a burden and the way to that solution may well be not to hit people with a stick but encourage them to alternative behaviour patterns; perhaps to invest in subsidised public transport and it may also require that we change the way shopping malls etc contribute to adverse behaviour. But at some point you make the transition from a relatively free society to a 1984 style police state.
So you'd better factor in how to replace lost tax revenues or curtail government spending.

Simply taxing fuel isn't a sensible solution.
No isolated measure will be and particulalry one likely to have counter-productive or undesirable side effects.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

cranky108, NOBODY KNOWS who will be favored, who will be punished. The ag industry has already been pretty much exempted. The arm twisting and influence peddling will have to be on a scale never before seen.  

There will be winners and there will be losers, the surest losers will be consumers, who will pay for it all.

Regards,

Mike

 

I should have added, that, in my opinion, the reason Big Oil seems to favor this legislation all of a sudden, is to be able to get in there and start throwing elbows.

Mike

Sorry, I meant to say "protecting their interests":)

There is a villain in this piece, and it isn't Big Oil, Big Steel, Big Auto, or any other industry.  They are all trying to make the best of the playing field they find themselves on.  

The people that are defining the playing field are in Washington.  The villain of the piece is an ignorant, uninformed electorate that keeps sending the same self-serving idiots to Washington time after time.  Nearly all of us are convinced that term limits are useful (86% in the last poll I saw), but I guess we all mean "limit the term of the other crooks, my crook is doing a good job for me" and we keep sending the same gang of thieves to Congress.  We, the electorate, have told these guys that how they look is more important than how well they serve the public interest, so their whole goal-set revolves around looking good while feathering their own nest.  

We deserve what we get, just don't start blaming the people who are following the convoluted rules that these Beauty-Queen Prima Donas have written.  Big Oil is not the villain here, you and I are.

You wonder how well the "Fuel Tax", "Carbon Tax", or "Cap & Trade" would work?  None of them can work at all.  The loopholes will be so large and pervasive that everyone will have an exemption, exception, or an evasion and the net result will be more imports and more crap in the air.  A "Fuel tax" applied over several decades has been shown to do some good, but we lack the attention span to think past yesterday's headlines.

I can provide an easy method to cut government spending--ask what is the proper role of government.  Is FEMA continuing to provide "temporary" housing to Katrina victims after 4 years a proper role of government?  Gotta say that the answer was "NO" after 4 weeks, it is just plain stupid after 4 years.  Health & Human Services is over half the federal budget and should be closer to zero.  Direct government funding for non-military R&D is a waste of resources.  If we go back to the Founding Father's idea of the appropriate role of government then the budget balances itself.  None of this is going to happen until the current crooks finish destroying this country and the survivors come up with a new plan to get mucked up in implementation.

David

zdas04, boy, that's about as close to my own view of government as it's going to get especially:

Quote:

I can provide an easy method to cut government spending--ask what is the proper role of government.

I think we should also be able to vote on OTHER states congressman too. Why should the whole country have to put up with, say, Ted Kennedy forever just because the people of Massachusets like him?

BTW, I was not blaming or singling out Big Oil, or Ag either. Who can blame them?

Regards,

Mike

It sort of goes back to "Life dosen't have to be fair, it just has to work".
The over all restrictions, corruption, and bans, have kept the black market working for years.

We can say goverment is the fastest growing industry in this country, and along with it corruption, and the black market.

Maybe we need to develop oil, gas. and coal in this state, use it in this state, and tell Washington they have no jurstriction for state internal affairs.

This is post number 1,000 and we still don't know how many imps can dance on the head of a pin.
We don't seem to know much about po;tics either.

"We, the electorate, have told these guys that how they look is more important than how well they serve the public interest"
FWIW my congressman is supporting the Carbon Tax or whatever else comes along that looks like it.  So I'll send him back.
It's my air I want it clean.

"Maybe we need to develop oil, gas. and coal in this state, use it in this state, and tell Washington they have no jurstriction for state internal affairs. "
Great Ideal,  be sure and build a dome over it so the crud in the air stays there.
 

"Tell Washington they have no jurstriction (sic) for state internal affairs".  That has been tried before.

BJC,
Well you're close enough to Washington that the growth industries around "Carbon Trading" should keep your economy strong for weeks after the west collapses into economic depression and anarchy.  After the end of the Industrial Devolution the air and water should clean up nicely without industries or most of the people.

I see a pressing economic need to reduce oil imports.  I think that the only way to do that is increase fuel costs.  If this results in less total consumption, then less stuff will go into the air and we both win.  I don't believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a threat to the planet.  I don't believe that climate change is new, necessarily accelerating, or subject to the actions of man.  You do.  Rather than always attacking everyone who disagrees with you, why don't you try discussing the common ground?

David

Thread 4 and it is growing faster than its predecessors.

We keep rehashing the arguments, we are each accused by those who disagree with not being climate scientists and therefore we do not know what we are talking about.

In other words, listen to your parents, they know best.

Thing is I suspect it isn't that we can't argue the science, it is that we know the science has been corrupted by the politics and the special interest groups.

The point is we can keep going like this for ever and not achieve anything, we'll still be in a variety of opposing camps and in the end, the outcome will be determined by propaganda, not science.

What is really wrong is that we don't have this division of ideas amongst our politicians.
Politicians are competing with each other to see which can adopt the greenest stance.
That should worry everyone.

So, I'll tell you what I'd like, and given the trillions the politicians are prepared to spend it shouldn't cost more than pocket money by comparison.

I'd like the science back and with it the the scientific approach.
 
What I'd like a second set of scientists to make up a review body (but with no politicians, no NGOs, no interest groups, no evidently partisan (untrustworthy) members.
It will be set up to start again with the source data and try and evaluate everything the IPCC had and what has been discovered later.
It will be empowered to question contributors to the debate.
It will be independent of the UN. It can be sponsored by one or another governments or a coalition of governments.

I want them charged with an impartial review of the data and charged with investigating the claims from both sides of the argument.

They can say:

• AGW proven
• AGW wrong
• Not proven, more work needed

I'd like a report in neutral language written by the scientists.

Why?
Because that is what we don't have. We don't have the application of the scientific method. We don't have any serious attempt to prove the theory wrong even if only that by failing that might show it more nearly right than wrong.

Of course, at the end of it we will still have all those different camps but maybe with different sets of blood pressure data.
But what we won't any longer have is such a good excuse for poo-pooing the opposition views.

Bottom line is that politicians can't simply stick with the IPCC sponsored world view like seventh day adventists when so many credible scientists disagree with different bits of what has been said. They owe it to us who will pay the bills to set up a situation where a fair review of all the arguments is possible.

That is the problem with Climate change, too many criticisms not answered in the right way.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

BJC: "It's my air I want it clean"

Another brainwashed engineer that now thinks CO2 is "dirty".

- Steve

By a coincidence, it seems I am not the only one to want an independent review:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

jmw,
Do you think an impartial and independent review panel of scientists can be found?  I think they have all chosen sides.  There should be a better chance of finding impartial engineers, but who is going to sell that idea?   

Well, I don't know about impartial, but contrary - yes.
The good news for Australians is here (http://www.stevefielding.com.au/climate_change and it is worth reading the reports) though Alan Carlin's report fared less well Deep Science and Watts up with that take different views on this (http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/#more-8964 and note the comments by Watts Up with That.

Meanwhile, on the Carbon tax front it is announced that over 4 milion families in the UK are officially in "energy poverty" and will need government measures to try and help them out. This is simply due to costs, a carbon tax hasn't yet been applied but just the ots of meeting "Climate change" measures s expected to increase the number by another 1.5 million over the next few (5-10?) years, all other things being equal.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Quote (hokie):

Do you think an impartial and independent review panel of scientists can be found?  I think they have all chosen sides.

Exactly why JMW continued this discussion in a new thread.  Even when scientists are discussing AGW, in this case Polar Bear population, they don't invite the scientist who disagree with them.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

JMW,
The reference you provided on Saturday has a great quote in it

Quote:

But even a compromise could inflict devastating damage on our own economic future – all for a theory now shot so full of holes that its supporters are having to suppress free speech to defend it.

.
What I find most fascinating is the seemingly inexhaustible discussion below the article.  It mirrors this one quite well.  "The climate is heating up (with references)", "The climate is cooling down (with references)", "The glaciers are melting (with references)", "The glaciers are advancing (with references)".  The "deniers" claiming that politicians are using AGW as a smoke screen to hide their other abuses.  The "members of the Church of Global Warming" saying that no credible scientists disagree with AGW (or is it Global Climate Change?).  

My view is that the definition of "belief" is "acceptance of a postulate in the absence of data", and this subject is just too much like other religions in that every single piece of data can be used to support either position.

David  

Is there a reason poor people don't use energy efficent devices? Maybe because they are poor and can't afford them.

