Obama acts to reverse Bush climate moves

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Actually, you just drove my point home very nicely. Global warming is a religion.

faith based - or at least validation based on consensus and the idea that "lot's of people are on board with it"
a version of Pascal's Wager on the lips of the devout
irrational anger and hostility to 'non-believers'
social consequences for those not in the group
quoting scripture without understanding
a general posture of superiority and disdain
smugness
rote statements applied to the 'deniers'

nonsense - I don't see any of that


What I don't get is WHY these people need some kind of "save the planet" motivation to get behind what would essentially be a move towards higher efficiencies and lower costs and cleaner air etc. Seems that doing the right thing for the sake of doing isn't enough - they have to have some grand scheme or guilt to motivate themselves.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>I've been reading recently of moves to put iron fillings into the oceans to
>encourage plankton blooms which would absorb CO2 back into the oceans
> when the plankton dies . . .

I've heard of that.

>Wouldn't increased levels of carbon within the oceans through these
>means increase oceanic acidification - which as I understand, is very bad?

The idea would be:

-add iron to the ocean
-phytoplankton growth increases
-phytoplankton absorbs CO2 from the ocean and uses the carbon to make more phytoplankton; this decreases ocean CO2 levels (and thus ocean acidity)
-some phytoplankton is eaten, thus transferring the carbon to larger and larger animals (jellyfish, tuna, whales etc.)
-most phytoplankton dies and sinks to the bottom, where it becomes mud, then rock (specifically limestone.) This "sequesters" the carbon within rock.

Overall I think it's a bad idea. Three things might happen:

1) Nothing at all. Iron does not significantly affect plankton growth. So lots of expense, no result.

2) We royally screw up the phytoplankton food chain by changing iron conentrations. Killing off even half the phytoplankton would result in the death of most of the life on earth.

3) Things work great. Phytoplankton growth takes off, and new phytoplankton evolves to deal with the higher iron concentrations. Sea life abounds. Fisheries recover. CO2 levels come down.

Then, one day, there's a worldwide recession, and suddenly we can't afford to send out tankers of iron ore. Most of the newly-adapted phytoplankton dies for lack of iron. Most ocean life dies shortly thereafter. CO2 levels skyrocket. The planet warms a few degrees C in a few years instead of a century. That's worse than anything we're contemplating now.

[billvon 3,118]

>You are forgetting the thousands of subsea eruptions annually which are
>not measurable with any accuracy. Add it up.

OK. All volcanoes in the world add about 230 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Again, we emit 30 billion metric tons of CO2 a year. I'll let you do the math on that one.

>Besides, the two biggest factors controlling global temperatures - global
>rainfall and solar flares - can't be measured or predicted.

Solar flares have nothing to do with global temperatures. They result in proton storms (i.e. solar wind) and they do not increase global temperatures, although they pose a hazard to satellites and spacecraft.

Solar irradiation _does_ affect global temperatures; these cycles are closely associated with solar activity (including flares.) And it's following the same 11-year cycle it always does.

Global rainfall also has nothing to do with warming. (Indeed, the opposite is true; temperatures determine rainfall.) However, cloud cover does affect climate change by increasing albedo and increasing infrared retention.

I'll let you do a little more research on these.

[dgskydive 0]

Bill is smart!

Dom

[billvon 3,118]

>what would essentially be a move towards higher efficiencies and lower
>costs and cleaner air etc.

Why should any capitalist care about higher efficiencies or cleaner air? In a capitalist society, the company that spends the extra money on stack scrubbers fails, and the company that saves money by omitting them wins by being able to undercut the more ecologically responsible company.

Same thing with efficiency. Solar is far more efficient by almost every measure than coal power. But a coal power plant with no emissions controls, although hideously inefficient, is just plain cheaper to build. Why would anyone bother to go to more efficient technologies, in the absence of environmental regulation? All that happens is that they go out of business and get mocked by the anti-environmentalists.

[rushmc 23]

More folly....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iL-5qI1IqMzmWJyE8DREG3fK_iMAD95U85900

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[434 2]

"Remember the rabbits in Australia"

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

faith based - or at least validation based on consensus and the idea that "lot's of people are on board with it"
a version of Pascal's Wager on the lips of the devout
irrational anger and hostility to 'non-believers'
social consequences for those not in the group
quoting scripture without understanding
a general posture of superiority and disdain
smugness
rote statements applied to the 'deniers'

Hmmm ... not quite sure your point is valid with respect to climate science ... but it does sound an awful like like the folks trying to rationalize the use of torture or pursue a 'scorched-earth' military response to counterinsurgency.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

"Remember the rabbits in Australia"

No. What rabbits?

