What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
SAAB 'died' because a bankrupt company bought it [GM]....but it's been 'saved' by a Chinese/Korean consortium....to return as an.....
...Electric car.
Yep, looks like China's 'emerging economy' has seen the writing on the wall - their massive emerging demand for the automobile and its very real impact on Oil resources/reserves.
Now, if it ends up as 'clever' as a Tesla then perhaps even China will be doing more for the environment than just about anyone else....of course, they NEED to...being a massive potential impact simply by rate of growth coupled with huge population...
And all of China's electric cars are powered by electric generated by... solar? Or by the largest coal power plant grid in the world?
Not too mention that China is quickly getting to the point where they are a developed economy. It's why so many cheap manufacturing operations have moved out of China to other countries. China is too developed to compete with cheaper labor in other places.
You're not telling China to stop using fossil fuels at the expense of their hopes to develop. You're telling it to the 175 countries behind China who have yet to reach China's level of development.
China's 'rate of growth' may not be the problem that it would appear to be at first glance. They are running seriously short of women. Or they have an overabundance of males, depending on how you look at it.
Normal 'natural' ratio across the rest of the world: 105 males to 100 females (at birth).
China: 120 males to 100 females (at birth).
Straw man have a lot to fear here.
I specifically replied to a comment predicting what was going to happen 1000 years from now and referenced it in my reply. My point in saying "50 or 100 years" was to emphasize the linear progression of time.
I'll explain, since I guess I haven't been clear.
Since technology changes at such a rapid rate many of the inputs into these models are unknowable at the moment. We simply don't know what technologies will exist that might have an effect. Likewise we don't know what the geopolitical climate will be like 50 or 100 years from now, let alone 1000 years. Those unknowable facts increase as you get further in time from right now.
Trying to claim that we should make global economy altering decisions based on the predictions of models looking out 50 or 100 or 1000 years is dumb. The models can't help but be inaccurate. And, again, my point initial point was that claiming anything based on what the world will look like 1000 years from now is futile.
And doing nothing therefore is what?
Clever?
Or economically/conveniently profitable?
When in doubt...do nothing. Eventually the doubt will be replaced by absolute certainty .... typically at a moment in history when any solution is impossible.
There is a giant chasm of possibility between waiting for absolute certainty and saying "we don't know enough yet". It's a sliding scale from knowing nothing to certainty. I know it's convenient to pretend otherwise. It makes it easier to vilify everyone who says they aren't convinced by AGW. We're all "deniers" and evil corporate greed monkeys or possibly neanderthals, but like all things remotely political the reality of the differences of opinion are significantly more nuanced.
Some of us simply don't see enough cause to risk the global economy, especially given it's remarkably fragile state right now. In my case I also think it is outrageously hypocritical for all the fat rich white countries to tell all the developing nations that they have to cut back their own development because CO2 emissions are bad when we've been reaping the benefits of fossil fuels for decades and have economies developed enough to afford the added cost of moving to new technologies.
I'm willing, and actually quite enjoy, discussing the issue with those I don't agree with using logical and scientific and ideological arguments to arrive at an common understanding and a solution, if one is needed. Maybe you are too. But the problem is most AGW proponents aren't. They're right and anyone who disagrees is a heathen. Logic, science and ideology be damned.
"No, what we don't like is having people telling other people what to do with the point of a gun. Energy and food production improvements didn't occur because the government mandated it. " Actually, those changes did happen, in part, because of the government. The government does thinks like mandating fuel standards for vehicles, or pollution standards for factories, which has had large effects on the energy crises mentioned above. Or, the government made large amounts of federal research dollars available scientists (often at public facilities) to research genetics for certain types of crops to address food shortages, which addressed famine issues. That was a major way in which governments addressed another major crises discussed above.
"No, what we don't like is having people telling other people what to do with the point of a gun. Energy and food production improvements didn't occur because the government mandated it. "
Actually, those changes did happen, in part, because of the government.
The government does thinks like mandating fuel standards for vehicles, or pollution standards for factories, which has had large effects on the energy crises mentioned above. Or, the government made large amounts of federal research dollars available scientists (often at public facilities) to research genetics for certain types of crops to address food shortages, which addressed famine issues. That was a major way in which governments addressed another major crises discussed above.