Wealther people tend to use energy more efficently. However, wealther people also tend to have more energy demands.

Has anyone seen a $10,000 house? It's small, uses loads of energy, and the owners paided cash.

So is the solution high energy costs, and loads of assistance. Or low energy costs, and much less assistance.

The issue is peoples attitudes. If they believe at all about reducing energy consumption (Forget global anything), then it needs to be packaged and sold.
Craming it down as taxes just makes people mad, angry, and defiant.

Actions taken to mitigate global warming ( real, imaginary, political etc ) won't be decided by engineers. Engineers will build the systems to do what is needed to fix it (real or imaginary).  has anyone ever worked on a scrubber system on a power plant?  Within 10 years the CO2 capture will be just another system on a power plant.  The cost will be passed on to consumers (just like a scrubber, cooling tower precipitator etc).
Lots of things get built that arn't really practical or needed, or shouln't be needed if the world is was a better ( saner ) place. I have only met one engineer who refused to work on defense projects ( this was at a big time AEC company ).  the rest of us are more or less who _ _ _s- goe anyplace, do anything for money.  

cranky108:  the current market created the current consumption patterns.

Want new consumption patterns?  You MUST change the market.

Relying on people's sense of morality alone on this issue is a recipie for failure.

Like it or not, the carbon tax is necessary.  People can be angry, defiant, and will still pay the tax- and will also alter their consumption to suit their pocketbook.

What some of you want is an "objective" set of scientists, because you believe the existing group is beholden to vested interests.  Sorry, but you don't get to change the scientific community just because their views don't suit your own!

As taxes go higher, the black market will get bigger. Cheating and corruption will become larger, and yes there will be some reduction in consumption. But with the reduction in consumption there will also be a greater demand for assistance, and higher demands for medical care.
Expect food prices to go up, and import demands of goods to increase.

Nontaxed energy will become more important.

Next question: Will the goverment exempt itself from this? (Not that they pay taxes anyway. But from the reductions).

Oops!
Just when the IUK has decided to turn the Peak District into a giant wind farm, Christopher Booker puts his finger on a small concern about the recent colder weather which is likely to adversely affect crops:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Booker is becoming like Dawkins.  He protesteth too much.

This article is typical.  Climate change does not mean that the whole world will experience the same change.  Local climates are largely controlled by ocean currents.  Daffodils being a week late in the Scilly Isles one year does not indicate a global cooling.

- Steve

jmw,

What do you make of Booker's claims that the theory of evolution is a lie?

I think that the concept of evolution probably works very well with probably some need to understand parts of it better rather than postulate some radical alternative go explain what we don't understand. Why? it is the simplest solution and I'd rather suspect that by trying to understand the simple we will find the answers we need and bot go running off after some new Lysenkoism.

It seems people are quite happy with the idea of small incremental changes over a very long time but far less happy with the idea of radical changes over a short time and into which concept they find it difficult to understand how complex organs can evolve.

There are some simple clues.
Awhile back, before the smoke free zones, smokeless fuels and gas fired central heating i.e. back when pollution was orders of magnitude higher than today, London buterflies were very dark but with the changes to smokeless fuels, tree bark lightened up and it didn't take very long before butterflies were light coloured.

Then too we have accounts of how the enormous quantities of agent orange and the various defoliants dumped on Vietnakm lead to a rapid evolution of the insects such that some where concentrating the toxins for their own use in their venom. Some postulated that the insects seemed almost pre-programmed.

So what I suggest is that under extremes of an environment that threatens a significant impact on a population in some way evolutionary forces are equal to the challenge.
It is a it like suggesting that modern computers still lack the ability to perform some calculations or test out some models. There is always some one who points out that if you ran every combination, even with the best computer speed available, you'd still need a hundred years or a thousand years to run them all.
Except.
Except if you use the idle computing power of millions of PCs in screen saving mode to run a different solution on each of them.

So it might be with evolution, that it works slowly and incrementally where there are small forces in the environment but where there are major pressures, it "forces" large and rapid changes. Don't forget that some species may disappear if they can't respond but where a species shows any response, it does well.
That too is a survival trait and what we see today, like in a knock-out league, are all the species that survived past high pressure events.
Incidentally, notice ho simple environmental factors can lead to significant changes. A small temperature change is all that is required to change the sex of the unborn crocodile in its egg.

After the Great War the number of male children born was significantly higher than normally experienced.

Myxametosis nearly wiped out rabbits but the ones that survived were those that spent most time above ground. Small thing but critical and however few or however many there were that liked it above ground, they won that round. It just takes two of them to survive and, well you know rabbits.
It may be that the species was almost wiped out by the change but so what.

In other words, we can see some rather fleeting events that threaten dire consequences for a species and which produce significant outcomes.

We are talking here about relatively simple changes in response to exceedingly short term pressures. So, who is to say that with the right sort of extreme pressures sustained over longer periods and perhaps with a mix of other factors that evolution isn't capable of accounting for it all? Given that I'd pursue the possibilities of a simple single solution rather than looking for something more dramatic and complicated to explain it all away.

I don't see that it is a case that modern concerns about the evolution of highly sophisticated organs is necessarily a problem. Evolution has not been proven wrong, it is just a lack of understanding how it works that is the problem.

The problem with Dawkins is he has as much belief that there is no god as there is belief amongst others that there is a God.
OIt doesn't matter how much more complicated the world becomes or nature or the age of the universe. To those who believe it just means God was cleverer and more subtle than previously given credit for.
Dawkins should know he can't prove the non-existence of something which can't be proved and should recognise that in the end, belief in or belief not in has no relevance to science.
When you come down to it, it is as easy to believe in God as not believe, but proof is equally as difficult on either side. The winners are those who don't ask for proof.
He should set it aside and get on with life.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Re effect of cloud cover

My friend Doc Martyn posted the following

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

This paper shows, for the first time using direct physical measurement, that the 'expected' positive feedback caused by cloud cover is in fact a negative feedback. This is actual SCIENCE as opposed to in silico modeling, a model has been TESTED using measurement.

Lindzen and his co-author's conclusion is that the climate sensitivity i.e. the expected warming obtained from doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm (in 1800) to 560 ppm (in 2100) is actually smaller than the bare value of 1.2 °C. It could be close to 0.5 °C which would mean that no additional warming from CO2 is expected by 2100.

The plot, on page 14, in the upper left is the actual measurement, the others are what the models predict.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf


 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Following the links and discussion of this on "Watts Up With That?" we come to a dumbed down paper (dumbed down for congress) by Roy Spencer:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&;FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
(Thanks Roy, it saves me forcing my brain).
Coupled with this is a CARB report (Califorinia Air Resources Board)report which is decsribed as saying that the correlation bewteen heavy fuel oil Sulphur and particulates is weak.
I link the two because the IMO (Part of the UN) is pushing through ever more draconian measures to reduce sulphur emissions as part of a multi-straned (and sometimes conflicting) effort to reduce CO2 specifically (though the sulphur reduction measures will result in increased CO2 thorugh the extra refining) and other greenhouse gases and NOX and SOX.
Senator Boxer, mentioned in this report, features in various climate change initiatives including a plan to force shipping to use diesel not HFO.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Thanks jmw, I am glad that I do not have to worry about global warming any more. Now I only have to worry about our response to it.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

We always had to worry about our response to it, whether real or imaginary, its all one to politicians.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

I just had a light bulb moment while reading over Nuclear Street's email newsletter and with the idea of water vapor playing a huge role in global warming.

My thought was, how much of an impact does nuclear energy play in the formation of water vapor?  I remember hearing the push towards more nuclear energy during the campaigns.  If water vapor is a big contributor to global warming then wouldn't the water vapor that they produce have a negative impact?  I don't have the answers, obviously, but I'm curious as to what others think of it.  This could be expanded into the idea of hydrogen based cars producing water vapor as emissions instead of hydrocarbons and CO2.

Wow...

Think about the order of magnitude between the water vapor produced by all of the nuclear plants and hydrogen cars to all of the oceans, lakes and rivers in the world.

It was just a thought

Don't let it get out, or we might see a hydrogen and carbon tax.

Then no more NASA hydrogen powered vehicles.

Having just read the book available at http://www.withouthotair.com/ , I note that the author identifies 3 reasons why the US should have a sensible energy policy.

1) Fossil fuels are a finite resource.
2) Most of the fossil fuels are outside of the US
3) Its very probable that using fossil fuels is changing the climate.

The first two points are essentially facts. The third is a bit iffy. The author spends very little time on the subject. So US energy policy should be soundly based on the first two points, and not get carried away with the third point just yet.

Wow, I was not planning to go there, but I think I just made a case for the US continuing to support expansion of the Athabasca Oil Sands operations.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Unless there was an annexation that I haven't heard of, isn't Athabasca Oil Sands outside the US?  Exports of cash from the US to Canada is still a net export.

