I did not bring up round earth as an analogy to current climate change debate.
But it seems to me that the analogy of the proof of round earth to proof of the predicted damage arising from climate change only holds up if the latter is finally proven and not just believed in.
And are the two challenges really that similar? Proving round earth seems like a walk in the woods compared to proving the effect of manmade CO2.
And also, how much was at stake if the round earth consensus proved false compared to what is at stake if action to stop climate change proves to have been unnecessary? A lot of people say that even if we can’t prove the climate change theory, we should take action just in case it is true, because if we wait, it may be too late to take action.
That is one way of looking at it, but there is another way. The planetary destruction prediction arising from climate change is dire, and the remedy will not be cheap. What if the prediction is found wrong after we have paid for the remedy? And what exactly is the cost of the remedy?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440844/climate-change-solutions-economic-cost-outweighs-environmental-benefits
VOLKER LANDWEHR Saturnalia Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts. To use a dictionary definition: knowledge about or study (research) of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation So it not just knowledge to the way to achieve new knowledge too.
Saturnalia Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts.
To use a dictionary definition: knowledge about or study (research) of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
So it not just knowledge to the way to achieve new knowledge too.
Granted, but a key thing about climate change theorists is that they generally use models rather than experiments and observation. As I've said previously, models are a dangerous thing, because they're so easy to mess up, and so easy to cook.
Again, I go back to all of these daily weather models which are never fully correct. Most follow a trend, and there is serious agreement between climate models. What I question is the level to which people claim fact over theory or incomplete flushing out of the data.
My point is that yes there is a significant amount of support for the theory of climate change, but there's a difference between science fact and science theory.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Saturnalia 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it. Looking from the outside I recommend to take of the political filter and look at evidence and facts and consinder in what state lo leave the earth to our successors. Who else than governments should handle such country wide or global issues?
Saturnalia 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it.
Looking from the outside I recommend to take of the political filter and look at evidence and facts and consinder in what state lo leave the earth to our successors.
Who else than governments should handle such country wide or global issues?
Don't think that I don't get exposure to climate change theory. I've seen way more than enough thanks in large part to intercity public schooling where cataclysimc climate change is as true as the fact that the sun is hot.
I've always been the debate sort of person. Being the one conservative in a class of 75 liberals gets one used to it. We had an absolute blast in numerous classes on countless issues. I like to think I provided some balance to the situation, it certainly was fun. One thing is for sure: when you're really forced to put your beliefs to the test time and time again for 6 years through middle and high school, you really can't carry BS arguments with you. More on that below.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Industry disappears for a number of reasons. I live in the city of Essen in the German Ruhr Area. We had once 460,000 people employed in coal mining. In 2018 the last mine will close. Of about 30 steel mills just one is left and it is endangered. They got uneconomical and higher emission standards were part of it. The air was worse on a daily basis here than in LA. The emission standards had very positive effects worth the costs.Regards, Volker
Industry disappears for a number of reasons. I live in the city of Essen in the German Ruhr Area. We had once 460,000 people employed in coal mining. In 2018 the last mine will close. Of about 30 steel mills just one is left and it is endangered.
They got uneconomical and higher emission standards were part of it. The air was worse on a daily basis here than in LA. The emission standards had very positive effects worth the costs.Regards, Volker
When it comes to industry, our primary polluters, and daily use habits, it becomes insanely obvious within about 30 seconds that yes, we pollute a significant sum. But the key is that there is a difference between "carbon bad windmills good" and a practical energy and production policy.
Clearly, what we saw from 1800 until about 1970 in the west, particularly, was reckless abandon for the planet. Cleveland even managed to set their river on fire, of course.
What we saw was thankfully, policies instituted wherein we began to reign in our pollution, which is a noble goal in any and every case. Even some of the latest power plant rules, up until the most recent Clean Power Plan, was highly effective and pragmatic.
Here's what I see: I see that we took the technologies available and developing, and put them to use, on an equitable basis balancing the needs of society with the environmental cost.
The problem now, is that the developed world has reached the end of what can easily be cleaned up. As with the Clean Power Plan, futher cuts are generally limited by the intersection of new technology and costs, for small gains in pollution. Europe, Canada and the US have pretty much reached the end of point-source pollution controls, in terms of the gains they can net us.
