Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gas Guzzler Tax, MPG and the fate of the auto - continued from Corvette thread


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#51 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:33

If 'qualified' people assert that +3C to +4C is a catastrophic effect of global warming, they are not qualified. The common layperson can look up ice core temperature projections and see that the earth has been that warm in the past. . . . . .
The doomsday forecasts have nothing to do with climate.

You are just arguing the science now. In my original post I said "if the science is correct". Are you equally or better qualified than the 90+% of climate scientists who believe that AGW is real and threatening?

From Wikipedia.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Advertisement

#52 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,398 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:00

I failed in my resistance to post on this!

Firstly, I am inclined to believe the global temperature is rising and it may, at least in part, be due to human action.

BUT there is one thing about human driven global warming that I have never seen answered anywhere which is why isn’t the northern hemisphere getting hotter faster since that is where 90% of industrial activity , driving etc. and therefore human CO2 forcing occurs.

My knowledge of earth systems is very weak but, as I understand it, the weather ( atmospheric), flows are symmetrical about the Equator and would be simple north south convection flows away from the hottest part , the equator , but for the earth’s rotation effect - hence trade winds.

The other part of climate science beyond the atmosphere is oceanic current flows redistributing heat. As far as I know there is only one really significant oceanic flow that crosses from North to south- the Pacific current. We are constantly told “global warming is melting the Antarctic at terrifying rate" - yes but how does the human-generated CO2 rise and heat rise almost entirely in the northern hemisphere get sent to the Antarctic? – I’m not denying CO2 effects I just have never sen this explained.

That leads to my other great puzzle about the political reaction to rising CO2 - everybody is focusing entirely on saving us by reducing fossil CO2 output. Just suppose, for one tiny moment, that here is a significant non fossil element to the CO2 rise. Then ocean will rise, cities will be flooded etc. and all the carbon trading won’t stop it. Meanwhile it will be too late to take any physical preventative action to protect humankind as all the time, money and political will was expended on only one cause.

It’s a bit like trying to design a car which never crashes because it has almost unlimited cornering power to avoid an accident and then leaving of the brakes because “they aren’t needed" and there is no time or money to do them.


One last thought, and no offence to anybody religious here but it can be argued that global warming is to modern government what original sin was to the medieval church, a powerful tool of control

- Man committed original sin - you can’t go to heaven and live happily ever after in sin - only us, the church can save you from orignal sin - but only if you do what we say."

- Man has committed the sin of burning fossil fuels too much - the planet will be destroyed and so nobody will live happily ever after - governments must impose rules to stop you sinning"





#53 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 06 February 2013 - 10:08

You are just arguing the science now. In my original post I said "if the science is correct". Are you equally or better qualified than the 90+% of climate scientists who believe that AGW is real and threatening?

From Wikipedia.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.


Carbon trading is the de facto privatization of pollution regulations. It is a wet dream for financial people the world over, particularly the World Bank, for whom cap and trade serves a dual purpose (privatizing pollution regulation and promoting redistribution to the third world). The idea also has some critical mass in the US b/c President Obama comes from Chicago, home of the Mercantile Exchange, where US carbon credits would be traded.

If the World Bank picks up a scientific study, the study no longer has any meaning. It is being used as a means to achieve an unrelated end. It doesn't matter who changes their opinion, and who's jumped on the bandwagon or fallen off the bandwagon. We're all going to die anyway so the only thing that really matters is the effect and intent of the proposed solutions while we are living. The only way the World Bank can propose awful solutions is by hanging the specter of global destruction over a gullible populace.

The US already has a plan for reducing CO2 emissions, by using natural gas for electricity and by doubling the fuel efficiency of our passenger car fleet. I have no need for a pointless apocalyptic study that says we have a 20% chance of burning in hell by 2060 *yawn*.

#54 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 06 February 2013 - 10:15

- Man has committed the sin of burning fossil fuels too much - the planet will be destroyed and so nobody will live happily ever after - governments must impose rules to stop you sinning"

All politicians have another agenda. One of the most vociferous (?) proponents of screwing the British citizens with his Green programme is about to serve a stretch at Her Majesty's Pleasure for perjury over a driving offence. Why should I take a blind bit of notice of what he has to say, he, a proven liar? I sincerely hope that he frequently drops his soap in the shower.

#55 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,585 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 07 February 2013 - 00:04

Are you equally or better qualified than the 90+% of climate scientists who believe that AGW is real and threatening?



