Lets start with the elimination of lighted roadside billboards.
oltmannd Euclidbut it would probably have to be done by regulation or simple rationing. What, exactly, is "simple rationing"?
Euclidbut it would probably have to be done by regulation or simple rationing.
What, exactly, is "simple rationing"?
I just wanted to make it clear that I see no good way of reducing CO2 emissions, and offer that as a backdrop to my preference for the best method.
But assuming that we must reduce CO2, I think that would be best accomplished by everybody individually, voluntarily reducing their energy consumption. It would save money and make the economy stronger. While electricity price might rise if consumption were cut, other commodities like gasoline would fall in price as consumption drops.
I used the term "simple rationing" to distinguish from price rationing. In other words, simple rationing would be just a regulation limiting how much you can buy.
Generally, I don’t believe that the average person who supports the need to do something about MMGW has any idea of what will actually be required of them once they are called upon to deliver the solution. The average person has been led to believe that a few token measures such as better light bulbs and buying local will solve the problem. But even starting with the low-hanging fruit, the overall solution will begin with the total elimination of air conditioning.
First, thanks for not begging the question....(even after you did )
Direct regulation I get. It's exactly what the administration just did. Carbon reduction by fiat.
Some interesting reading about the costs of regulation vs carbon tax:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-tax-carbon/
"...prominent conservative economists as Kevin Hassett, Glenn Hubbard, Greg Mankiw, and Art Laffer have expressed support for a carbon tax swap."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
MP173Complex issues? You bet and well beyond my pay grade...but I am all ears.
Complex and fraught with even slim possibility of really, really bad things happening. It is beyond our ability to fully assess the likelyhood of the various levels of risk. Small risk x really big cost x low certainty still equals a big problem.
Being unable to completely assess the risk does not mean the proper response is to ignore it - or act as if the worst case is proven fact.
Similarly, being unable to fully understand the science (and I'm nowhere close!) does not mean there isn't some level of understanding among those who do fully understand what's known to date. This current level of mistrust of science and trust of pundits is really troubling to me.
And, finally, just getting from correlation to cause and effect is really hard. We seem to have some good correlations with weak theories of cause and effect. Lack of solid explanations for cause and effect is not the same as no correlation - or a reason for no response.
oltmannd Okay. You don't like a carbon tax. If the goal is to reduce CO2, what would be a better solution? No begging the question....
Okay. You don't like a carbon tax. If the goal is to reduce CO2, what would be a better solution?
No begging the question....
I would not assume the goal to reduce CO2. But if that were the goal, I would prefer it be done by direct consumer conservation as opposed to conservation pricing, straight price rationing, or a carbon tax. Ideally, my preference for direct conservation would be voluntary, but it would probably have to be done by regulation or simple rationing.
On one hand, consumers would save a lot of money by reducing their consumption. However, due to the fixed cost of energy production, the price would have to rise in order to compensate for falling consumption.
So when we get down to just one light bulb, we will still have a $150 monthly bill.
MP173Don:Your statement made a whole lotta sense.
Thanks!
MP173Now, if we could also direct our attention to other matters, such as the national debt, over spending, etc.
Yes! Especially that debt thing....
Euclid rrnut282 Don, I agree with everything but the carbon tax. It will artificially taint the market forces needed to sort out the energy situation. I agree. A carbon tax is not a market solution. It is a regulation. It will slow down the economy. It may hurt the railroad business more than the loss of coal traffic.
rrnut282 Don, I agree with everything but the carbon tax. It will artificially taint the market forces needed to sort out the energy situation.
Don,
I agree with everything but the carbon tax. It will artificially taint the market forces needed to sort out the energy situation.
I agree. A carbon tax is not a market solution. It is a regulation. It will slow down the economy. It may hurt the railroad business more than the loss of coal traffic.
Well Euclid , your two for two , I agree with you on this one too. You got my attention.
But it may have to be, because, as no one has mentioned so far, the dependance of the US Government on fossil fuel taxes. Talk about biting the hand that feeds it.