Maybe oil sands in Colorado and Utah might make more sense.

David

Zdas04 is correct. However the quote from withouthotair was "...vulnerable to the whims of untrustworthy foreigners." And of course Canadians do not fall into that category.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Them Canadians don't even talk the same language as us'ns.  Actually, I'm on the Board of a Canadian company and we have more language problems than I do in Columbia (and I speak zero Spanish).  Besides all that we're already importing 16% of our Natural Gas from Canada.  Next step they'll join OPEC.

David

Je'mappelle.....
I think all Canadians with the exception of some in Quebec speak similar to the us'ns. I think we all get stereotyped because of a few sometimes.

This is a good talk somewhat related to GW:
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html

Fe

The high priests of the new religion have repeatedly claimed that the solar cycle, and sunspots, are not a significant part of the 'problem', while wallpapering over historical evidence that sunspot activity seem to be associated with temperature. This paper suggests a plausible mechanism for interaction between space weather (as it is known) and clouds, hence the albedo factor of the Earth.

http://www.physorg.com/news168353215.html

quote:
When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapour can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds. Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.

"A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale," the report concludes. This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change. In particular, it connects observable variations in the world's cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.

/quote.  

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Cranky108,

We shouldnt mention that we breath out Carbon dioxide or they might tax us on that too!

zdas04,

I like the term us'ns, at least it doesnt sound like you are claiming ownership of two continents.

csd72, I don't know about you, but most of that Carbon dioxide that I breath out comes from renewable sources (At least the food I eat does).

At issue is if they tax carbon, how will they consiter the renewable carbon?

 

Yes and there goes my idea of using charcoal instead of pencils.

I think the jury is still out on fossil fuels being a finite resource, unless of course, that one belives everything that is spoonfed them through the media.

First of all, fossil fuels are carbon based, are they not? Now then, is it not the excess presence of carbon that everyone is complaining about.  Hydrogen seems to be in abundant supply on this planet, as well.

Am I missing something obvious or are we simply sitting on our hands and not developing the remainder to this equation???

Also, try googling "peak oil myth".

And to think we haven't touched those frozen hydrite deposits under the ocean. Or all the oil under antaritica.

And I hear Russia still has problems getting new drillers to develop new sources there (Maybe they run them off).

And we aren't drilling off the East and West costs, and there are still lots of coal fields abanded because of sulfer content.

We aren't near the end of fossil fuels, as the prices don't reflect that at all.

Warming and cooling.... the history of climate scares....
http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

I am glad there are three people with the same sense of humour as me. that'd be jmw, me, and the compiler of that list.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Thanks for the link JMW.  The sky has been falling for quite some time now, it appears!

Just as the climate cycles, so do the scientists.  Some of the young scientists worrying about global cooling in 1975 are now old scientists with their feet across the fence.

Guys, if you are not prepared to jump on the "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" bandwagon, perhaps it is a mental disorder according to the American Psychological Association:   http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090805/tsc-environment-us-climate-psychology-011ccfa.html

The 90 year old "seer" from Cornwall, UK, may have a point about this 20% oxygen atmosphere of ours being a problem. He pointed out that it is only recently that species have adapted to it. He said its a nasty gas similar to chlorine. So if we are going into the terraforming business lets bring it down to around 15%. I wouldn't be able to run any more but it would sure help the forest fire fighters in Canada. Who needs to run anyway?

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Seems to me that the main points in this yahoo story are that:

• they don't believe it
• they don' trust the scientists
• they don't trust the politicians
• they don't think we can do any good anyway
• the economy is more important and since tackling climate change will put a big hole in the economy, that makes sense

So, these are all signs of a psychological barrier?
Sound to me like reason.
Next thing they'll want to treat that psychological disorder (once it has some fancy name like AAAGWS - Absolute Anti Anthropogenic Global Warming Syndrome).
What it really says is that in a democracy, the majority view, whether right or wrong, no longer matters; politicians are no longer in power to represent the people but minority interests - starting with their own very special minority interests.

 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Well one of those is right. Many of us don't trust the politicians, because they have lied to us to many times.

Politicians, like babys, should be changed often and for the same reason.

Or how about, do you know how to tell if a politician is lieing? There mouth is moving.

someone posted early on that the human population has increased significantly over the last century ... that's an awfull lot more of lungs taking on O2 and exhaling CO2 ...
and assume that the amount of vegation hasn't increased, ie forests converted into crop fields, so maybe the "natural" uptake of CO2 hasn't changed, in any case it certainly hasn't increased along with the population growth.

just a thought  

Read a report somewhere that the rain forests don't give us a net O2 benefit because the O2 is taken up by organisms in the ground beneath the trees. i.e. If you just consider the trees, you get CO2 absorbed and O2 released. But if you include the organisms the forest supports you have no net CO2 reduction.
I'll try and find the report.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Not to mention most natural forests have been destroyed.


The world is screwed.  I give it 10 to 20 years max until it's Thunder Dome time!
 

Regarding climate change, perhaps we should go back a year or two:  W.E. Deming the Engineer who revitalised Japan said "It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory",  

Quote:

The world is screwed.  I give it 10 to 20 years max until it's Thunder Dome time!

I wish I could get to Burning Man for a head start...

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

If recent headlines are any indication, Thunder Dome isen't likely. More likely, Terminator, and rise of the machines, and who knows maybe the Matrix.

With the increasing number of jobs replaced by machines, and the increasing population, many people will be displaced, or put into more primitive situations, while others educated to serve the machines will become much better off.

since we can't prove anything about AGW/CC (significantly is it human caused ? and how exactly ? or what action will create the results we want ?) we're left with belief.

and for those who believe, or don't, no argument will convince them otherwise.

 

Yes, just like religion.

Fe

Don't most religions follow a book, or some high preast? If so, what do the global warming religon people follow?

Oops, I forgot about Al Gore.

Actually I was trying to forget about him.

Interesting read and by the same author as Longitude, is "Galileo's Daughter" which uses his daughter's letters to him his to her were allegedly destroyed by the convent when he died so as not to get involved in heresy) about his problems vis a vis the orthodox Earth centred religious doctrines and his observation based development of the support for Copernicus' heliocentric view.

So, yes we have lots of bad models to look at from Galileo to Lysenkoism.

It ain't encouraging and sadly, about the only thing that will save us will probably kill us - a new mini (hope its not more) ice age because logic and reason and science aren't cutting it so far (except Australia has thrown out carbon trading which might or might not signal something hopeful).

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Common sense down under?  It's TEOTWAWKI!!!

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

oy, ewh ... them there's fight'n' words, just 'cause we diggers know which end of a kangaroo from the other (don't Ever get them mixed up, or you're in for a world of hurt) and can, on occassion, show a small amount of commonsense (mind you the problem with the carbon trading schemes wasn't, as i understand it, that one party thought they were bad; rather they couldn't agree on how much to gouge the poor tax-paying slob) doesn't invite that sort of retort :)

mind you, if the eagles retire and stop touring, then that would be TEOTWAWKI ... and maybe the end of these threads too ??  

No offense intended... just a little Friday sarcasm.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

no sweat,
buy us a beer in the pub and all's forgiven !

I read the article in Time this week about Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy in the US. He is a brilliant person and should do great things including reforming the DOE. However when he was asked about the stalled global warming situation he responded by saying that "the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the last 12 years, and that 1998 was the hottest." Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what we would expect if we were coming down from a peak in a sine curve?       

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Here is the article on Steven Chu:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1916078-4,00.html

Note, the article also says, "He mocked the skeptics who focus on that post-1998 blip while ignoring a century-long trend of rising temperatures."

So should we mock him for ignoring the preceding ups and downs?
Apparently a downturn isn't a down turn.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Except that what you are saying is not true. If you look at the article Steven Chu showed a "chart showing that the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the past 12 years — and that 1998 was the hottest...".

So he is not as you said ignoring the preceding ups and downs; however, he points out that it is irresponsible to ignore a century-long trend of rising temperatures. That is actually a very good point.

josephv,

But he does not relate that centuries up trend with those over the previous centuries.

Over the last 2000 years there have been other temperature uptrends of similar scope and also downtrends of similar scope.

Why is the 19th century uptrend man made and all of the others are not?

And if 1998 is the current peak, why are we necessarily still in an uptrend, albiet with a kink in it? Why was there a downtrend from 1900 to 1910 and from 1940 to 1950 and 1960 to 1980? In fact, during the depression when manufacturing was weak, there is a definite up trend of similar magnitude to the current one, but between 1940 to 1950, where there were enoumous amounts of manufacturing for the war years and then reconstruction, there is a down trend?

Why does he not look at the millenia long trend, or longer, and see that current decade and century long trends are not abnormal and current temperatures are not abnormally high. And man cannot be blamed for most of those.