No, but then I wasn't recruited on the back of the AGW fuss, so I haven't had a professional lifetime of exposure to a political process disguised as a scientific one. If you want to know what I think about AGW read Feynman on Cargo Cult Science, and then ask the questions he says you MUST ask.


#56 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:23

BUT there is one thing about human driven global warming that I have never seen answered anywhere which is why isn’t the northern hemisphere getting hotter faster since that is where 90% of industrial activity , driving etc. and therefore human CO2 forcing occurs.

The Northern hemisphere CO2 level fluctuates by up to 9 ppm annually mainly due to vegetation growth during summer. The increase in average global CO2 is about 75 ppm over the last 50 years ie about 1.5 ppm per year. Distributing such a slow trickle to the southern hemisphere shouldn't be too difficult - perhaps a lag of 1 or 2 years?

EDIT. Out of curiosity I looked up the total mass of the earth's atmosphere (5 x 10^15 Tons) and the current annual CO2 release from fossil fuel combustion (33.5 x 10^9 Ton/annum). That is enough to increase the atmospheric concentration by:

(33.5x10^9) / (5x10^15) = 6.7x10^-6 ie 6.7 ppm/annum.

Easily enough to produce the 1.5ppm/annum increase of the last 50 years.

Edited by gruntguru, 08 February 2013 - 00:50.


#57 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:26

The US already has a plan for reducing CO2 emissions, by using natural gas for electricity and by doubling the fuel efficiency of our passenger car fleet. I have no need for a pointless apocalyptic study that says we have a 20% chance of burning in hell by 2060 *yawn*.

Phew!!! - and there I was, (needlessly) worrying myself to death about your future.

#58 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:06

Phew!!! - and there I was, (needlessly) worrying myself to death about your future.


I think the point of my remark was rather obvious. If we already have a plan to reduce CO2, we don't need to go fishing for a crisis.

#59 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 00:47

If we already have a plan to reduce CO2, we don't need to go fishing for a crisis.

No one is fishing for a crisis. We have been presented with a crisis scenario (and that scenario is accepted by the majority of academics across all disciplines).

Without stronger consensus there are differing views on what level of action is required. The majority believe that the current plans for CO2 reduction worldwide are inadequate.

Advertisement

#60 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:00

I have no need for a pointless apocalyptic study that says we have a 20% chance of burning in hell by 2060 *yawn*.

Let's assume that hypothetical "apocalyptic study" was correct and you accepted its accuracy. Now let's assume there is another accurate study which has identified a huge asteroid which has a 20% chance of annihilating planet earth in 2060. Should we risk the world economy by comitting the massive resources necessary to develop a countermeasure in time to avert this potential disaster?

Just asking - it would be interesting to see whether people's attitudes differ according to the "tangibility" of the scenario.

#61 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 879 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:01

........The US already has a plan for reducing CO2 emissions, by using natural gas for electricity and by doubling the fuel efficiency of our passenger car fleet. I have no need for a pointless apocalyptic study that says we have a 20% chance of burning in hell by 2060 *yawn*.......


Posted Image

US annual CO2 emissions due to energy related activity have been dropping since about 2009. But these fairly significant reductions in CO2 emissions are not the result of any specific "plan" or policy decisions on the part of governments intended to reduce CO2 emissions. Instead, they are due to the combined effect of private oil producers developing technologies that have made NG supplies more plentiful and less expensive, and the reduced US consumer demand for oil/gas due to prolonged, depressed economic conditions. Ironically, the prolonged period of poor domestic economic performance that is a major factor for the recent reductions in US CO2 emissions, is almost entirely due to unintended consequences of government fiscal/economic policies.

Lastly, I would disagree that the current US trade deficit from crude oil is a significant problem. The US GDP (at $15T+) is still the largest in the world by a factor of almost 2X. As for "oil efficiency", US industries produce the most fuel efficient and low emission transportation products in the world. US autos must meet the most stringent emission and safety standards in the world. US commercial aircraft (like the Boeing 787) are the most technologically advanced. And US commercial aircraft engines (like the GE GenX and PW1000) are currently the cleanest and most fuel efficient in the world.


#62 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:34

Let's assume that hypothetical "apocalyptic study" was correct and you accepted its accuracy. Now let's assume there is another accurate study which has identified a huge asteroid which has a 20% chance of annihilating planet earth in 2060. Should we risk the world economy by comitting the massive resources necessary to develop a countermeasure in time to avert this potential disaster?