Dom

[dgskydive 0]

Found it!

I told ya he was smart

Dom

[quade 4]

It's a long sorted story where Australia / New Zealand have tried various "natural" methods of "controlling" nature by importing animals not indigenous to the area. In EVERY single case they've only managed to screw things up FAR worse than the original problem was. Rabbits are the most well known but there are others as well.

What is absolutely hilarious is that the governments continue to try to deal with things this way. There is currently a problem with Tasmanian Devils and a form of contagious cancer. In order to create a sort of protected population, they plans to populate a previously unpopulated island with them. Because they'll have no predators, they'll undoubtedly do very well and destroy virtually anything else that might happen to be on the island.

Some people never learn from the past.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Solar is far more efficient by almost every measure than coal power. But a coal power plant with no emissions controls, although hideously inefficient, is just plain cheaper to build. Why would anyone bother to go to more efficient technologies, in the absence of environmental regulation? All that happens is that they go out of business and get mocked by the anti-environmentalists.

why would any Solar energy company bother to develop a cheaper product if the government will subsidize the purchase of one?

If I'm willing to spend $10K on a system, but the system costs $15K, I don't buy and the company that can sell at 10K stays in business.

If I'm willing to spend 10K and the government is willing to subsidize an extra 5K, then I buy and the company doesn't improve costs. It only costs my neighbors an additional 5K for ME to have a shiny new solar system

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Actually, you just drove my point home very nicely. Global warming is a religion.

faith based - or at least validation based on consensus and the idea that "lot's of people are on board with it"
a version of Pascal's Wager on the lips of the devout
irrational anger and hostility to 'non-believers'

Have you not seen the reactions of global warming alarmists when they find out a person doesn't believe? It can be stunningly angry.

social consequences for those not in the group

Hell yes there is. I personally know people that would never socialize (beyond that required at work, etc.) with non-believers, and actually encourage others to do the same.

quoting scripture without understanding

Done all the time by the masses that believe in global warming. They spew global warming "scripture", even though the closest anyone has come to proving it is a "consensus".


a general posture of superiority and disdain
smugness
rote statements applied to the 'deniers'

Yep, that happens on a regular basis too. Non-believers are routinely dissed by believers as dumb, and yes, they even call people who don't agree with them "deniers".



What I don't get is WHY these people need some kind of "save the planet" motivation to get behind what would essentially be a move towards higher efficiencies and lower costs and cleaner air etc. Seems that doing the right thing for the sake of doing isn't enough - they have to have some grand scheme or guilt to motivate themselves.

Solar and wind - two of the "brightest" technologies being developed by the alarmist crowd - are waaaaaaaay more expensive than existing technologies. That's why we don't see solar panels very much. We do agree on one thing. Many believers are very guilt-ridden. Driving around in a hybrid makes them feel better - whether it helps or not.

You know, a very good friend of mine owns a couple Honda dealerships. He related an interesting story to me. When the hybrid craze started, the Prius was outselling the Civic hybrid something like 5 or 6 to 1, even though the cars were very similar in price and amenities, and the Honda actually got a little better gas mileage. When Honda did some research they found people preferred the Prius because it looked different than non-hybrids, whereas the Honda just had a small name plate on the trunk that said "hybrid". Seems hybrid buyers weren't really concerned about driving a hybrid, just being seeing in one.

Global warming is real, right up until there's global cooling.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

• Quote

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

What is absolutely hilarious is that the governments continue to try to deal with things this way.

what did that famous guy say about insanity

Dom

[434 2]

Is it healthy what we do to the earth?
Is it healthy for the plants and animals?
Can life be better if we change our way to live?
Would you feel better if we tried to save a bit of our planet, and not just abuse its resources?

I would!

Would you accept to change your life for other values than consume more and more for industrial growth?

I would

We can not stop environmental changes, but we can minimize our part of the destruction, and we can be a bit more conscious about life around us!

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Is it healthy what we do to the earth?
Is it healthy for the plants and animals?
Can life be better if we change our way to live?
Would you feel better if we tried to save a bit of our planet, and not just abuse its resources?

I would!

Would you accept to change your life for other values than consume more and more for industrial growth?

I would

We can not stop environmental changes, but we can minimize our part of the destruction, and we can be a bit more conscious about life around us!

In my 20's, I would have told ya to go hug a tree and STFU.

Now days, I say......... +1

Dom

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Killing off even half the phytoplankton would result in the death of most of the life on earth.

Quote

Solar flares have nothing to do with global temperatures. They result in proton storms (i.e. solar wind) and they do not increase global temperatures, although they pose a hazard to satellites and spacecraft.