One other thing. I thought water vapor had about 10 times the effectiveness of CO2. Are they going to outlaw water? (they almost did in one legislature)
Schlim, Dwight and/or others, (my apologies, in advance if I'm misinterpreting your position)
The science is not settled. Theory is not fact. It is an idea trying to explain a situation. The scientific method requires a theory be proven, repeatedly, independantly, before anyone dares treat it as fact. The scientific method is also dependant upon criticisms levelled against a theory to make sure some other factor is not overlooked. Demanding a pet theory be treated as a fact is blind faith. I sincerely hope you have faith in someone else.
oltmanndAnd the RRs? There is always stuff that needs to get from A to B!
Yes there is Don. But traditionally for railroads coal had been a large amount of that stuff. I don't predict the future but it is hard for me to see any evidence that points even to a leveling out of the use of coal. The evidence seems to suggest that the use of coal will decline.
And as we all know railroads for some time now have focused on long profitable hauls. I can't fault the railroads for this; after all they must compete with a trucking industry that gets a substantial subsidy buy using public roads. But it does seem to me that freight railroads would do themselves a big favor if they would look into ways they could profit from shorter hauls. How might they deal with the costs of loading and unloading all that medium haul and even shorter haul stuff.
Part of this is dealing with government regulation. Very often railroads and government seem to be at swords' point. Yet government needs the railroads to haul certain kinds of freight. And the railroads need government if they are to operate and earn a profit. And the whole country needs a rational freight system. Railroads have to be part of any rational freight system.
If I were in charge I would abolish all property tax on railroad tracks. That would be a big step toward leveling the playing field between railroads and trucks. But I'm not in charge.
John
Maybe the railroads will be fine but what about the railroad employees, customers and their families? The projected increase in electric power rates are expected to rise, how much no one knows but it is certain that rates will go up as a result. Some doomsday experts are claiming as much as an 80% increase and some are claiming it could be as low as 10-15% The bottom line is that with any significant increase in electric power rates consumer spending will decline also. With the lack of consumer spending there will be a lack of customers for the railroads to serve.
Don:Your statement made a whole lotta sense.
Now, if we could also direct our attention to other matters, such as the national debt, over spending, etc.
I am not a scientist, nor do I have much of a science background, so I remain fairly open. From what I have read, there are some data issues with the 97%ers. There is also an extremely difficult model to analyze.
Is there climate change? Possibly. Data shows the average temp has risen 1.5 degrees since 1895. Is that significant? I dont know. Further data indicates the sea level has risen 8 inches in that period of time. Significant? Yeah, to those who built based on 1895 levels. Were the levels low at that time? Further data indicates the world temps have been stable the past 20 years. Why?
Astronomy is one of my hobbies and years ago I read about the Mars polar caps and mentioned that in passing during a conversation with a "warmer". She immediately dismissed me as a "capitalist pig" (full disclosure...I am). But...what would cause Mar's ice to melt? Hmmm.
Complex issues? You bet and well beyond my pay grade...but I am all ears.
My opinion...railroads will adjust and be fine.
Ed
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Interesting article here . Evidently the liberals want you to believe that the earth is immune from solar heating. OR do the martians need to put out some fires ?
The funny part is that I'm not real passionate about the issue either way. I'm just pointing out some holes in the accepted story. But I will add that discrediting or discounting supposed unsubstantiated "conservative" writers and scientists is foolish and is a typical closed mind liberal stand.
Much to my surprise Euclid wrote a short paragraph that has logic, I'm impressed and I agree.
The label, “denier” undermines the credibility of the science. No matter how large a consensus may be, true science always prides itself in being open to criticism and challenge. Labeling the critics as deniers sounds like something left over from the times when they burned witches.
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas."
Indeed it is. Without it trees won't grow.
Norm
You are making waaaaay to much sense here.
23 17 46 11
The best thing about "global warming" or "climate change" for those true believers that it is human caused is this. Even if we changed our ways, abandoned modern lifestyles and moved into caves and under rocks and the climate continued to change (as I suspect more from natural cycles and causes than human ones), they can still claim victory. "Oh boo hoo hoo, we changed our ways too late to stop climate change."
Maybe I have my head in the sand, but it's better than where I think those true believers have their heads stuck.