 

Thanks for the discussion on Mr. Chu's remarks. rapt - Can you provide a couple of links to illustrate your points about long term ups and downs.  

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Isen't the long term trend, since the last ice age, to grow hotter? Or isen't that an important general trend in all this?

I really don't think humans had the effect to bring us out of the ice age.

So what CO2 has increased. It increases every time there is an active volcano.

Studies and calculations are great, and they show 2+2=5. Now isen't that helpful?

owg,

My comments were based on the short temperature records and long term temperature estimates that have been presented on this site and in other documents in the past.

cranky108, Yes, we have been on a long term rise which was preceeded by a long term fall etc with intermediate rises and falls of varying magnitudes and rates, some worse than the current rise. And the current temperature is not historically high, and neither are water levels.

Anyone who hasn't seen graphs some where or other showing the long term temperature record with its ups and downs, even those charts doctored to take out the medieval warm period, the little ice age etc, but still show some ups and downs, needs to go do so before asking for them, denying their existence or pretending they show something they don't.

So, given some ups and downs of varying intensity and varying excursions, if your last high point was 1998, and its been getting cooler since, we are in a down.
Is it significant? we won't know till we bottom out.

You might want to say, yeah, but it will turn around again in a year or two and rocket back up so it doesn't mean a thing.

Warmists don't want to acknowledge that the temperature is dropping, not even to say "it may be a minor swings that will reverse shortly", or "it is too short term to mean anything" or "it's noise in the data",  is because whatever else it is, it wasn't what the computer models with the top secret codes predicted. So better to never actually admit the temperatures are dropping.

That's why they never answer or acknowledge this, they will state instead, "the last 12 years contained the 10 hottest..." since records began or words to that effect.  
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Greenland is called that for a reason ... 1,000 years ago it was green ! and i believe that the vikings were also growing vine in Newfoundland.  so, yes, there are clear examples for temperature fluctuations in the past.

Here is a link to lighten the discussion. Maybe been posted before but worth a second look.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

rb1957,
The story I heard, not that I have any idea if it is true or not, is that naming the place Greenland was a bit of Viking marketing.
Granted everything I've read says that it was warmer back then.
I've read some interesting articles blaming the French Revolution on the cold climate.
Again, a bit of hyperbole, but the Seine did reportedly freeze in 1788 and there were wolves roaming the streets of Paris.

owq, what's frank burns got to do with CC ?





ohhh, you meant the pengiun and "how to survive the coming ice age" ... i guess that's all covered under CC these days, and we're either making the climate baking hot or blindingly cold and it's all our own fault and we're doomed (unless you send $1000 to my mailbox).

thank you !

Maybe the climate change thing is like the Coolie walls that were built during the construction of the rail roads. They serve no purpose but to keep the construction workers from fighting each other.

So in a simular vain like the movie "wag the dog" we should invent a foe, and fight them (global warming), as a way to distract outselves from the real goal.

Whats the real goal?

Fe

The real goal is to make money, and quite simply, FUD sells.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

i'm sure that many "entrepreneurs" (CC profiteers) are looking to get their hands on government hand-outs.  i'm just as sure that some (a minority) are genuinely convinced they're actions are right.  

i'm certain that at the end of the day, we'll be out our tax money, some people will have gotten rich and famous with it, and the climate situation won't be affected one iota (it'll do exactly whatever it wants to do).  

I'm certain that given the length of this thread and the three that preceded it, in conjunction with the cyclical nature of climate change, that everyone who has contributed to these threads will be right at one time or another.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Like a stopped clock.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Cajun Centurion,
no sooner had you made your post than I discovered it as oh so true.

It appears that Britain's former deputy prime minister, John Prescott, has been made Professor of Climate Change at Xiamen University.

http://www.totalpolitics.com/blogs/index.php/2009/08/26/prescott-saves-the-earth
(this doesn't appear to have hit the broadsheets yet)

So when someone says we're going to hell in a hand basket, believe them.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Hello rapt,

Here is an explanation from National Geographic that answers your question:

Q: "Why is the 19th century uptrend man made and all of the others are not?"

A: "Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less."

"Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less"
And the changes measured are a fraction of a degree?
Did we have that accurate of instruments a hundred years ago?
 

ice cores

and trees and corals, here is a link:

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/sustainability/climate_change_in_queensland/what_is_the_greenhouse_effect/how_do_scientists_measure_and_predict_climate_change.html

Ice cores, radio carbon dating, tree rings, coral; they are all under attack or rather, the sensitivity of the data.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

attacks? by political groups? I ask because generally in the scientific community there are disputes, not attacks.

Here is an article on ice cores by National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1110_041110_antarctic_ice.html

josephv

"Over the past 400,000 years, the warm periods have lasted about 10,000 years. The current warm period has already lasted 10,000 years, but the EPICA team says Earth is not headed for an imminent ice age.

Today Earth's orbit is similar to that of 400,000 years ago. The warm period at that time lasted about 28,000 years. Miller, the EPICA geophysicist, said that, based on this comparison, we can expect the current warm period to last at least another 15,000 years."

These are the last 2 paragraphs from the NG article you posted above.

So much for the current warming cycle being less than a century! If you looked at the stock market over the last 3 months, you could predict it will be at 100000 in 10 years, but you cannot base projections like this on a selected piece of the data, you have to look at it long term, not 10 years or 100 years, you have to look at millenia and longer for natural temperature and climate variation. There are many periods when temperature has changed significantly (if you call .4C significant) over a 100 year period.

And they are predicting it is going to keep rising for another 15,000 years (with ups and downs on the way as is normal) but it will trend higher.

And we did not cause the warm period 400,000 years ago or the ones in between, or the cold periods between those!

 

rapt,

I think you are talking about two different things.

1) The current warm period has already lasted 10,000 years (not caused by us)

2) Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less (caused by us)

Note that the article begins with:

"Few scientists dispute that human fossil fuel consumption is altering Earth's climate. The scope of that change, however, remains a subject of debate."

Joesephv,
I'll accept "disputes" but maybe "challenged is more appropriate.
Anyone can begin an article with such a statement but that is certainly challenged which is why we are into our 4th thread and have 200 posts since June 27th.
If anything more and more people are less and less convinced by such statements.
Let's hope we don't have to go over all the 4 threads again to put that one back in its place.

I' not sure I'd accept NGis is "in" the scientific community, it is simply a commentator on the world, with nice photos intended for the general public.

Heck, even the science journals or scientific organisations are heavily criticised for their PC attitudes, improper peer review and bias.

An interesting read (not necessarily related to AGW but to what happens out there in the science journals) is this: it is long but you'll like the punch line (found on Numberwatch):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps


 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

From Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/404873/National-Geographic-Society

"With more than nine million members in the mid-1990s, the organization is the world's largest scientific and educational society."

In my book, National Geographic is a member of the scientific community.

Unlike, the Telegraph, Toronto Sun and National Post (whose links and political comments appear in an engineering thread for some reason) which clearly are not members of the scientific or engineering community.

Back to my point. The world tempeture is changing, so what.
Is what you are proposing to do about it going to make very much difference? And what is it going to cost? And is everyone going follow the same rules?

Bottom line is, to what effect, what is the cost, and are we just hurting ourselves?

Cranky108 - You touch on a concern of mine.

"Is what you are proposing to do about it going to make very much difference? And what is it going to cost? And is everyone going follow the same rules?"

President Obama says its a great opportunity.
If this is an opportunity, I can't wait to hear what he calls a problem.

 

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

joesephv,
What exactly are the criteria for membership?  A checkbook, perhaps?

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

josephv,

"Few scientists dispute that human fossil fuel consumption is altering Earth's climate. The scope of that change, however, remains a subject of debate."  
 

The second sentence says it all. I think everyone will agree that fossil fuel consumption will have "some" effect on climate.

You still miss my point, there have been many other instances in time where the temperature has changed significantly over a relatively short period (like .4C in one century). This is not the first.

China will be emitting twice the greenhouse gases the US is by 2012, according to Wikipedia. China is planning to build coal power plants for the next twenty years. Now, I can dig out the numbers, but the amount of electricity required to build a car is enormous, including what is used to make steel, aluminum. The cost of electricity to build a car is more than the cost of labor. So, is China playing the US? We go nuclear at great expense, they burn cheap coal at $.02 per KwH? They end up with all the manufacturing?
Secondly, people have talked about cow 'emissions' contributing to global warming. Excuse me, since we now have had our coolest summer in recorded history, the term "climate change" is in use. It can be applied whether the we have warming or cooling.
Anyway, India has three times the cattle the US does. And they are old cows, which have a lot of 'emissions'.
So, with China burning much more coal than the US, and India having more gassy cows, it seems 'climate change' is something the US has very little control over.
 

Shouldn't the US as the leader of the free world actually take the lead here? Lead by example, reduce pollutants and convince the other countries (e.g. China and India) to do the same.