You are seriously going to try to claim that frakking, deep oil drilling, etc. or that GM foods and such were thanks to the government? Come on. Be serious. If you can't concede even a minor point like this how do you expect to have a discussion on something where the issues are more debatable?
Private forces certainly played a large role in those things as well, but government spending and mandates were a big factor as well.
No. No they weren't. They weren't even a small factor. They weren't even a tiny factor. Demand for more food and more energy drove industry to come up with better, cheaper ways to get more of it. The government had nothing to do with it.
You can choose to complain about being forced to do things all you want, but read up on the principles of the founding fathers. They pretty much all said that once something starts to affect society as a whole, its time for the government to step in. If climate change affects us all, the government has to get involved.
No they didn't. What are you talking about? Which of the federalist papers are you referring to? The founding fathers were against the Erie canal for crying out loud let alone the idea that the government could somehow tell you how much firewood you could burn or whatever the 18th century equivalent to modern energy production would be.
We do? How? Please explain to me (the guy with the solar powered house and car) how we have this capability. I used to have some DOE links, but I'm too lazy to find them right now, so I'll just summarize part of a discussion I was having with a fairly high up guy in this field the other day. Essentially, renewable energy sources are to the point where they can produce energy at a cost that is almost as low as non renewable sources right now (exact details depend on the details of the market). But, the major problem is the renewable sources are a lot less consistent in what they produce - the amount of energy that they produce varies a lot more. Now, you can average the randomness out by distributing your power over the entire country. Places that are overproducing distribute the excess to places that are underproducing etc.
We do? How? Please explain to me (the guy with the solar powered house and car) how we have this capability.
I used to have some DOE links, but I'm too lazy to find them right now, so I'll just summarize part of a discussion I was having with a fairly high up guy in this field the other day.
Essentially, renewable energy sources are to the point where they can produce energy at a cost that is almost as low as non renewable sources right now (exact details depend on the details of the market). But, the major problem is the renewable sources are a lot less consistent in what they produce - the amount of energy that they produce varies a lot more. Now, you can average the randomness out by distributing your power over the entire country. Places that are overproducing distribute the excess to places that are underproducing etc.
Ok. Well, you're high up guy you mention is wrong. I don't mean to be rude here but I get pretty tired of people who have obviously not put their money with their mouth is on these topics.
Our renewable sources of energy are: Solar. Wind. Biodiesel. None of them are even remotely practical today as a competitive alternative to fossil fuels. Eventually, I believe solar (or fusion) will win out but we're no where near that point.
BUT, you need a reasonable power grid to distribute that much power.
No, You first need "that much power" in the first place. Germany, which has sunk more into renewable energy per capita than anyone else by far is still 80% on non-renewable sources. The power just isn't there yet. Give it time and we'll get there. But right now? Not a chance.
But let's say you disagree. Ok, then what are you waiting for? Where's your 20KW solar array? If renewable energy is a practical option right now then you should have no problem doing what I've done. 100% of my power comes from renewable sources. In fact, I generate more energy from renewable sources than I consume and thus get paid by DTE every month.
In other words, don't presume to tell me what "some high up" person told you. Renewable energy isn't even close to ready yet/
Our current power grid is terrible and outdated and could never handle things. But, the government is unwilling to invest in updating infrastructure, so renewable energy sources are a nonstarter since they won't be consistent enough.
Our power grid is terrible. However, it has nothing to do with renewable. The government could make the infrastructure completely state of the art (with lasers and everything I presume) and it would do nothing for renewable energy.
But yeah, if you look at the cost per kilowatthour of large scale, state of the art renewable energy sources, its really pretty comparable to fossil fuels.
NO. IT. IS NOT. Quit saying stuff like this.
OR if you honestly believe it, go get a goddamn solar array right now and post a picture of it. If it's comparable, go do it.
Seriously, do you have any idea how obnoxious and aggravating it is to have someone who hasn't walked the walk making statements like you just made?
I don't mean to be all pissed off at you specifically (or Jafo for the matter). I don't mind debating something like AGW. But when it comes to renewable energy, you're on my turf. You're not going to find someone on many forums who knows anywhere near as much as I do on this topic and seeing what can only be regarded as striking ignorance is flabbergasting.