Meanwhile, developing countries, particularly India and China, are still in the circa 1940-1960 era in terms of pollution. The Paris Climate Accord goal for China, is to, over the timeframe of the agreement, stop emission growth.
This has already happened in the US, Canada, and the EU.
If the proponents of cataclysmic climate change are truly serious, they'd be beating much more on the developing world. Solving problems by shaving off tiny bits for many billions isn't going to solve it. The biggest cuts to be made are not in the US, Canada or the EU, they're in Asia.
But beyond cutting, to the parts of the equation vastly overlooked when it comes to climate change:
First and foremost, pavement. Look, I'm a civil engineer in training. We LOVE pavement. And humans, we love our structures. But woah, have we not built either in a sustainable fashion since probably the 1920s. There are very few studies really taking a close look at the heat sink effects of our cities. This is a problem, because obviously, a significant portion of the global temperature increase is due to this effect. How much of the global temperature increases over the last 80 years have been due to urban expansion? We don't have anywhere close to a good answer, but how are we to "solve" climate change, without considering all the factors?
Mainstream climate change believers talk all day about CO2, but hardly ever anything else.
Another point is the sun's radiation. Constant it is not. Now this is something much more flushed out, at least from what I've seen, than urban heat sinking, but there is still a TON of ground to cover in terms of understanding the variations and how they impact the climate. We're coming off of a decade or so of comparatively weak solar radiation...is this a significant contributor to the recent so-caled "pause" in global temperature increases? We don't know.
Anyways, sorry for being incredibly long-winded, but in terms of this debate, yes it is politcal, and yes we all fall into it, because it is unavoidable. It's governence, and people fight about that stuff.
My take on the issue at-large is that we haven't yet come to an entirely firm conclusion on the true nature of climate change, from the factors to the actual rate of change. And so, many of us continue to be skeptical when some propose artifically raising fuel prices, forcing closed power plants, and taxing the heck out of every concieveable negative to the environment.
We have huge impacts, but retarding the economy and our personal liberties are not slam-dunk solutions, and maybe not solutions at all, so says the skeptical school of thought.
schlimmOK. I was referring stricktly to Euclid's several posts on spherical earth. It seemed to me (and possibly others) he had the history wrong (bad revisionist history). I threw in the No Nothing Party bit as a poor inside joke. It was a nativist party (see Wanswheel's post) in the mid 19th century. See CSSHegewisch's post for the connection to current politics. It was rather convoluted.
WikipediaThe Native American Party, renamed the American Party 1855 and commonly known as the "Know Nothing" movement, was an American Nativist political party that operated nationally in the mid-1850s. It was an anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant movement, generally taking the form of a secret society. Adherents to the movement were to reply "I know nothing" when asked about its specifics by outsiders, thus providing the group with its common appellation. The "Know Nothings" believed a "Romanist" conspiracy was afoot to subvert civil and religious liberty in America and sought to politically organize native-born Protestants in the defense of traditional religious and political values. In most places "Know Nothingism" lasted only a year or two before disintegrating because of weak local leaders, few publicly-declared national leaders, and a deep split over the issue of slavery. While the party is remembered for its anti-Catholicism, based on Protestant fears that Catholic priests and bishops would directly control a large bloc of voters, in the South it gave much less emphasis to Catholicism. Among the party's few prominent leaders were Speaker Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts[1] and former U.S. Representative Lewis C. Levin. The American Party nominated former President Millard Fillmore in the 1856 presidential election, although he kept quiet about his membership.[2]
The "Know Nothings" believed a "Romanist" conspiracy was afoot to subvert civil and religious liberty in America and sought to politically organize native-born Protestants in the defense of traditional religious and political values.
In most places "Know Nothingism" lasted only a year or two before disintegrating because of weak local leaders, few publicly-declared national leaders, and a deep split over the issue of slavery. While the party is remembered for its anti-Catholicism, based on Protestant fears that Catholic priests and bishops would directly control a large bloc of voters, in the South it gave much less emphasis to Catholicism.
Among the party's few prominent leaders were Speaker Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts[1] and former U.S. Representative Lewis C. Levin. The American Party nominated former President Millard Fillmore in the 1856 presidential election, although he kept quiet about his membership.[2]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm ruderunner Sorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next? Sorry, Rude, but I said no such thing. Most folks with an open mind can see through your games.
ruderunner Sorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next?