Because history tells us that unilateral legislation doesn't work. It not only doesn't work it does the legislator some harm as they become less competitive.

It is generally recognised that when dealing with global problems the only effective solution is through International Environmental Agreements.

It is why the European Union Charter requires it to address global issues, climate change etc. through treaty making.

The forum is often the various UN agencies.
To be effective they should set achievable, affordable and justifiable targets, and they require the co-operation of the member states.

The key requirements for successful treaties are genarlly agreed to be:

• Implementation
• Enforecment
• Monitoring
• Verification

It is also commented that experience shows onerous imposed solutions don't tend to work well; everyone has to agree t the final solution. That solution may deliver less than could be realised if the ideal path were followed and were complied with but also tends to show that the expectation often far exceeds the achievement and the net delivered benefit is often less than that delivered by an mutually agreed solution.

Leading by example sound nice but the reality si it won't work.
Now consider SOX emissions. They represent a global problem because of acid rain (some what over hyped) and a regional problem due to the impact on morbidity.
anthropogenic SOX is said to be around 30% of atmospheric SOX. The reduced sulphur content in European and US fuels for cars and trucks may have delivered a significant benefit in the local community as a result of unilateral legislation but globally the UN can't say if it has had any overall effect at all. In other words it could be that as one country reduces emissions others increase emissions and their fuel costs less to produce. In such things we find the beginnings of trade imbalances due to different overheads.

 
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Have Germany, Spain and Israel become less competitive after implementing Solar Energy programs and reducing pollution?

No they haven't, and In fact, they are more competitive than before.

You mean Spain Germany and Israel are now exclusively solar powered?
That's news to me.

Many countries have some hydro, some wind farms, some mix of energy sources. Having some and having enough to make a difference are two different things.

If anything, the new cheap (tight) gas that is coming on stream is going to enhance the energy cost difference between fossil (cheap) and green (not) and so make it even more attractive for those who need low energy costs for their industry to stick with fossil.

Take a look at who is buying into fossil fuels in a big way and then see if you can guess which countries will be enjoying cheap energy and low manufacturing costs at the expense of those who have gone green alone.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Solar is now responsible for approximately 1% of Germany's electrical geeneration.

Not, perhaps, a convincing case for the economic advantages of solar, unles that 1% somehow sprinkles fairy dust over their brown coal plants.

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

If you really want to 'do something' about global warming then view the facts, and become a VEGAN.

If you want to 'feel good' about global warming call your goverment to legeslate new laws.

If you only want to 'feel soso' about the envirment, try picking up trash.

If you want every thing cheeper then call your goverment to legeslate no new envirment laws.

But please stop complaining, and do something.

VEGAN is stupid. There are no healthy Vegans in the long term. Humans evolved for a long time eating meat. Vegetarians in India eat things like dairy and eggs. This you can do. Being a Vegan is just plain ignorant.  

"Global Warming" - now called "Climate Change" - was/is a Trojan Horse for hidden agendas. To provide tax subsidy for technologies which make no economic sense - solar. To push nuclear energy as "green" - despite nuclear being extraordinarily dangerous - Chernobyl, potential terrorist attack, nuclear waste stored all over the US at each plant. To move "dirty" manufacturing to China where they have to live with the pollution - although, along with the pollution went all the jobs.
Here in Indiana, along with much of the US, we just had the coolest summer since temperature records were kept, starting back in the 1800's.
The highest standard of living for all Americans, and citizens of the world, comes from using the lowest cost energy sources. In the US, this is coal for electricity, natural gas for fueling cars. Assuming the goal is to provide a high standard of living for Americans, as opposed to helping out special interest groups.  

To be a VEGAN, check the facts uses less resources from the earth, including farm land.
I did not say it is healthy, or fun.

Also being a VEGAN is an agenda of the many greenies.

So you don't want to be a VEGAN, then make another choice.

I, myself, choose to be a non-believer.   

You mean to tell me that fossil fuels are not heavily subsidized?

That's news to the world.

Fossil fuels are not cheap, it us tax payers who foot the bill.

 

let's not forget the US auto industry, which is ridiculously subsidized at this moment.

Oh well, perhaps you'd like us to switch to the Chinese auto industry?

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Interesting you mention China, Greg.

China subsidizes gasoline prices so that their citizens can afford it.

But it does not end there. India also subsidizes gasoline prices for their citizens.

Wait there is more, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela use the profits of their oil industry to (you guessed it) subsidize gasoline prices so that it is really cheap for them to fill a tank of gas. So when the price of oil goes up, they have more profits to subsidize their gasoline.

In Canada, the oil sands require massive amounts of water and the process pollutes this water. What do the companies pay for this water and for contaminating it? Nothing, that is an enormous subsidy.

So how can fossil fuels be cheap, when the fuel itself is subsidized by tax payers all over the planet, and two of the big three car companies require massive bailouts  to continue operating (which have been going on for some time)?
That is not cheap, that is very expensive.

Another note, are there foreign troops in Saudi Arabia to protect their solar panels or to ensure that there oil industry is secure? How much does that cost?

Imagine renewable energy received that kind of subsidy, you wouldn't be seing solar at 1%. Further to this hand calculators at one point were used by 1% of engineers and slide rulers by 99%. Solar will grow, it's called progress.

In Germany, electricity from renewables grew from 6% in 2000 to 15% in 2008. Over 200,000 people were employed in the renewable energy sector by 2006.

Imagine other countries taking Germany's lead. That would help the economy, create jobs, and fight pollution.

Except, the various studies showing jobs created by green energy, when examined more closely, prove to employ fewer people that are displaced from other energy sectors.

Now, what do you mean by subsidy?

The reserves of fossil fuel are the greatest they have ever been. We not only have new and very substantial resources discovered deep in the Mexican Gulf but also vast new resources in Iraq (or Iran?).
Then we have enormous reserves of "tight" gas coming on stream and there are the shale oil crudes - China has now discovered large reserves of Shale oil.

The price of fossil fuel is determined not by what it costs to produce but by how much is produced relative to demand.
Petrol is heavily taxed.
So we have fossil fuel prices being inflated by restricted production and high taxation.

So when you say some countries are subsidising their fuel costs, if you are talking about producers (and because it has bought up a lot of production that includes China) what they are really doing is selling the fuel domestically (or in Hugo Chavez case, for political reasons, t selected clients) at less than the market price. They are not selling the fuel at less than the cost of the fuel.

On the other hand, wind energy costs more to produce than it is sold for and that is a true subsidy. So when China shows a net profit on fuel compared to a net loss by others, who are the winners?

Given the vast fuel resources that China has both domestically and abroad through purchase (as well as tying up much of the refinery production of residual fuels) and given their industrial expansion, do you expect them to convert to solar power and wind energy? SO how effective is it for unilateral legislation to (a) impact on CO2 emissions and (b) sustain a competitive market economy?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

"Except, the various studies showing jobs created by green energy, when examined more closely, prove to employ fewer people that are displaced from other energy sectors."

If that was true, then Germany would have a much higher unemployment rate than 9.1%. The US is now at 9.7%.



 

This is embarrassing.

How can you relate the economic health and unemployment exclusively and specifically to renewable energy? Do not both have some relationship to other factors? Has there not been a recession/depression which has affected different countries in different ways?

Unemployment at 9.1% in Germany.... yes, what about it?
Are you saying that the employment statistics in Germany, or the US for that matter are exclusively affected by renewable energy?
Or do you suppose (think about it) there may be other factors involved as well?
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

The unemployment rate in the US is at 9.7%, and Germany's is at 9.1%. Of course there are many factors for this. Perhaps the fact that Germany is not as dependent on oil, helped their economy survive the record breaking oil prices we experienced the last few years. But to say that a transition to renewable energy results in job losses is quite false. There will be a shift in jobs during a transition to renewable energy. Just like we shifted from COBAL and mainframes to Personal Computers and C++. There were many COBAL programmers without jobs for while, but that changed. It's a fact of life.

Most of the studies I can find that proclaim greater employment in renewable energy are possibly self serving.
One major report by Juan Carlos University that says for every job in the renewables sector 2.2 are lost in the general sector has been roundly attacked.

So, until I can again discover the reports that said to be cautious about accepting net job creation claims I shall concede the potential.

The supposition that Germany's economy is thriving because it is less dependent on oil doesn't stand up. If everything we hear is that low cost fuels are being discontinued in favour of high cost fuels then it can't be cheaper, can it.
For example, the cheapest of the fuels is coal. Germany has substantial brown coal reserves.
Power was also generated using Bunker C fuel and Gas, the three cheapest fuels.... so how can shifting to more expensive fuels equate to a better economy?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

JMW:  you say a few things that need challenging.

First:  acid gas emissions are actually pretty good proof that if we choose to do something, we can manage to actually do it, and to produce good results.