Just asking - it would be interesting to see whether people's attitudes differ according to the "tangibility" of the scenario.

Risk the economy. What does that mean? What is this economy that has become the standard by which everything, including human life, is measured? What does it mean when we say the economy is good? If we cut through the multitude levels of abstraction that seem to prop up the notion of the economy, what are we left with? I am discouraged with the idea that the planet can only support life if this economy thing is good. It seems to me that economy is little more than a measure of the speed, volume and direction (or movement if you will) of debt.

Rather apart from the philosophical meanderings on debt, is this concept of saving ourselves from an otherwise cataclismic disaster be it natural climate change or an unpleasant - but natural - asteroid trajectory. I posit the following - life as we know it will not exist before either of those scenarios come to fruition - which is not to say human life will not exist, only that I believe, certainly before my children are grandparents that the life we in the first and 2nd world have will be a glimmer of the past. The speed with which we're discovering more efficient, less resource-intensive sources of energy and food are not keeping pace with the exponentially increasing population growth. Clean water, energy, food. These will be far more pressing problems than climate change.

In tinfoil hat circles, there's the theory of "them" who are aiming for a world populatin of half a billion and no more. The idea of course being that we are little more than a moldy fungus on the planet, needlessly consuming vast quantities of finite resources with no actual real benefit. So, if a billion (or 4) people were suddenly wiped off the face of the planet, what would the net effect be? If they were all middle class, the idle rich and the would you like fries with that poor, the net effect would be virtually nil - except a drastic reduction in the pointless consumption of resources and a corresponding reduction in population growth.

And what if humans as a species or the entire planet suddenly were wiped out? So what? Do we believe that the vastness of the universe will care? If you're of the divine entity crowd, this should please you - we all get to go to heaven...or that other place. If you're a person of science or perhaps a Gervathiest, then nothing at all happens - we simply cease to be and the only souls in existence who care aren't around to cry about it. We are smart and resilient and blah blah blah, but we are fragile and insignificant and at the end of the day it's all for naught. If this time mother nature really means it, I'm not fooling around here, and the aforehappened-many-times-already warming trend ceases to be a trend and goes into runaway mode...actually I don't believe that it will...nevermind.



#63 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:10

Risk the economy. What does that mean?

Poor wording. I should have said "risk to the health of the world economy" or something similar. My hypothetical scenario needs to balance the risks of inaction aganst economic risk because that is the the only justification for inaction on AGW/resource depletion/environmental degradation.

As to the rest of your post - hmm - very realist. I guess the reasons even atheists like myself care are similar to the ones that stop me jumping in front of moving trains or wishing that fate to my children, grandchildren or any human for that matter. Call it our self-preservation instinct if you like.

As for the importance of a healthy economy. While I am not a fan of the "anything less than growth is unhealthy" model, it should be obvious that supporting 6 billion people in a fashion that can only susytainably support 1 or 2 billion, can't happen without a "healthy", energy intensive economy along with a rapid rate of resource depletion.

Edited by gruntguru, 08 February 2013 - 05:23.


#64 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 879 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:10

.......As for the importance of a healthy economy. While I am not a fan of the "anything less than growth is unhealthy" model, it should be obvious that supporting 6 billion people in a fashion that can only sustainably support 1 or 2 billion, can't happen without a "healthy", energy intensive economy along with a rapid rate of resource depletion......


To the contrary, the earth can easily support a population of 6 billion. As for what constitutes a "healthy economy", it is one that takes into account basic human nature, such as a free-market system. The reason most of the world's economies are failing is because they have been corrupted by politicians. Politicians have figured out that the surest way to get elected is to promise to use the power of government to take money from one's political opponents and promise to give it to one's political supporters. It is no coincidence that the most economically prosperous countries are those with the most economic freedom.

When it comes to "sustainability", have you considered that the US agricultural industry feeds most of the world's population?


#65 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:23

PII! You ARE here!

#66 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:28

PII! You ARE here!

:lol:

#67 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:31

Instead, they are due to the combined effect of private oil producers developing technologies that have made NG supplies more plentiful and less expensive, and the reduced US consumer demand for oil/gas due to prolonged, depressed economic conditions.