To use a tech equivalent, it's like someone criticizing an iPhone who has never actually used or seen one.
Well that's the thing. Government's "doing their part" sounds a lot like governments trying to find a new way to make money to redistribute. You're paranoid. The government doing their part is stuff like "maintaining a reasonable national infrastructure" and "keeping reasonable pollution standards". This is stuff that is all easily within the expected role of the government.
Well that's the thing. Government's "doing their part" sounds a lot like governments trying to find a new way to make money to redistribute.
You're paranoid. The government doing their part is stuff like "maintaining a reasonable national infrastructure" and "keeping reasonable pollution standards". This is stuff that is all easily within the expected role of the government.
You think I'm paranoid because I believe the government is interested in finding new ways to take tax money and redistribute it? Ok.
Why? The food and energy abudnance we have today has nothing whatsoever to do with the government. Except for the huge research dollars that the government put in to develop a lot of the technology to grow better crops. Granted, the private sector has largely taken over nowadays, but the government plays a huge role in the early days of those research projects. The early days of a lot of the big energy stuff was pretty government heavy too.
Why? The food and energy abudnance we have today has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
Except for the huge research dollars that the government put in to develop a lot of the technology to grow better crops. Granted, the private sector has largely taken over nowadays, but the government plays a huge role in the early days of those research projects. The early days of a lot of the big energy stuff was pretty government heavy too.
"Huge"? None of the food production and energy production that we enjoy today can be traced to government funding unless you bend over backwards and try to argue that Agent Orange purchases from Monsanto somehow helped in the development of genetically modified food or something.
The Soviet Union had a truly top-down approach. How are they doing these days? Yeah, and anarchist collectives don't get much done either. I'm not saying we should do a purely top-down or bottom-up approach. I'm saying we should do both. Which makes sense since that approach has repeatedly worked in the past. Like in the crises that were mentioned above.
The Soviet Union had a truly top-down approach. How are they doing these days?
Yeah, and anarchist collectives don't get much done either. I'm not saying we should do a purely top-down or bottom-up approach. I'm saying we should do both. Which makes sense since that approach has repeatedly worked in the past. Like in the crises that were mentioned above.
An ararchist collective would be an oxymoron.
If you really believe the things you write here then:
1) Go get a solar array for your house. Take some pictures and tell us how comparable it really is..
2) Explain how the government is aiding deep oil drilling and frakking.
3) Tell us when Monsanto got their R&D for genetically modified foods paid for by the government.
You were on much stronger ground when you were arguing AGW. But now you're just insisting on things that are simply, blatantly, hysterically untrue.
BTW, the Stardock forum quoting system is horrible. HORRIBLE. Ugh.
How about if we start with those who insist "the debate is over" start acting like the debate is over. I.e. You first. Or in this case, you second.
No it's not. The politics is driven by wanting certainty before we start trying telling people what to do at the point of a gun. I'd prefer my government be bloody certain about something before they tell me what to do. It better be really, absolutely positively certain. And AGW is not.
Al Gore, after all, couldn't even be bothered to put up a token solar panel on his mansion.
Who say's we're doing "nothing"?
The problem with statists, and Jafo, you are sounding like one here, is that they think "doing something" means having the government mandate it.
We humans are always doing *something*. We do it through a combination of private and public actions that change things over time. When something is proven definitively harmful (like CFCs) we do something. When there is a demand for more food, cheaper energy, better communications, we do "something".
Something doesn't have to come at the point of a gun and I'll say it until the cows come home: People who presume to lecture others on AGW should get a fucking solar array and electric car or shut the fuck up. Don't presume to tell others what to do while you (and I don't mean you Jafo but you generically) have your air conditioner powered by a coal plant or your heat provided by natural gas and driving a 1998 Honda Accord or something.
He was going to put in a nice big array, but he needed the money to fuel his zero carbon footprint private jet that he uses to jump all over the globe giving all those free AGW speeches that he does. You know, the ones where he courageously warns folks of the impending doom to the planet that can only be avoided by his audiences' immediate rush to purchase globe-saving technology from all those non-profits that he has an ownership stake in.
Besides the fossil fuels that power his behemoth of a house doesn't actually generate carbon. The carbon is all destroyed when it comes into contact with Al's saintly aura.