Jeff
DwightBranch erikemFrom what I've seen, AGW is not a settled science, with models varying by a factor of three or more in the expected increase of temperature due to a doubling of the CO2 concentration, with actual temperature measurements trending at the lowest range of the model results. There's a lot of meteorology that still isn't well understood, specifically cloud formation. You're right, the variability of AGW is still debated, but its existence obviously isn't, and even the lowest ranges of temperature rise will be extremely difficult to deal with.
erikemFrom what I've seen, AGW is not a settled science, with models varying by a factor of three or more in the expected increase of temperature due to a doubling of the CO2 concentration, with actual temperature measurements trending at the lowest range of the model results. There's a lot of meteorology that still isn't well understood, specifically cloud formation.
You're right, the variability of AGW is still debated, but its existence obviously isn't, and even the lowest ranges of temperature rise will be extremely difficult to deal with.
That's the rub. The science of this is so complex is leaves darn near every layman in the dust. All we're left with is our own half-baked opinions.
Here's mine.
Is AGW real? Extremely likely. We've been putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a pretty good clip and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, for there not to be some level of warming from this would be surprising, not the other way around.
But, how bad is it? We don't really know. All sorts of issues from lack of historical data, to difficultly of modelling something as complex as climate, lack of understanding of other variables, to the dangers of extrapolation. It could be relatively insignificant to a complete disaster.
So, what should we do about it? Doing nothing risks that AGW is a big deal and we're left with big mess of crop disruption, rising seas and all the economic cost and suffering that comes with it. That's a pretty big risk. Doing "everything" risks disrupting the world economy to the point it is unable complete even some of the measures of "everything" and everyone suffers declining income. These are both valid points of view that each side tends to dismiss with a waive of the hand and a "bah!"
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of carbon tax. If the goal is to reduce CO2, this is the most effective, least diruptive way. It lets the market forces figure out things like which energy sources to develop, where and how much. It lets market forces figure out automobile MPG. Doing this stuff by fiat such auto CAFE, power plant CO2 emission regulation, et. al. is expensive folly.
If AGW turns out to be a tempest in a teapot (is this a pun?), then the carbon tax still has the secondary benefit of reducing the other harmful effects of coal, such as mercury emission and mountain top mining, and faster improvements in energy efficiency, production and distribution. Would it satisfy the "chicken littles"? Nope. Would it satisfy the "deniers"? Nope. That's how you can tell it's probably a pretty good idea!
And the RRs? There is always stuff that needs to get from A to B!
This is timely, from an opinion piece, "The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'," from the May 27 Wall Street Journal:
"Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures -- more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007.
"The petition states that 'there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.' "
One is tempted to conclude that either the 97% figure is suspect or scientists are a more numerous fraternity than we knew.
Co-author of the Journal piece is Dr. Roy Spencer, "a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite."
Another of the head-in-the-sand 3 percent, no doubt.
Figures lie, Liars figure.
The difficulty is deciding which is which!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
OK .. here's a link from NASA confirming the melting Greenland ice. No mention is made of AGW as a cause. In fact the cause is "naturally occurring and happens ever 150 years or so.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_12-249_Greenland_Ice_Sheet_Melt.html
Which means that global warming WILL happen as a result and there's NOTHING we can do about it. The planet will take care of itself as it has been long before us.
What puzzle me is the AGW people are saying that AGW warming is responsible for the melt. What else are they manipulating and lying about? When you distort facts and make crap up that's not science fact, it science fiction.
Let me guess.. your "scientists" are better than mine. I have a feeling that anyone with an opposing viewpoint will have all incompetent scientists to cite.
Pull your zipper up, I'm not doing that.
The original report from NOAA that I cited I remember very well when it was issued in the papers immediately after the first great Icelandic volcano. You remember that one right? It put more pollution in the air than all of mankind in its entire history. NOAA proved the entire region was heating up geologically. Heating of the earth surface from the planet core indicates volcanic activity much like Yellowstone.
Our problem isn't global warming , its solar warming
DwightBranch AGW is settled science, and the world isn't too big or complex to understand, or to break down discrete causes.
AGW is settled science, and the world isn't too big or complex to understand, or to break down discrete causes.