Lastly, I would disagree that the current US trade deficit from crude oil is a significant problem. The US GDP (at $15T+) is still the largest in the world by a factor of almost 2X. As for "oil efficiency", US industries produce the most fuel efficient and low emission transportation products in the world. US autos must meet the most stringent emission and safety standards in the world. US commercial aircraft (like the Boeing 787) are the most technologically advanced. And US commercial aircraft engines (like the GE GenX and PW1000) are currently the cleanest and most fuel efficient in the world.


Fracking and horizontal drilling have been around for a while. The EPA fast-tracked the most recent techniques and fracking fluids as a deliberate policy decision. The EPA has also spent a great deal of time going after domestic coal electricity so natural gas has a buyer when it comes out of the ground. The coal will be exported. This is a coordinated policy, but considering the party in power, they are obviously not going to take credit for any of it b/c they've spent the last 30 years vilifying domestic fossil fuels. Though they may take credit for falling CO2.

This isn't the year 2000, when the US is importing $40B of oil and turning it into 6% growth. This is 2012, when we import $250B, and we run it through one of the world's least efficient transportation systems. That's like cancelling 1%-2% GDP growth every year. As I said before, we are drilling and CAFE-ing b/c its the only way out of this mess.

#68 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,148 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 08 February 2013 - 15:43

PII! You ARE here!


Or Todd perhaps :lol:


#69 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 16:38

I don't believe in anthroprogenic global warming...I think we share the same skepticism.... I have immersed myself in the subject because it touches my profession, as it does the auto industry. I've read, and continue to read from both sides of the debate as a way of learning about the subject and exposing myself to the jokers, the nonsense and political maneuvering. It's not easy sifting through the noise, but one fellow has caught my attention, Bob Tisdale. There are others for sure but his research certainly explains a lot more, to my way of thinking, than does co2. The title of his book is, Who Turned on The Heat. It costs $8.00 and can only be purchased on line. Have a read - about 580 pages.

I bring his name up in a reply to you because your questions, or observations, are pretty good ones from the perspective of Tisdale's research; oceans are a huge climate driver...they can makes climate change in the norht pole while not the south pole, for example...and I'll leave it at that...don't want to spoil the plot.

None of this is to say that we shouldn't conserve, that we should ignore our environment. I think, as I wrote above, that we are focused on the wrong stuff, or a larger portion of the wrong stuff. CO2 is an easy target and folks can make, and are making, a ton of money fabricating the end of the world. It may come to an end, but I think the story we're being fed is a dish we should put aside.

I very much enjoyed the church analogy...and it IS a form of control...motivated by $$$


I failed in my resistance to post on this!

Firstly, I am inclined to believe the global temperature is rising and it may, at least in part, be due to human action.

BUT there is one thing about human driven global warming that I have never seen answered anywhere which is why isn’t the northern hemisphere getting hotter faster since that is where 90% of industrial activity , driving etc. and therefore human CO2 forcing occurs.

My knowledge of earth systems is very weak but, as I understand it, the weather ( atmospheric), flows are symmetrical about the Equator and would be simple north south convection flows away from the hottest part , the equator , but for the earth’s rotation effect - hence trade winds.

The other part of climate science beyond the atmosphere is oceanic current flows redistributing heat. As far as I know there is only one really significant oceanic flow that crosses from North to south- the Pacific current. We are constantly told “global warming is melting the Antarctic at terrifying rate" - yes but how does the human-generated CO2 rise and heat rise almost entirely in the northern hemisphere get sent to the Antarctic? – I’m not denying CO2 effects I just have never sen this explained.

That leads to my other great puzzle about the political reaction to rising CO2 - everybody is focusing entirely on saving us by reducing fossil CO2 output. Just suppose, for one tiny moment, that here is a significant non fossil element to the CO2 rise. Then ocean will rise, cities will be flooded etc. and all the carbon trading won’t stop it. Meanwhile it will be too late to take any physical preventative action to protect humankind as all the time, money and political will was expended on only one cause.

It’s a bit like trying to design a car which never crashes because it has almost unlimited cornering power to avoid an accident and then leaving of the brakes because “they aren’t needed" and there is no time or money to do them.


One last thought, and no offence to anybody religious here but it can be argued that global warming is to modern government what original sin was to the medieval church, a powerful tool of control

- Man committed original sin - you can’t go to heaven and live happily ever after in sin - only us, the church can save you from orignal sin - but only if you do what we say."

- Man has committed the sin of burning fossil fuels too much - the planet will be destroyed and so nobody will live happily ever after - governments must impose rules to stop you sinning"


Edited by meb58, 08 February 2013 - 17:45.