Acid rain emissions are not over-hyped if you live in Canada.  We had tens of thousands of northern lakes which were very nearly sterilized by acid rains and the associated leaching of phytotoxic metals into them.  pH lower than 4.  Ghostly and beautiful- clear to the bottom- and dead as a doornail.  Numerous lakes and associated species are coming back now, albeit slowly, and some only with help.

Your argument about the world's emissions not being affected by this legislation is a straw man.  Had we chosen to do nothing about acid rain emissions from a legislative perspective, acid emissions WOULD have SOARED worldwide.  The efforts of the 1st world in this regard may have been counteracted somewhat by the lack of efforts in the developing world, but that is FAR from being an argument against action in the 1st world.  Without action in the 1st world on issues like this, action in the developing world is entirely impossible.

Dealing with acid rain emissions did not destroy our economies.  Coal is STILL the cheapest fuel, even with scrubbers on the plants.  And despite the acid plants on the smelters, they're still in operation- and people are still burning Claus sulphur to make sulphuric acid and energy.

As to the argument about whether or not investment in renewables is good for or bad for the economy, it depends on how you define "the economy", doesn't it?

How is exporting VAST quantities of a nation's treasure to regions of the world who have done absolutely nothing more than winning the geological lottery, good for a 1st world nation's economy?  Let's not mention the staggering, unstated costs in military terms to keep that cheap oil flowing!  Or the externalities- the costs of the toxic emissions from burning these fuels, whether or not you consider AGW to be one of these?!

Investing in energy efficiency (the 1st priority) and alternative fuels/energy sources (the 2nd priority) is worth it- in economic terms.  Concerned that nations who do not do these things will end up taking all the manufacturing work?  No problem- tarrif the goods they produce to put them on an even footing.  They'll still win due to labour cost differential- the race to the bottom will continue regardless.  But paying all that money for energy we end up wasting is to nobody's benefit EXCEPT those lucky enough to be sitting on top of the oil reserves.
 

Why are you trying to compare solar power with oil anyway? The two in most applications are not interchangable. Solar power cars, or oil fired power plants????

Exactly how many solar powered cars, buses, trains, or boats are there anyway?
And how many oil fired electric power plants are there?

The answers are simple. Solar dosen't work very well for transportation energy. And oil is to expencive to use for electric power plants, except as a back up fuel.

It's just dumb that you compare oil and solar.

As a matter of fact, coal is much cheeper than solar for electric power generation, even with the solar substidies. That is the reason the greenies want to tax carbon, so they can compete. Not some made up climate change.

About the only thing solar is competitive enough with is natural gas for heating water. But you still need natural gas as a backup.

Thomas J. Watson former president of IBM once said,

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

And he was a very smart guy. What we are seeing with solar and other forms of renewable energy is just the beginning of something great.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6715515.ece
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

In all respects Thomas J. Watson was wrong. This can be proven in the fact that presently more than five super computers working on global warming models.

You may be right about renewables, eventually. But as of right now they don't work very well, and are expencive.

Solar works well for space craft because of the huge lifting cost. But on earth transportation costs are much cheeper. (I never said all solar is bad).

Facts are that even wind power is cheeper than solar, but you won't soon see a wind powered car, or the return of wind powered ships (except pleasure crafts).

The best chance solar has is if we start burning trees in power plants (It is being consitered as a fractional fuel in several plants).

 

Well, as solar and wind generation increase there are bound to be more good, green jobs polishing blades and panels:)

Regards,

Mike

Cranky108 asked:
And how many oil fired electric power plants are there?

I found a 2007 survey of 156 of them. There are lots of reasons to burn oil in a power plant. A common reason is being next door to a refinery which has nowhere to ship its residual oil. Another reason is when the local authority tells you to stop burning coal. Right now the US is sucking up all the heavy oil to fix the roads (infrastructure) so a few power plants will be cutting back on oil due to the price.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Many moons ago, there were many newspaper articles telling us that personal computers would cause job losses. After all, what will happen to all those workers using typewriters, and slide rulers! When CAD came along, many people who used a drafting board were replaced. Fortunately, many drafters learned CAD.

Yes, new technologies are disruptive. A shift to renewable energy will cause job losses in some sectors. However, just like in the past these losses will not be permanent. People transition and learn new skills, get new jobs and many times better jobs. This is not the first time and will not be the last time that a shift occurs in history.

When a public company is privatized many people lose their jobs, nobody really cries for them. They simply move on with their careers. How is this any different?

josephv,

You are basically missing the point of many posts above.  The only thing technology does is increase the rate at which humans consume energy; either through increased mortality, increased population, increased productivity, or increased leisure activities.  Simply saying technology is the solution is like a drug addict saying just one more hit.

A countries resolve to do the right thing is only as effective as the least moral segment of that respective society.  Technology increases selfishness due to a primal survival behaviour to consume.  When survival is not a top priority, materialism takes its place.

Previous new technologies were trying to make things better and usually did. From now on our new technologies are needed to just break even or slow the decline. This is because we are running out of resources, or as Moltenmetal points out, running out of space to dump stuff, especially carbon dioxide. So I don't agree with the onward and upward theme.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

"The unemployment rate in the US is at 9.7%, and Germany's is at 9.1%. Of course there are many factors for this. Perhaps the fact that Germany is not as dependent on oil, helped their economy survive the record breaking oil prices we experienced the last few years. But to say that a transition to renewable energy results in job losses is quite false."

Australia's is 5.6%, therefore 'proving' that Germany and USA should knock all windturbines down, get rid of reactors, and burn more brown coal and oil.

Great logic.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

So global warming is actually anti-technology?

Just how many of the anti-technilogy people do with computers, or wash there clothes on rocks?

If you look at the benifits and resource savings of technology. Example, like us the romans had flush tolets, but since we use water valves, we use much less water per capta.
We like the romans cook our food, but we use much less energy to cook it.

So I believe technology is the answer to limited resources.

Any anti-technology people not using a computer may respond.

My technology issue is that it facilitates escalating resource consumption by allowing the population to rise above natural equilibrium.  The further over the balance point it gets, the greater the consequence for any small inturruption in services.  

I'm not anti-technology, but I am against using it as the "solution" to all the world's woes.  Technology will not be the answer; but the answer will be self revealing in the very near future.

If you look at birth rates, and death rates the world over, the most technological countries have the lowest birth rates. Even to the point of concern to countries like Russia which I believe has a negitive growth rate.

If fact the only reason the US population rate is going up is the number of immigrents.

And with technologys lowering of growth rates, and better health, we also have a higher death rate due to technology (car accidents, ect.).

And truthfully technology hasen't displaced people from the work place. It's actually increased the need for workers. Which is why there are so many immigrents here.

But please don't make statments about the recent down turn. If the goverment allows it, it will get better.
 

"My technology issue is that it facilitates escalating resource consumption by allowing the population to rise above natural equilibrium."

Erm.  Ok.  But natural equilibrium for us hairless apes with blunt teeth and no claws is a very small number.  I'll keep my technology, thankyouverymuch.

luddites of the world unite, good grief.

intelligence and the application of it, ie technology, or tool using, is our evolutionary advantage.  you might as well say that lions are meant to kill prey, or that gasselles shouldn't run so fast.

it is a different question to pose, are we smart enough to see the on-coming train (if it exists) ?

Greg, you make a great point about the unemployment rate in Australia. My original point was that Germany, which has invested quite a bit into renewable energy, is doing relatively well these days. So the myth that renewable energy programs bring massive unemployment is just that, a myth. If the US or Australia brought in similar programs there would strong benefits.

Further to this, a carbon tariff on countries that make cheap products but pollute will bring jobs back to North America. The case and point is steel from China, which does not have our standards on pollution control. However, a carbon tariff will make things fair and suddenly local steel (from North America) will become affordable and steel from China more expensive, bringing jobs back to us. Who would have thought that the United Steel Works would have united with environmental groups, but that is exactly what happened with the Blue Green Alliance:

http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/about_us

Many people lost their manufacturing jobs due to outsourcing in the last decade. A carbon tariff can bring many of those jobs back.

Speaking of Australia, here is a comment on Global warming to interest al but the religious disciples of AGW:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/alarmists-out-in-cold/story-e6frfifx-1225704688703
AGW a "religion"?
See here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/
But for some more AAGW (anti AGW) the SIpps article "No heat build up in the oceans =  no global warming (man made or otherwise) plus the observation that the signature of AGW predicted in ocean temperature history has not been found.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Thanks jmw for those interesting posts. However I have to wonder about the editorial policy of the second link. Make sure you check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/27/tgv_toilet_attack/

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Well, the Register is primarily for IT types. That says it all, I think.
But it is interesting to see the New Scientist letting questionable material onto its site... questionable... not toeing the AGW hardline (follow the link from The Register: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html).
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Excuse me but isen't the production of raw virgin steel a very carbon intencive process?
The only short cut is to recycle which is what we presently do in the modern mini mills.