From what I've seen, AGW is not a settled science, with models varying by a factor of three or more in the expected increase of temperature due to a doubling of the CO2 concentration, with actual temperature measurements trending at the lowest range of the model results. There's a lot of meteorology that still isn't well understood, specifically cloud formation.
Th carbon cycle on earth isn't very well understood either. A common statement is that the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is several hundred years, yet the C14 produced by the nuclear weapons testing of the 50's and early 60's has disappeared much faster than what would be expected from a multi-century residence time.
One of the most valuable courses hat I took in college was one on Numerical Analysis. One takeaway from the course was the many ways that computer model could diverge from reality from causes such rounding errors from finite arithmetic precision, to solutions of differential equations being exquisitely sensitive to initial conditions. And this is assuming that the models were a good reflection of physical reality.
- Erik
If while you were working on a farm you slipped and went head first into a pile a manure, you would get bleep in your ears. If you hang around or read from these socialist climate scientists or researchers who get paid to research Global Warming, or is it now Climate Change, or maybe its leftover dinosaur #2 gas, or whatever it is they call it, you will get the same thing in your ears as if you went head first into a pile of manure.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Some reference articles for our posters.
1. March 2014 National Geographic about black holes but has a section about our sun.
2. April 2014 National Geographic about Coal
3. June 2012 National Geographic about Solar super storms & CMEs.
4. PBS Nova 2 hour program that first aired a couple days ago about satellite observations of the earth. One section was about how the climate around Antarctica effects the whole planet. Another section about where people in North America get oxygen. Missed first part and waiting to see it when runs again.
We may need to know how the sun is going to act and is it going thru a long term ( 1 -10 thousand years ) cycle ?
Randy Stahl So NOAA scientists are among the 3% ? BTW any resemblance to a blues brothers skit is complimentary. http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/12/study-the-earth-is-melting-greenlands-ice-caps/ So I guess these scientists are also in that 3 %? Be easy to twist this into a global warming scenario if you are motivated to do so.
So NOAA scientists are among the 3% ?
BTW any resemblance to a blues brothers skit is complimentary.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/12/study-the-earth-is-melting-greenlands-ice-caps/
So I guess these scientists are also in that 3 %?
Be easy to twist this into a global warming scenario if you are motivated to do so.
First, lets see a link. Are they saying that an icecap was melted by a volcano under it? That is a different phenomenon than an icecap melting without a volcano under it becasue the average temperature is rising. You are trying to claim that both things can't be true at the same time, or that the existence of one incident (a volcano melting the ice above it) means that global warming, a different phenomenon, cannot exist, which is ridiculous. It is a classic dodge. Second, I didn't click on the Daily Caller link, that is Tucker Carlson's conservative website, is generally not respected, and has been accused of "eagerness to publish completely unsubstantiated allegations" by various sources
Natural gas, wind, nuclear, bio-mass, and solar will replace some coal fired generation in the intermediate future. However, the transition will not be overnight.
The notion that the country can shut down all of its coal power plants immediately and find alternative sources of power is unrealistic. Shuttering coals fired plants and finding reasonable alternatives is a time consuming and expensive process. Those who say that wind and solar can take up the slack are overlooking the fact that there is no practicable way to store electric energy and, furthermore, the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine.
As of the end of 2013, Texas had 83 generation stations that were under the direction of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Natural gas had 56.4 per cent of installed capacity, followd by coal at 22.9 per cent, wind at 13.4 per cent, nuclear at 6.2 per cent, with hydro, bio-mass and solar accounting for the remainder.
In 2013, according to ERCOT, natural gas generated 40 per cent of the electric power in Texas, followed by coal at 37.2 per cent, wind at 13.4 per cent, and nuclear at 11.6 per cent.
When I went to work for a major power generating company in 1976, coal was used to generate more than 48 per cent of electric power produced by our company, which was the largest generating company in Texas. For a variety of reasons, the percentage of power generated by coal has declined significantly, especially during the past decade, and it is projected to decline even further in the coming years.
As noted in another post, coal accounts for 20 per cent of the volumes and 27 per cent of the revenues for CSX. As the amount of coal used to generate electric energy declines, it will have a definite impact on the country's freight railroads, especially those that move high volumes of coal.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.