#70 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 08 February 2013 - 16:51

If I read you correctly, I agree, that's one of my beefs. Folks have to place some interest in who is asking for (Paying grants and salaries) and who is providing AGW data. There are those who are politically motivated, on the political payroll if you will, in a position to affect and effect policy...for profit. In this context, CO2 is a convenient accomplice...and they don't want it to go away...Witch Doctors making climate models. My recommendation to read Bob Tisdale in post #69 applies here; it's about the integrity of the information, not the manipulation of it. We are sheep...using the Cargo cult as a stencil.

No, but then I wasn't recruited on the back of the AGW fuss, so I haven't had a professional lifetime of exposure to a political process disguised as a scientific one. If you want to know what I think about AGW read Feynman on Cargo Cult Science, and then ask the questions he says you MUST ask.


Edited by meb58, 08 February 2013 - 18:04.


#71 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 08 February 2013 - 17:28

Chavez supplying free heating oil to 400,000 low-income Americans last year.
Free Venezulan Oil in the US

#72 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:03

When it comes to "sustainability", have you considered that the US agricultural industry feeds most of the world's population?

Even if that was true, in what way does that make US agriculture sustainable? I can assure you that most agriculture world wide uses vast quantities of non-renewable inputs.

#73 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:05

PII! You ARE here!

Be fair - he hasn't called me a Commie bastard yet.

#74 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,398 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 09 February 2013 - 12:01

I just happened to be looking in some old car mags - Charles Bulmer , who was the very erudite technical editor of the " Motor" first discussed fuel cells for cars in 1964 , nearly 50 years ago!

It does make you wonder!

#75 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,079 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 15:09

When it comes to "sustainability", have you considered that the US agricultural industry feeds most of the world's population?


I would guess it gets far more subsidies and hand outs than your 'green energy conspiracy'

#76 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 February 2013 - 16:34

You mean like corn?

#77 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,079 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 09 February 2013 - 22:33

You mean like corn?

Green Giant

#78 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 09 February 2013 - 23:59

Something missing there - Jolly Green Giant, surely...

#79 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 879 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:06

Even if that was true, in what way does that make US agriculture sustainable? I can assure you that most agriculture world wide uses vast quantities of non-renewable inputs.


What I intended to point out is just how nonsensical the notion of energy "sustainability" is. In terms of how you perceive it, wouldn't the definition of "sustainable" imply a process or activity that results in no use of anything other than wind or solar power or biofuels? And if that were the case, then much of the world would quickly starve to death without the huge agricultural exports produced by US farmers using fuels and fertilizers made from oil and NG.

More importantly, the most significant problem facing the US is not energy sustainability, it's the "sustainability" of government deficit spending rates. If things continue without change, within a decade or so, long before the US runs out of oil or NG supplies, the US economy will collapse from an unsustainable amount of federal debt. By 2025 the interest on the national debt alone would consume 80% of the federal budget.

Advertisement

#80 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:34

What I intended to point out is just how nonsensical the notion of energy "sustainability" is. In terms of how you perceive it, wouldn't the definition of "sustainable" imply a process or activity that results in no use of anything other than wind or solar power or biofuels?

To me "sustainable" means an activity that can be continued indefinitely (or at least several centuries) without depletion of some resource or permanent damage to the planet. By that definition, something like nuclear fusion might be sustainable.

And if that were the case, then much of the world would quickly starve to death without the huge agricultural exports produced by US farmers using fuels and fertilizers made from oil and NG.

Exactly.

#81 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:48

As far as the "US feeding the world", I'm not so sure.

US agricultural output accounts for 4.3% of total world output. From WIKIPEDIA

The US imports nearly as much food as it exports:
"USDA’s recent forecast for U.S. agricultural exports for fiscal year (FY) 2013 is a record $145.0 billion, $9.2 billion above FY 2012 exports. Imports are also forecasted at a record large $115.0 billion in FY 2013, up from FY 2012’s imports of $103.4 billion. The trade surplus would be $30.0 billion, down from $32.4 billion in FY 2012" From LINK

#82 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,079 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 18:47

Something missing there - Jolly Green Giant, surely...


"ho , ho, ho " -
nah had a shit day ,


#83 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 10 February 2013 - 19:21

By 2025 the interest on the national debt alone would consume 80% of the federal budget.