And his farts smell like roses.
http://www.solarpanelscostguide.com/#cost
An average home in the United States requires approximately 20 to 24 kWh of electricity every day. An array of panels able to produce this much power has a size of 4 kW or more (based on 5 sun hours per day) and ranges in price from $15,000 to $20,000 installed (not taking any incentives into consideration).
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1080871_electric-car-price-guide-every-2012-2013-plug-in-car-with-specs
2013 smart fortwo electric drive - $25,750 (The cheapest one)
So poor people should shut the f@ck up if their actions/level of spending do not match yours, huh?
We get it, you are a millionaire. Must be nice being rich...
Add one more "water" which, according to the wild GW alarmist predictions, we should have an abundance to turn the turbines with.
I was just inquiring about some of these prices as well.
40 - 50k for geothermal installation
20 - 30k for the solar
never got to the car yet, but I am guessing it's out of my price range.
But wait, i thought that solar was comparable to fossil fuels. If so, being rich or poor has nothing to do with it.
So maybe people opining that we should just all go solar because it's "comparable" to solar in cost may just possibly be wrong?
EXACTLY.
It costs too much. Only rich people can afford it right now.
Therefore, it is not a viable option yet.
Why am I the one getting yelled at instead of the guy who's arguing that it's affordable?
You didn't say "Do something about AGW, or shut the f up". You said "Get solar panels and drive an electric car or shut the f up" (paraphrasing).
Yes. In the CONTEXT of someone who is saying that the cost of solar and wind and other renewable are "comparable" with fossil fuels and therefore, there is no excuse for us not to do something about AGW.
IF you believe in AGW AND you really believe that renewables are affordable THEN go get some renewables ELSE STFU.
You can do something about AGW without spending thousands of dollars. Limit use of hot water, turn off lights, bike if feasible, use LED/CFL lightning. If you drive an e car and use solar panels, great. If you can afford to get those items, great. But there are other ways to lessen one's energy impact besides those methods you use.
It just makes it seem like you are throwing your money in people's faces, and telling them to keep quiet if they are not spending as much money as you are, even if you do/did not intend for it to sound that way.
And for the record, as someone who makes more than five figures a year, I applaud you for your success. This isn't about classism on my part.
Well it sure sounds like you have a beef with classism when you seem to go out of your way to interpret what I said as "look at me, I'm rich!"
What gets me really riled up, really ticked off, are people who have no real world experience with utilizing renewable energy trying to lecture me on the economics of it.
It would be like some city slicker whose idea of getting food is going to the grocery store lecturing a farmer on the best methods to increase crop yield.
I recognize that AGW is a debateable issue (though apparently some people think the debate is over). But I have very little tolerance for neophytes trying to tell me what is what on renewable energy.
I wouldn't call pointing out a few facts 'yelling', but you make it sound like only the well off can effect their footprint when this is very far from true.
Do you ever take public transport. walk, bike to your destination. Does your workplace offer car pooling incentives, how much do you recycle compared to what is trashed. I go 1 step further and leave a lot of packaging where I bought it to make a point that I do not want or need this garbage, and even in an apartment, I have a compost bin on the balcony.
And yet none were even within 2 std deviations of what happened. Good models can be applied. The problem is there are no good models yet.
No you have not. You cannot show what does not exist. Even Phil Jones admits that.
As far as alternative fuel technologies are concerned. We seem to be locked into a chicken or the egg loop. For example, people won’t buy electric cars until there are enough “fueling” stations available. But without sufficient demand for electric cars, very few entrepreneurs are willing to open fueling stations. Same issue with the cost of electric cars… A large number of people won’t buy electric cars until the price goes down and the mileage on a single charge improves. But without enough units sold, manufactures can’t generate enough funds to justify investing in R&D to increase mileage, or able to reduce the unit cost to make it more affordable to a larger group of consumers.
The private sector is risk adverse, dislikes uncertainty, and seeks projects with the highest ROI. These are good approaches to take given that businesses want to be profitable and continue as going concerns.
This is why it is sometimes necessary for the government to step in and incur some of the risks and cost on projects that are deemed important for the betterment of the country as a whole.