It's quite a view....

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

There is currently a problem with Tasmanian Devils

Isn't there one here somewhere swirling around?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 3,118]

>why would any Solar energy company bother to develop a cheaper
>product if the government will subsidize the purchase of one?

Because if you provide a good incentive (i.e. tax deductions for homeowners who purchase one) the cheapest supplier still wins out. This has in fact happened; solar prices are dropping fast now that the economies of scale have kicked in. This occurred because incentives (first here, then Japan and Germany) created an environment where companies were able to compete within a billion dollar market instead of a million dollar one - and thus they were more willing to invest a lot of money in factories.

>If I'm willing to spend $10K on a system, but the system costs $15K, I
>don't buy and the company that can sell at 10K stays in business.

No, because no one could make it at $10K when they are making only ten thousand panels a year. To sell the system for $10K they have to be able to build an automated factory that can make a million a year - and no one is ordering that many panels.

So what you do is have a short term subsidy that gives you that $5K in tax breaks. Now you buy that system for $15K since your cost is $10K. So does your neighbor. So does his friend.

Now the company is seeing a demand of a million panels a year. They install the new factory. Now they can make the systems for $10K a year. A smart subsidy (like the California one) will now start reducing the subsidy. Now it's $2K. Far smaller subsidy, but the system still costs you less (now it's $8K.)

Now Kyocera notices that market and says "you know, we could be making all that money." So they put in the factory as well and sell the system for $9K a year. Lower labor costs and all.

So now your other neighbor has a choice between the $10K system and the $9K system; he's still going to get $2K back.

Which one do you think the neighbor will buy?

[chuckakers 426]

Mix a little BS into your replies and you'll keep these guys going all day!

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Killing off even half the phytoplankton would result in the death of most of the life on earth.

It seems we should give more consideration of carbon dioxide as an ocean pollutant:

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0921-oceans.html

http://courses.ma.org/sciences/dowen/StudentWork/Global_Warming/Ocean_Acid2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

The implications are shocking.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 3,118]

>Mix a little BS into your replies and you'll keep these guys going all day!

Naah. There's enough of that floating around.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Is it healthy what we do to the earth?
Is it healthy for the plants and animals?
Can life be better if we change our way to live?
Would you feel better if we tried to save a bit of our planet, and not just abuse its resources?

I would!

Would you accept to change your life for other values than consume more and more for industrial growth?

I would

We can not stop environmental changes, but we can minimize our part of the destruction, and we can be a bit more conscious about life around us!

In my 20's, I would have told ya to go hug a tree and STFU.

Now days, I say......... +1

In my 20 I would have said +1

Today, after learning more I say go hug a tree and STFU

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>why would any Solar energy company bother to develop a cheaper
>product if the government will subsidize the purchase of one?

Because if you provide a good incentive (i.e. tax deductions for homeowners who purchase one) the cheapest supplier still wins out. This has in fact happened; solar prices are dropping fast now that the economies of scale have kicked in. This occurred because incentives (first here, then Japan and Germany) created an environment where companies were able to compete within a billion dollar market instead of a million dollar one - and thus they were more willing to invest a lot of money in factories.

>If I'm willing to spend $10K on a system, but the system costs $15K, I
>don't buy and the company that can sell at 10K stays in business.

No, because no one could make it at $10K when they are making only ten thousand panels a year. To sell the system for $10K they have to be able to build an automated factory that can make a million a year - and no one is ordering that many panels.

So what you do is have a short term subsidy that gives you that $5K in tax breaks. Now you buy that system for $15K since your cost is $10K. So does your neighbor. So does his friend.

Now the company is seeing a demand of a million panels a year. They install the new factory. Now they can make the systems for $10K a year. A smart subsidy (like the California one) will now start reducing the subsidy. Now it's $2K. Far smaller subsidy, but the system still costs you less (now it's $8K.)

Now Kyocera notices that market and says "you know, we could be making all that money." So they put in the factory as well and sell the system for $9K a year. Lower labor costs and all.

So now your other neighbor has a choice between the $10K system and the $9K system; he's still going to get $2K back.

Which one do you think the neighbor will buy?

Waht you dont say here is that you would use cap n trade to run the prices up so hight (artificailly I might add) to support a tech that is not yet there. A head of it time so to speak. To support your beliefs and screw up the free market.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>Waht you dont say here is that you would use cap n trade to run the
>prices up so hight . . .

No, we're talking about subsidies to support emerging technologies. The subsidies for solar-PV worked. Prices have gone from $10 a watt to $4 a watt to $2.50 a watt; a four fold decrease.