I think this is another instance of quoting data without having looked at any of the relevant documents. Interest on our national debt is approximately 10% of revenues. For interest expense to reach 80% by 2025, the US would have to maintain current deficits, current unemployment, and have its debt downgraded to junk status. None of those scenarios is likely.

I agree that deficits are a problem, but you can't make stuff up if you want people to listen to you. Furthermore, I doubt you understand that a lion's share of our deficit is self-correcting. When unemployment drops, we will shed about $400B-$500B in unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and medicaid; and we will gain $100B-$200B in employment and income taxes. The problem is not today's deficits. Tomorrow's deficits are the problem, and we've known about this problem since 1999.

Our trade deficit is another impending disaster. Trade deficits are not absolutely bad, but we've created a sort of public deception where we assure people that superfluous imports are part of economic growth. In reality, we are exporting 3%-4% of our annual GDP growth to foreign countries. We have to reduce oil consumption, cajole Germany and Japan into building auto plants in NAFTA countries, and defuse the currency situation with China.

#84 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 February 2013 - 19:31

Not even fusion is sustainable...the sun runs out of hydrogen at some point. Nuclear fission fuel rods can be processed to extend their use in a number of ways, but nothing is sustainable...unless we invoke the law of conservation and then sustainability can take on an amusing definition...Soylent Green being one, Oroborus being another...but instead of the dragon eating its own tail to arrive at a state of complete self sufficiency, we eat each other or use decomposed bodies as a fuel source...and here we are only sustainable as long as the energy in = energy out.

My background is Landscape Architecture and we use and abuse the term. Sustainable farming being one...we neglect to consider that when we eat but one tomato from one plant that the soil has lost some of its energy to support life, despite allowing the rest of the tomato plant and its fruit to decompose and re-invigorate the soil. A culture built upon a foundation of fossil fuel is precarious, not sustainable.

I think the term sustainability is misleading and should, from the perspective of a culture's life span, possess a different integrity...one that honestly portrays our activities and what the earth/sun can provide. Because even folks in my profession are induced into a state of sustainable coma.





#85 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 10 February 2013 - 22:07

Anybody living in the Alps or close to them cannot fail to notice that the glaciers are rapidly melting, which by the way is also true for the polar ice and NA glaciers. The cost of global warming to regions like the European Alps is unbelievable. There are multiple very expensive issues. It starts with the destruction of winter tourism and goes on with massive erosion problems that require investment on an unimaginable scale to protect the infrastructure and the human settlements in the alpine regions. You have to be very blinkered or insular not to recognize those things. The other point that is very scary is our lack of knowledge how the huge change in the oceans caused by the melting ice will impact on globally weather relevant phenomena like ocean currents. If we loose the golf stream here in Europe we can easily experience an environmental and economic disaster of unknown proportions. I generally do not scare easily but global warming gives me the creeps simply from the destructive potential. We simply do not know enough to predict or exclude anything and it is not wise to experiment with such things.

#86 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,585 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 10 February 2013 - 22:10

Anybody living in NZ close to them cannot fail to notice that the glaciers are rapidly growng


Fixed that for ya.


#87 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 13,148 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 11 February 2013 - 00:31

Maybe the tinfoil hats of the climate change denialists will help.

#88 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 February 2013 - 00:39

I'm not sure folks deny climate change, but I for one don't agree with the popular 'science'...it's been packaged too well at some level. What would we be writing and saying about our future if we were experiencing the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period? Taken by their words we might expect that the world cooled or heated significantly, but extreme regional temperature change does not necessarily point to above or below average global temps. Extreme regional change can be catastrophic and in today's world that gets lots of press. Popular press, social media and biased based industry can certainly influence how we see the truth...it's all about encouraging a belief system by making connections that fall readily to hand and brain.

A 1 degree change in temperature globally is a fairly small percentage of average temps at the equator when compared to the poles...or Swiss Alps. As a percentage, the change is fairly large at the poles, for example. The ice melt grabs lots of attention, as it should, but it may have a lot more to do with oceanic currents than we might like to think...oceans drive climate...they can mediate climate and cause rather abrupt changes...some of those changes can last for 20-30 years, perhaps more.

El Nino and La Nina are two clear examples. Take an extreme El Nino event and couple it with a southern hemisphere summer in which the earth's orbit precessed the a sun a bit closer. The oceans in the southern hemisphere are very large (the connection to the Pacific is fairly significant) and have capacity to change climate for a very long time in this scenario...La Nino events do have the capacity to change ocean temperature and currents. If those currents are driven into the north pole for example, we can certainly expect to see some of the changes we are experiencing.