Sorry, Rude, but I said no such thing. Most folks with an open mind can see through your games.
Then care to explain what your quoted post issupposed to mean? I have an open mind and I'm not playing games.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
BaltACD Narcissists can never accept fault for their failed actions. Sound familiar?
Narcissists can never accept fault for their failed actions. Sound familiar?
Sounds rather Presidential to me.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
ruderunnerSorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next?
https://archive.org/stream/knownothingparty43shen#page/55/mode/2up
jeffhergertNo, nothing directly or only for you. I just used your post because it was the handiest one that was appropriate for the comic's theme.
It is a nice comic, and contains the necessary exaggerations and factoids to make it funny. Does it fit? I'm not sure.
I always thought discussions are used to exchange arguments. You try to convince your dialog partner of your own opinions.
With global warming it doesn's seem to work. But one keeps trying, and when one reads what looks like a false argument, you try to show the error.
And then there are arguments like: must be wrong because it is a leftist agenda, is not proven (there might never be 100% proof), the "believer" don't allow so called "deniers" in the discussion, academics vs. less educated people etc.
If we won't allow deniers in the discussion why discuss with them here?
Some of the above mentioned "arguments" are called thought-terminating cliché in Germany.
Presumably we have a different discussion culture in Germany and it is for sure much less guided by political bias that might blind people for evidence and/or facts.
One last comment: A today published representative survey showed that for 71% of the eligibler voter in Germany climate change is the greatest concern.Regards, Volker
Amen to that.
Norm
BLS53That's what I was thinking. Most of the coal cars I see have either power company or leasing company reporting marks.
Most of the coal shipped to Texas appears to be in cars owned by the big electric power generators.
According to Railroad Performance Measures, July 29, 2016 through July 21, 2017, more than 50 percent of all the cars-on-line for U.S. railroads were privately owned. The average percentages for the perriod, calculated on end of quarter numbers, were BNSF 63, CN 62, CSX 62, KCS 56, NS 57, UP 68, and Other 71.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
There's an old aphorism that might have some bearing on this long, tedious, contentious, unqualified, unproductive, circuitous, and now largely redundant conversation:
"There's nothing new under the Sun."
VOLKER LANDWEHR @jeffhergert: Is there something you want to tell me? In some cases my English understandung is not good enough for finenesses or irony. Or was it just for a good laugh?Regards, Volker
@jeffhergert: Is there something you want to tell me? In some cases my English understandung is not good enough for finenesses or irony.
Or was it just for a good laugh?Regards, Volker
No, nothing directly or only for you. I just used your post because it was the handiest one that was appropriate for the comic's theme.
Jeff
schlimm Euclid the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong. Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right. They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong. Euclid's response is a textbook example of how ludicrous a revisionist history can be when it is written by someone who knows nothing (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
Euclid the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
Euclid SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right. They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
SD70M-2Dude Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth. I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
Euclid I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
I understand that the flat earth was consensus at the time, and it was socially unacceptable to question it. So actually it was the “deniers” of that era who pressed ahead with the courage to challenge the flat earth consensus and introduce the round earth.
I thought that the leading scientists of the era (like Pythagoras or Aristotle) advanced the spherical theory, and it gradually spread as open-minded people realized that their old deeply-held beliefs might not be right.
They did do that, but the flat earth was entrenched belief proven and accepted by whatever they considered to be science at the time. So the open-minded agents of changing to round earth had to buck the system of scientific consensus for flat earth. So those open-mined people were the deniers of their time fighting against the consensus which ultimately proved to be wrong.
Euclid's response is a textbook example of how ludicrous a revisionist history can be when it is written by someone who knows nothing (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
Sorry schlimm, but this is why folks find you so disagreeable. So now"deniers" aren't just uneducated, they're also racist? What next?
Thanks Jeff. You've summed up this thread pretty well.
jeffhergerthttp://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14 Jeff
Yes indeed.
CSSHEGEWISCH Euclid schlimm (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback). How so? I think that Blondie's executive order regarding refugees and his pronunciamentos regarding a wall on the southern border are sufficient evidence.
Euclid schlimm (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback). How so?
schlimm (as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
How so?
Really? Evidence of what? And how does it relate to stopping climate change?