The truth of what killed the big mills in this country is the unions, and labor costs.
Does anyone actually believe labor costs are going to decrease here?

Labor costs will decrease in the USA.

It's called the exchange rate.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/summary/indexn_m.txt

-5% per year in the last 5 years

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

So the assumption is other countries can't devaluate there currencys also?

And with so many unemployed in other countries don't think they won't.

how do you do that these days ?  long ago, when there was a gold standard as a universal currency benchmark, you could; but these days it's all market determined, so you change the rate by changing the demand/supply (printing it, increasing/decreasing interest rates) ...

Well cranky, guess you'll just have to write to all the central banks and market traders and ask them why they didn't.

Oh, I got the date wrong, it has taken 7 years to reduce the exchange rate by 25%. In another 7 years if present trends continue the cost of labor in the USA will have dropped by 50%, in world terms (less any pay rises). Is that really what you want?





  

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Can we get back to Global Warming. I have been wondering what it would take for the IPCC to reverse its position. Ten more years of cooling, 20, 30, something else?

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

No.
20 -30 years of cooling is a mere bagatelle.. a transient excursion.
Remember when they discovered "global chilling"?
The idea that here were mechanisms at play actually cooling the planet down was quickly interpreted to mean that global warming was far worse than anyone had suspected and that the full effects were being "masked" by global chilling.

I suspect the IPCC will only reverse itself when woolly mammoths once again roam in the streets of North American cities and every home in the southern states has its own glacier.

They have too much invested in AGW to be able to extract themselves and thus are now firmly in denial.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

The IPCC will reverse itself as soon as there is more money to made by the fears from chilling than by the fears from warming.
 

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

and we'll need more money to fix the chilling, 'cause we'll have less time to fix the problem and today's actions have made the problem worse !

it'll be win-win for a small segment of society, and lose-lose for the bulk of us tax-paying slobs

Perhaps the IPCC 2014 report will back off a bit from their 90% probability to say 85%. However what we really need is a study of the IPCC member pensions and when they become vested.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

The IPCC 2007 Executive Summary moved global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases from "likely" to "very likely" So I should change 90% to very likely, and 85% to not quite so very likely.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

In science nothing is 100% certain. So, what is the worst that could happen?

Here is an interesting argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

Let's consider wind energy.
It is subsidised. Heavily.
But, the calculations are possibly based on the apparent contribution to the overall energy generation rather than te true contribution which effectively means it is more expensive than declared.

A case in point is Denmark.
Nominally 19% of energy generating capacity is wind power.
However, it is claimed the actual contribution is around 5%.
The true cost of wind energy should be amortised over the actual energy contribution and not the nominal capacity.
Small wonder they are now considering building huge polders to act as reservoirs so they can use available energy to fill them and then draw down the energy as hydro-electricity when the demand is high. This of course, is an added cost.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/denmark/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf

Quote:

Taxes and charges on electricity for
Danish household consumers make their electricity by far the most expensive in the European
Union (EU)1.

How about Texas?
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2159
TEXAS: 8,200 megawatts of installed wind power capacity.
According to ERCOT, just 708 megawatts can be considered reliable. Less than 1% of its needs.

Hmm. So how can Germany be faring any better?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

josephv, with all respects, the vidio is misleading. Presently our choises are not to spend money, or not to spend money. We also have choices on how much to spend, and what to spend it on.

The problem lyes on the fact that the prevaling decisions are to forget the simple things, and only do the most life style distructive things.

It not that anyone would strongly object to most of the simple things. It's that not all ideas are even being consitered. Like the decisions have already been made, and no one asked if there are other ideas.

That is why I object to any climate change requirments. I don't like things cramed down upon me without proper debate.

maybe they have a lot more hot air ?  maybe, possibly as a side effect of beer and bratwurst, they have a much more reliable supply of wind ??

 

The video is completely misrepresenting the true situation.

Take his column A where we spend the money.
If spending the money creates global economic recession when it is false, it will cause the same global economic recession if it GCC is true.
Except. He talks about Global Climate Change man-made or not.
That's the danger of re-branding half way through.
We are back again at the runaway greenhouse or the new ice age.
So his real options are:

• GCC Warming true
• GCC ice age true
• either or but nothing we can do

Now when we act we have two options, to combat warming or to combat cooling. There is no proof of either.
SO we have far more outcomes to consider and any mismatch combination is not only going to create global economic recession (unless we do nothing) it also has a 50/50 chance of making things a whole lot worse.

Now lets go to the d nothing column. Whatever the options we have to consider that doing nothing in each case is the safest option unless we know for damn sure what the true condition is because that smiley face has aabout one appearance in five.
SO in his row 2 column 2 where the doom and gloom catastrophe is outlined, that also applies to several of the options in column 1.

We can all draw smiley faces. But at 6 minutes 47 seconds in I'm thinking this guy is pitching it perfectly to all those who believers.

This presentation is a sort of shell game. He tells you your options but you really have to list your own options and check up on him.
You must in fairness to his logic consider the various options as I've outlined them above or you are cheating as he is.

If I say you can be rich and unhappy or poor and happy, we all know we have to choose to be poor and happy.
 
But, you shouldn't accept that those are the only two options just because I tell you so.
You can on your own initiative ad in rich and happy and poor and unhappy.
Once you do that you realise that the optimum outcome is diametrically opposite to the original. Now instead of choosing to be poor, to suffer all sorts of global economic catastrophe, you choose to be rich. That's because being rich and unhappy is better than poor and unhappy.

In our scenario it would be a real B***ger to wake up having spent all your money and committed yourself to a global economic depession only to discover you spent it on the wrong thing because now you need even more money to fix the previous fix and fix the real problem and you don't have money.
Better to wake up one morning and have money left to help you survive.

Of course, once they can really prove not only which scenario is true but the magnitude and the true benefit/deficit of that scenario then you can do something.
If there's no time left. Too bad. The no time left scenario s true of any outcome but doubly true of any wrong choice first time round precautionary principle.

The guy says he has run this by all his friends and no one can fault his logic? Yeah? then get new friends.
  
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

PS why are the ratings and comments disabled for this video?

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

For such a long running 4th thread it is appropriate to link to a rather long Senate Minority Report which begins:

Quote:

This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52)who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN's and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.

The full report is here .....255 pages..... it deserves to be read.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&;FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
 
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

jmw:  we may be happy, and consider ourselves to be rich, but the people who won the geological lottery are richer still for far less effort on their part.

Face it:  the core to your argument is that changing things is risky, whereas the status quo might not be.  A fine argument IF you equate change with catastrophe!

Spending money to wean ourselves gradually from utter and growing dependence on fossil fuels, a huge fraction of which is utterly and unnecessarily wasted, will not result in economic catastrophe.  Saying so is baseless fear mongering.  North America's per capita energy consumption could be reduced by 30% to 50% simply by adopting the energy consumption patterns of people in Europe- people who are not poor by any stretch of the imagination.

Again the choices seem to me obvious:  either keep doing what we're already doing and run the RISK of destabilizing the earth's climate, as one might reasonably expect by altering its content of a non-trace component by some 50% in a geological nanosecond, or choose to do something else.  There will be costs and benefits to either choice, many of which will be difficult to predict.  

The KEY difference between these two choices is that if we wake up fifty years from now and decide that burning fossil fuels actually represents no adverse climactic, ocean chemistry or other serious and essentially irreversible risk, we can go back to burning those fossil fuels which remain with wanton abandon.  

If we've put the carbon into the atmosphere already and decide later that it was a very bad idea, unfortunately we'll need to invent some brilliant "new technology" in order to undo it- in the form of a time machine.
 

Molten metal,
I do not believe we should "waste" resources.
I do not believe we should trash the environment.
I am happy to have lower fuel consumption and more efficient heating, more efficient and sensible use of energy.

But I don't believe you can simply use the precautionary principle as an excuse to spend money.

To act then the goals must be affordable, achievable and justifiable.

In the example posted by JospehV we had some one whose starting assumption was a very generous "We don't know." and he proceeded to construct a false logic that "justified global economic recession as a precaution by the clever strategy of postulating only a limited set of options.

Purely based on that assumption and within the terms he addressed the problem I suggested that with the more complete set of options you arrive at a quite different conclusion.

The posts about wind energy are just what they are, information on how some data is being misrepresented to us.

JosephV suggested that Germany was doing wonderfully, which may be true, but implied a link to their green policies.

Now, there really shouldn't be any obejection to using fossil fuels rather than not using them since if they are not used, they just sit in the ground.

There are several pollution aspects which, over the years, have been and are being addressed.