Edited by meb58, 11 February 2013 - 01:44.


#89 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 February 2013 - 01:51

I don't know any climate-change deniers, only man-made climate-change deniers. I have little doubt things are changing but I'm hard-pressed to swallow the current IPCC position. Their tactics, in particular vilifying anyone who doesn't agree with their position to be troublesome. We like to think that science is impartial and logical but fail to include the human factors of hubris, greed and plain old ego. Scientific positions are often over-turned despite sustained campaigns to the contrary. Animal-fat-is-evil springs to mind as just one somewhat current example.

#90 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 11 February 2013 - 07:48

Greg Locock, you are a troll with your methods of quotation falsification. This is not worthy of the discussion style we typically experience here. I don't know if the glaciers in NZ are growing but if they do it will surely be no match or compensation for the loss of glacier and polar ice we see in the northern hemisphere. My advise to you is to keep your crap to yourself.

#91 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 11 February 2013 - 12:04

Greg Locock, you are a troll with your methods of quotation falsification. This is not worthy of the discussion style we typically experience here. I don't know if the glaciers in NZ are growing but if they do it will surely be no match or compensation for the loss of glacier and polar ice we see in the northern hemisphere. My advise to you is to keep your crap to yourself.


Are the glaciers actually growing in NZ? (and I ask this seriously - I don't know if they are or not). It is hardly "crap" if the NZ glacier growing is actually occurring.

#92 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 February 2013 - 13:47

Yes they are. And this fact underscores my basic point above. I don't give CO2 its apparent due credibility.

Whiteblue,

If glaciers grow in New Zealand as fast as they are retreating in other parts of the world, the cost to New Zealand will no doubt be significant. But regional (temperature) changes do not always correlate with average global temperatures...parts of the world are cooling as well...it's a cycle grander perhaps than our short existance or ability to comprehend.

Read up on this - Natural Decadal-multidecadal Variability of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool and its Impact on Global Climate. It's really quite amazing...and again, what would we be writing or saying if we were smack in the middle of the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period?

...more...Ocean Rossby Waves, Bjerknes Feedback, Walker Cell

Edited by meb58, 11 February 2013 - 14:43.


#93 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,138 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 11 February 2013 - 15:01

Meb, I take your point about global differences. But a bit of glacier growth in NZ will never compensate for the losses on the whole northern hemisphere. The glacier and polar cap melting everywhere in the northern hemisphere is well documented.

http://www.upi.com/S...70561241550410/

This article mentions that single glaciers in NZ and south America are growing but the underlying research confirms that those are small anomalies compared to the general trend which is negative.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 11 February 2013 - 15:07.


#94 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 February 2013 - 15:46

I know glacier melt and polar ice cap melt are well documented, if not over-documented. You helped me along by using the word anomaly...how do you know the increase in glacier growth in the two regions you cite are anomalies? An anomaly implies, in this context, a disconnected event. Had geography in those regions been more suited to glacier formation on a relative size (north Pole and Swiss alps), we might see much more evidence of glacier growth. Despite their diminutive sizes by comparison and geographic distance, they are important...I don't happen to see these as anomalies for the same reason ice melt at the N. pole and alps are not anomalies. That NZ and SA regions are less mainstream is of some significance.

I don't discount the potential cost to the cultures within any area undergoing the effects of climate change. I become a little antsy, however, when those events are broadcast, and cast, as a norm globally. Using a very simple argument...a glacier is sustained if temps remain ~ 32 deg F or below, and, if additional snow equals snow melt. If the annual temp rises but one degree the glaciers begin to melt. Further, if there is no more accumulation of snow a glacier cannot grow...if it rains, a glacier is quickly eroded. That same one degree change in temperature at the equator may be somewhat less visible. Perhaps of greater importance, is that a Glacier is only possible if it snows more than it melts. So, if climate were not changing, and it never snowed again over glacier regions, they would all disappear...UV light also helps to melt glaciers.

I think you might be surprised to find that record snow falls in some places have contributed to an increase in glacier activity...or that Antarctica received record snow fall recently and has grown slightly...despite the loss of ice at the Graham Peninsula. some folks feel the continent is cut-off from global climate and shouldn't be used as an indicator...some feel Ozone depletion contributes to some of Antarctica's recent climate characteristics...what is most clear to me is that climate response mechanisms are not broadcast equally globally.