Actually no it does not. Many people thinks it does thing it does not. The report (or the summary since that is all that has been released) is merely a compilation of select scientific and gray literature (which is not supposed to be in there, but that is a story for another time) that support their conclusion. It does not contain many works that do not agree with their conclusion.
It is a political position paper. If you want to see the real science, you have to go to the source documents (not the gray literature). And that is split on what is happening. In other words, the jury is still out. And the proof is still lacking.
OH please please give me a critical review of the papers, and the ones you are saying that do not agree with their conclusion. Then we might finally get somewhere in this thread.
As a History student, I am very interested in these "cures" you speak of, any examples?
The main polluters are not people themselves, it's a thing for governments to implement measures against mostly. (costly ones, hence the reluctance in democratic countries) And if you expect people to back something they will pay for voluntarily, you have more belief in humanity in general than me. ^^
However the consequences will largely be felt by the third world, and we've screwed them before, so why not again? Republicans (as they seem the main deniers in the US), or their advisers could be aware of this, and even if hell breaks loose in a 100 years, just invade Canada and you guys will be fine. Someones misery is always someones gain. But instead of saying the truth, that global warming is man-made, or will at least be depending on your view,(China is exploding with pollution/industry atm) why not quote a bunch of rubbish science claiming that it's all a fraud? That makes no sense right? Or wait! It does, if you want to deceive the general public, and get a bunch of money in the process. The one constant that can always be trusted is human greed, and whenever you see someone with financial interests in anything, be highly critical of what they say.
You are making part of my point for me. The "we must do something now" attitude is great, provided you're 1st world rich and can afford to dump $30k on a system for your house or you're a first world economy that can afford to suck a giant amount of productivity, in the form of regulatory burden, out of your economy. But to force this onto the poor in nonsense, especially for, at best, unsettled science. And also remember that 1st world poor is essentially 3rd world rich. If you can't afford it, how can we possibly tell 3rd world economies that they must do it as well. It will destroy any hope their economies have of developing (and thereby improving the lives of their citizens).
And if we don't mandate the entire world do it, what the hell is the point? It's one atmosphere.
And this whole discussion leaves aside that the seriously developing economies, like India and China, will essentially tell us to F* off, while pretending to go along. We would be putting ourselves at economic disadvantage voluntarily by forcing these sort of regulations onto our economies. Great for them, sucks for us, and the "problem" doesn't get solved anyway because their very large and growing economies would put out additional CO2 to offset anything we saved.
The technology just isn't there yet, even if the science were actually settled and agreed upon. And it isn't.
You are profoundly ignorant here.
We have an entire CABINENT LEVEL DEPARTMENT whose goal is to "end hunger in the United States and abroad."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture
(I would link directly to their website, but its down right now - YAY SHUTDOWN)
Essentially, this cabinet level department, as well as other federal agencies like the NSF, dump A LOT of money into research for stuff like combating world wide famine (a simple google search will turn up a lot of federal studies on things like drought resistant crops). To say that the government had nothing to do with the historical process is pants on the head ignorant. If you'd like, I can come up with lists of government paid scientists that were involved. Do I really need to go through that process?
I mean, consider this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Borlaung is generally credited with saving A BILLION LIVES with his science on drought resistant crops. Where did he do that research? At a government funded lab while being paid by on government dollars working with other government scientists. Thats right a (primarily Mexican) government (and charitable) funded institution saved A BILLION lives.
Anyway, private companies like Monsanto surely do a lot of work too. I've always acknowledged that as well. The way it usually works is that the government does the more basic, lower level research (which is typically less profitable), while the private companies take those results when they get closer to marketability, do more research, and makes lots of money. Its a good system, it addresses problems, and it makes money.
I've already listed one guy who is generally credited with saving a billion lives with his stuff. I've already shown that there is an entire government agency which is dedicated, in part, to contradicting your claims. I don't think its really necessary for me to go any further in disproving this, but if you want me to continue, I can.
I'll give you that the federal government has historically been less involved in fuel issues (although they have been VERY VERY involved in fission and fusion research of course), but many universities do have some work in things like petrology, which gets into "find the oil" pretty quickly.
I don't have time right now to address the rest of your misconceptions, but I'll get to it later.
We average folk should feel free to piss into the wind and feel great about it. You 1%ers need to get to work saving our asses, though.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