The issue of particulates is always relevant when the emissions are at the surface where we live.
However, to suggest the world is getting worse is false.
Data collected globally about particulates (for the impact on morbidity) shows that, in the UK for example, particulates in some inner cities does occassionally exceed the threshold but mostly it does not. Compared with pollution in the 50's particulates are actually substantially lower.
The study that hasn't been done and is yet to be done is to assess the impact of modern living on our exposure to particulates. That is to say, more of the population lives indoors these days and more and more homes and offices have air conditioning. Also more and more people have cars that have air filters and certainly are less open than in the 50s.
Another aspect is that with the mobility that populations now experience post the 50s people now commute further to work.
This, as you'd expect, increase pollution from fossil fuels. However, what it has also done is allow the migration of factories from the cities to the periphery. That move is commented on in the reports because they hav associated a significant lowering of morbidity with that move.

The inference is that particulate levels are lower today than previously and we are less exposed to them.
For example, one of the particulates we most worry about is NOX. It is harmful if released at head height but the total amount produced by man is insignificant compared to natural production by bacteria, electrical storms and so on and of the anthropogenic contribution the most significant is from agriculture.

To concede JosepheV's point SOX is rather unpleasant but the same response applies. As a fossil fuel emission it si from cars and lorries we suffered most.
SOX has another role which is as a global chilling agent. It is proposed it should be released into the atmosphere to help combat global warming.

Now you come to CO2.
That CO2 is a pollutant is rubbish. That it is a significant cause of Golbal wrming is also questionable.
To invest vast amounts of money, to invite global economic recession combatting something that does us no harm is nonsense.

I'd be quite happy to see renewables replace fossil fuels where appropriate if it were justified.

There was another link posted to Blombergs presentation which looked at cost benefits. Combating global warming will benefit far far fewer people at far far greater cost than tackling aids or malaria or something tangible and proven. Notethat Blomberg does not say AGW isn't happening or that Global warming isn't happening, he just says it the least god way to spend our money.

And no, I don't equate change with catastrophe, I built the argument on the same terms as it was presented. He suggested global economic depression (which the Stern reports leaves us no reason to doubt).
He suggested we could cgain this state by spending money because of the two smiley faces this would be best. I merely suggest that if, and only within the terms he set out, you evaluate his argument for the precautionary principle, it is a fallacious argument.

By the way, if there ever were a risk of destroying the climate in a nano second by some trace element creeping above some nominal value it has far exceeded in the past then I rather suspect it would have happened long long ago.

Things don't happen in nano seconds. Not even asteroid strikes.... they have a long way to come, or volcanic eruptions... we may not know when they will happen but we are getting more informed every day.
Frankly we have no chance of surviving any of these ELEs, by definition, but there may be any number of more probable but less severe events we should be prepared to survive.

But not if we "waste" money.
Wasting resources is never good. Wasting our ability to respond is criminal.




 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

I agree (reluctantly) that we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However this is only half of the story. Some reduction will come from efficiency gains, but a lot has to come from other sources of energy. I have not seen any yet that come close to filling the gap. Can we agree that baling hay, while providing a lot of employment, is not one of the energy solutions? And neither are windmills at 20% installed capacity, and 5% operating capacity. However these two activities together make very good subjects for artists.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

"Let's consider wind energy.
It is subsidised. Heavily." JMW

André de Moor presented a calculation where worldwide energy subsidies were $240 US billion in 2001.

Fossil fuels were subsidized to a total of $150 US billion. Note this calculation does not include the worldwide tax exemptions for aircraft and ship fuels which is around $250 US billion.

Hermann Scheer referred to this as the greatest case of corporate welfare in history.

Renewable energy was at $9 US billion. 3.7% of the total.

Imagine, these subsidies were changed, so that we benefited from less pollution, energy security, etc.

And what proportion of the total was renewable energy?

What is Andre De Moor's definition of a subsidy?
I note from one of the articles out there they say he has a new definition; his own (we listened to Gordon Brown too long to take everything he says at face value and it breeds a healthy suspicion of any incomplete or facile data presented).

Perhaps you would link to this article, that seems usual here.

It might help to know the date stamp on the data or the article.
I mean, if renewable energy only takes 3.7% of the total subsidies, then your point's fine if renewable energy is anywhere from 3.7% of the energy total and up.
But if renewables, at the time of the data, were 1%, say, and subsidies on renewables have been steadily increasing ever since, then that's something else again.
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

It would also be nice to know the total taxes, not just the subsidies. Total taxes=taxes-subsidies.
This would give a real picture on the subsidy issue.

The fossil fuel industry must be a wonderful thing. It can receive massive subsidies from States, Provinces, and countries while paying massive amounts into the economies of States, Provinces, and countries, making them rich beyond the dreams of avarice. How do they do that? Maybe its a timing variance.

HAZOP at www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

Here is a very interesting article and quite thought provoking.
For one thing it raises the question of the extent to which soot and particulates impact on albedo affects.... the ice caps are actually primarily radiative rather than reflective.

So, have a read.
Interestingly the variability of the sun and the relative stability of the temperature over the last few billion years necessarily must involve some kind of temperature regulating mechanism, what ever it is.
This is not counter to the argument that climate depends on solar activity  since it does conform to the idea that small climate changes can be driven by solar activity but that the regulator mechanism prevents those solar effects becoming extreme.

Incidentally, note the importance of ocean currents in a number of recent papers about missing AGW predicted effects.

It says a lot for the value of water to life on this planet.
Here is the link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
 

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

agreed, an interesting read.  my 2c ...

1) if the global temperature as be stable (within a few %) whilst the phyical climate has changed in and out of ice ages, then it isn't a good predictor of anything !

2) increased storm activity, which seems to me to be consistent with the thermostat hypothesis, is a prediction of the CC lobby.

In case anyone is persuaded that China is a convert to AGW and Kyoto, note that they have made a lot of well judged and "friendly" noises about limiting their increasing emissions of CO2,but committed to nothing.

On the other hand their campaign to acquire all the fossil fuels they can continues as this article, here taken from the telegraph but easily found elsewhere from internet searches, shows quite well.
Nigeria has some pretty impressive reserves and 1/6 is significant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/6241570/China-seeks-a-sixth-of-Nigerias-oil-reserves.html

Of course, the more reserves that China acquires the less there is for anyone else unless we see that made up from elsewhere and at higher prices.
This ongoing campaign to acquire fuels ad minerals by China is their right. But what it does expose is the danger to western energy supplies.
The great renewable energy crusade has had the effect of spoiling forward planning for conventional energy (including nuclear) and left countries very much exposed for fossil fuels.
In the Uk energy poverty is likely to come fairly soon.
There is no way to build enough win farms, enough gas or oil fired or even coal fired power stations and certainly not nuclear in anything like time enough to cover the shortfall.

That means buying electricity from France.
This has usually been the case anyway since France produces excess which it does sell to the UK.

However, if you believe in the AGW publicity, be very afraid.

This year the warm dry weather meant France had to buy electricity from the Uk. This is because the French Nuclear power stations are on rivers and river flows were lower so cooling water was not as available.

The whole mess created by AGW is that CO2 concerns were not enough to encourage investment in nuclear power. The same CND types proved as susceptible to the green message as to the nuclear, and thus there has been an abdication of responsibility for forward energy planning.

Tough times are ahead.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

I have a 'Kyoto' carbon question:

A country produces X bushels of wheat, producing Y tonnes of CO2 as a by-product. (Let Y contain whatever you want, including fertilizer production, water pumping, transportation, tractor fuel, tractor production, etc).

Therefore, each bushel of wheat 'costs' X/Y=Z tonnes CO2 per bushel.

Now, assume a large portion of that wheat is exported to another country.

My question: Which country should be held responsible for the carbon footprint of the wheat? The one that MADE the wheat, or the one that CONSUMED it? What if the ship that moved the wheat was registered to a third country? Where does THAT carbon footprint get recognized?

tinfoil, Does the wheat not include carbon that was once in the air? And in the growing process did the plant not release the oxygen?
So for the few old farmers, that use horses, and old style maneure, would there not be a carbon credit, not a footprint?

Yes I've seen these guys driving there horse buggies down the side of the road.

And which country is to pay for the footprint for the steel used in wind power plants? Or the energy to make photovoltaic panels?

Yeah, but once the wheat is eaten, all that trapped CO2 in the carbohydrates gets released by the human/goat/chicken/whatever that digests it.  Although, more CO2 by weight is trapped in the cellulose stems (straw) than in the wheat kernels...so maybe we need to figure out how to tax the bacteria that digest the straw...hmmm.

China has already announced that it has no intention of accepting responsibility for CO2 used for export goods, that CO2 will be assigned to the end user.

That's not unreasonable if you think about it.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Traped CO2? Sounds like I could just open it up and release it.

So you did not give an answer on the second part.

I hear they will ban CO2 in beer.....









............just kidding.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
 

Those pesky yeast!