VOLKER LANDWEHR Saturnalia Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts. To use a dictionary definition: knowledge about or study (research) of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation So it not just knowledge to the way to achieve new knowledge too. Saturnalia 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it. Nobody said that there is already proof. But the evidence is so high that it would be, at least in my opinion, grossly negligent to ignore it and do nothing while waiting for proof. The proof will come too late to reverse the evolution and in our or our childen's generation. Looking from the outside I recommend to take of the political filter and look at evidence and facts and consinder in what state lo leave the earth to our successors. Who else than governments should handle such country wide or global issues? Industry disappears for a number of reasons. I live in the city of Essen in the German Ruhr Area. We had once 460,000 people employed in coal mining. In 2018 the last mine will close. Of about 30 steel mills just one is left and it is endangered. They got uneconomical and higher emission standards were part of it. The air was worse on a daily basis here than in LA. The emission standards had very positive effects worth the costs.Regards, Volker
Nobody said that there is already proof. But the evidence is so high that it would be, at least in my opinion, grossly negligent to ignore it and do nothing while waiting for proof.
The proof will come too late to reverse the evolution and in our or our childen's generation.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
schlimm(as in the 19th C Am. political party- it's anti-immigrant p;latform seems to have made a comeback).
erikemAt least you put in the 2200 years as a hat tip to Eratosthenes, who was the first to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate for the earth's circumference. The idea of a spherical earth predates him as astronomers of the time were aware of a circular shadow on the moon doing a lunar eclipse as well as knowing the ships disappeared over the horizon (or appeared on the horizon).
The 2200 years was only for his definitive statement. As early as 600BC, Phoenician explorers had moved away from the flat disc concept.
SaturnaliaScience is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts.
Saturnalia95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it.
schlimm Long ago, experts proposed evidence that the earth was actually round, challenging earlier, non-science based concepts. Most astronomers (a consensus) came around to that theory, which was only 'proven' by Magellan and definitively in the space age. Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
Long ago, experts proposed evidence that the earth was actually round, challenging earlier, non-science based concepts. Most astronomers (a consensus) came around to that theory, which was only 'proven' by Magellan and definitively in the space age. Of course there have been 'flat earth society' folks who have refused to accept the obvious over the last ~2200 years.
At least you put in the 2200 years as a hat tip to Eratosthenes, who was the first to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate for the earth's circumference. The idea of a spherical earth predates him as astronomers of the time were aware of a circular shadow on the moon doing a lunar eclipse as well as knowing the ships disappeared over the horizon (or appeared on the horizon).
Contrary to popular opinion, the learned people in Europe during the times of Columbus were very well aware that the earth was round. Their beef with Columbus was that China was too far away to be able to be reached by sailing west.
As for the original premise of the thread, coal loadings have been trending upwards and demand is likely to continue with the number of coal plants being built in China and India. In addition, the break even point for Marcellus shale has been quoted by some at about $4/mcf, which makes coal competitive especially with new "ultracritical" steam plants.
DeggestyGoing back to Mr. Harrison's statement that certain equipment will not be bought, whom is he trying to impress? Consider the facts that the cars that carry coal are not owned by CSX and there is plenty of power stored. Why should CSX buy cars for coal and more locomotives?
Cars for 'domestic' coal are nominally shipper or consignee owned. Cars for 'export' coal are nominally railroad owned. When I retired in December 2016 I know there werer system hoppers being stored - what has become of them with the uptick in coal traffic I have no idea, no longer working.
Deggesty Going back to Mr. Harrison's statement that certain equipment will not be bought, whom is he trying to impress? Consider the facts that the cars that carry coal are not owned by CSX and there is plenty of power stored. Why should CSX buy cars for coal and more locomotives?
Going back to Mr. Harrison's statement that certain equipment will not be bought, whom is he trying to impress? Consider the facts that the cars that carry coal are not owned by CSX and there is plenty of power stored. Why should CSX buy cars for coal and more locomotives?
Umm, there are a lot of "system" cars still out there. They are not that old either.
http://www.readthehook.com/103074/sleek-and-black-new-csx-coal-cars-roll-through
An "expensive model collector"
Saturnalia95% of climate scientists agree that climate change may be caused by humans, but can't prove it. Science is fact. Research is theories, which can lead to facts. Alpocalyptic climate change is a theory of intense debate, and nothing firmer than that
There is little to say to such a polemic. Enjoy your life.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.