Edited by meb58, 11 February 2013 - 20:18.


#95 phoenix101

phoenix101
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 11 February 2013 - 19:58

Meb, I take your point about global differences. But a bit of glacier growth in NZ will never compensate for the losses on the whole northern hemisphere. The glacier and polar cap melting everywhere in the northern hemisphere is well documented.

http://www.upi.com/S...70561241550410/

This article mentions that single glaciers in NZ and south America are growing but the underlying research confirms that those are small anomalies compared to the general trend which is negative.


So what?

Look at the ice core data. The earth has experienced relatively uniform heating and cooling cycles since the ice age. Human civilization has been built on a big natural upswing. For reasons undetermined, the heating cycle stopped rather inexplicably, and no one can tell if we are about to enter the next ice age (natural cycle) or if man-made CO2 is about to push us to +3C to +4C, which wouldn't be particularly out of the ordinary, but which would pose a relatively large threat to coastal civilization; especially if the natural cooling cycle were delayed or aborted altogether.

If you look at global temperatures, the scary prospect is not warming. On the contrary, humans have done better as the earth warms. The problem is the ice age that lies ahead of us, and its impact on agricultural production.

#96 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,585 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 11 February 2013 - 22:57

FWIW I threw the NZ data in becuse this argument always degenerates into random factoid mode rather than science. I don't suppose anybody bothered to read what Feynman said about Cargo Cult Science, but it is practically a step by step description of how the AGW 'science' has developed. It all sounds very sciencey, but the hard thinking hasn't been done because the desired outcome is driven by politics, not science.

The reason the NZ glaciers are growing is probably because the global temperature is increasing - more evap from the Pacific, prevailing westerly wind rises over mountain ranges, more snow, more glaciers.

So, while White Blue fumes in his bunker trying to think of a way of wiggling out of his silly moment,I'll wait for the real science, that follows the scientific method, and I'm certainly not paying much attention to the long term extrapolations of several near identical computer models calibrated using the same distorted data sets that have failed to make better than random odds at accurate predictions for 20 years.

That being said I'm not entirely opposed to doing more with less, it is a more interesting challenge than doing more with more.





#97 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 11 February 2013 - 23:53

I read it Greg...I replied on page 2. Read post 94 as well.

FWIW I threw the NZ data in becuse this argument always degenerates into random factoid mode rather than science. I don't suppose anybody bothered to read what Feynman said about Cargo Cult Science, but it is practically a step by step description of how the AGW 'science' has developed. It all sounds very sciencey, but the hard thinking hasn't been done because the desired outcome is driven by politics, not science.

The reason the NZ glaciers are growing is probably because the global temperature is increasing - more evap from the Pacific, prevailing westerly wind rises over mountain ranges, more snow, more glaciers.

So, while White Blue fumes in his bunker trying to think of a way of wiggling out of his silly moment,I'll wait for the real science, that follows the scientific method, and I'm certainly not paying much attention to the long term extrapolations of several near identical computer models calibrated using the same distorted data sets that have failed to make better than random odds at accurate predictions for 20 years.

That being said I'm not entirely opposed to doing more with less, it is a more interesting challenge than doing more with more.


Edited by meb58, 11 February 2013 - 23:55.


#98 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 879 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:49

I think this is another instance of quoting data without having looked at any of the relevant documents. Interest on our national debt is approximately 10% of revenues. For interest expense to reach 80% by 2025, the US would have to maintain current deficits, current unemployment, and have its debt downgraded to junk status. None of those scenarios is likely.


phoenix101-

As of FY2011, debt service accounted for 12.2% of the published federal budget outlays. But you also should recall that over 1/3 of 2011 US federal expenditures were from borrowed money. So the debt service as a percentage of real 2011 revenues is probably closer to 18.5%. Then you should also extrapolate the current annual rise in federal deficit spending out to 2025, and combine that with the increase in interest rates on the additional $15-20 trillion in debt that will be accumulated by then. Then take into account the massive negative impact on US GDP due to inflationary effects from the US fed policies. Currently, almost 75% of US Treasury debt is purchased by the US Federal Reserve using printed dollars. In essence, we're buying hundreds of billions of our own debt using monopoly money. These T-bill purchases by the US Fed are just an accounting gimmick, and are ultimately worthless.

When you combine all of these negative economic effects on the US federal budget out to FY2025, it would be optimistic to predict just 80% of federal revenues going to debt service.