Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-03-2009, 07:48 AM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
This is inaccurate. There's nothing "unprecedented" about the present CO2 level, and these levels also are fairly poorly correlated with global temperatures...To do this, we just pump the oil into US waters and explain to our neighbors and the UN that we are doing what we can, in our own little way, to stop global warming close to home. This, hopefully, will prompt them to do something we want. I guess.
Hilarious, thanks...
__________________

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-03-2009, 08:57 AM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
But it would be absolutely incorrect to say that the presence of water vapor does not result in higher global temperatures.
Of course, that would be silly. Water vapor is the biggest contributor to our planet being warm enough to support our civilization.
But it would also be wrong to state or imply that adding water vapor to the atmospher has affects global mean temperatures.
Again, we can't add water vapor that will remain in the atmospher for more than a few days to weeks if we tried. Water vapor falls out of the atmosphere far too fast, while CO2 remains there for years/decades and Methane can remain for many decades, or even over a century.
Therefore there is no need to regulate water vapor as it regulates itself.
__________________

__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:21 AM   #23
Recycles dryer sheets
DougViages's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Belmont
Posts: 160
My DW's 2000 Mercury Mountaineer has 145K miles on it, and an increasing amount of problems. We've beaten this 'iron horse' about as long as we can. We have researched smaller, fuel efficient, dependable vehicles which should reasonably maintain their value as replacements . Guess what, that research, with the help of Consumer Reports reviews, eliminated GM and Chrysler completely in these categories.

Yesterday we looked at Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and Subaru. The Ford Focus got a short glance, she just didn't think that it compared with the other vehicles (I drive a Mercury Milan, and like it, but she does not want to go that large.). I was especially surprised with "Domestic Content" statistics pasted to each vehicle; most of the vehicles that we looked at had 60 - 70% DC regardless of make. There were lots of fuel efficient options out there for us, the Govt doesn't need to 'command' anything IMHO.
__________________
Work is the curse of the partying class!
DougViages is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 11:00 AM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
Therefore there is no need to regulate water vapor as it regulates itself.
As does CO2. After all, this is not some trace "pollutant" that somehow just degrades, it is part of the fundamental carbon cycle of the planet. Higher CO2 levels lead to higher levels of photosynthesis --> lower atmospheric levels of CO2 (this is obviously oversimplified, there are many other factors including temperatures, nitrogen availabilty, etc.) There are homeostatic processes at work, and the present level of CO2 is the result of these processes as surely as the levels of H2O are the result of these processes.

These processes are not well understood, and we certainly don't know them with enough certainty to warrant the destruction of the livelihood of millions of people and to degrade the quality of life for the remainder.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 01:59 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
This is inaccurate.
Ummmm, ok, but that wasn't my point. The quote is from the EPA press release and I used it just to show that methane was one of the gasses covered by their rule (in response to an earlier post of yours).
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 02:15 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
These processes are not well understood, and we certainly don't know them with enough certainty to warrant the destruction of the livelihood of millions of people and to degrade the quality of life for the remainder.
What if you're wrong?
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 02:28 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
What if you're wrong?
Easter Island.

Even though Firebird 2015 was voted by some as one of the 50 worst movies ever - I always liked that Night Stalker guy.

I hope to live long enough for 'The Earth Rise Over The Moon' to become popular again.

heh heh heh - let's hope the blue marble stays blue. .
__________________
unclemick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 02:31 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
These processes are not well understood, and we certainly don't know them with enough certainty to warrant the destruction of the livelihood of millions of people and to degrade the quality of life for the remainder.
What if you're wrong?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PAD1599.jpg (40.3 KB, 7 views)
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 02:43 PM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Ummmm, ok, but that wasn't my point. The quote is from the EPA press release and I used it just to show that methane was one of the gasses covered by their rule (in response to an earlier post of yours).
It might not have been your point, but it was the EPA's point. It is inaccurate information from the EPA about a fundamental issue in which they now claim to have some expertise. This fundamental mistake does not inspire confidence in those about to feel the lash of their regulatory zeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
What if you're wrong?
What if they are wrong? This is not just about something trivial like choosing a Prius over a Buick. The proposed regulations are going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That' is money that is not available for other uses, and some of these uses save lives, reduce human suffering, and make the tme we have on this lovely blue orb more enjoyable.

We need to know a lot more about these climate systems before deciding on a course of action, especially a drastic one like this. "Doing something" for its own sake is stupid, and possibly counterproductive. While it might seem that "just" reducing US burning of coal and oil is the conservative, safe thing to do, it could actually make things worse. Is it at least possible that reduced US demand for fossil fuels would lower the price sufficiently worldwide so that more of it gets burned in China and other places that use it less efficiently? Will these low prices speed or hinder the development and fielding of more efficient electricity production and use technology in the developing countries?

It is the government that is proposing the action, so the onus to prove that their actions are beneficial and worth the cost is on them. In my view, they are nowhere near meeting the threshold.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 03:43 PM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
What if they are wrong?
I don't ever expect my house to burn down but I buy fire insurance nonetheless.

Now I'm not a climatetologist, and I suspect you aren't either, so I don't consider myself qualified to render an informed opinion about whether climate change is real, or not (no matter how many politically motivated web sites I visit). It does seem to me, though, that most of the people who study this for a living generally come down on one side of the argument (from Wiki) . . .

Quote:
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[68]

Despite this, statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.
So if most of the people who study this for a living say its real, I'll take their word for it. The question then becomes one of cost and benefit. Certainly hyperbole abound on both sides. And the truth is you don't know that the "proposed regulations will cost hundreds of billions of dollars" because the critical portions that will determine compliance costs haven't been decided yet (like whether carbon credits will be auctioned or allocated, what the emission limit is and how it changes over time, what industries are covered, etc. etc). So maybe a deep breath is in order.

But if "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change" then it would seem prudent to try and change our behavior to reduce our impact. Paying something today to do that sounds like a reasonable idea.
__________________
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:10 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
As does CO2.
This is true, CO2 does self regulate. The problem is the self regulation takes decades to centuries.
With CO2 we are capable of adding enough so that the levels increase faster than earth's natural capability to reabsorb it.
So nature's regulation of it will work eventually, it won't happen before the potential damage happens.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:25 PM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
"Doing something" for its own sake is stupid, and possibly counterproductive.
Well then that is certainly what the government will do. A clear mandate!

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 08:19 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
Paying something today to do that sounds like a reasonable idea.
So, you are in favor of "doing something." That's a very popular position.

I'm not willing to defer to the "experts" ("The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels" Ha!). As you correctly point out, we're now talking about national policy, cost/benefit, tradeoffs, and the very real possibility that a US reduction in fossil fuel use will result in greater anthropogenic additions of CO2 to the environment overall.

This "problem" of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is clearly amenable to an individual market-based solution--there's no particular advantage or moral basis for collective mandatory government action. Those who believe there's something to this stuff can make personal decisions to cut their own carbon footprint, and feel good in the bargain. But some people want to force this on everyone at tremendous cost, while they eschew personal actions to make a difference. We had one presidential candidate like that-- made a killing in the Global Warming show circuit, wanted laws to force everyone into his hairshirted vision of a low carbon nirvana, but enjoyed a lifestyle that used more than twenty times the national average for residential electricity. Yet, he was and is a hero to many. Incredible.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:47 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,408
Sooo - are cow farts in sub Saharan Africa really 26 times worst(methane/CO2 wise) than some Rain Forest burning in the Amazon?

I feel a Red Bead Experiment and a Global model being funded - any day now.

I'm sure we have some little bitty ones that could really use an infusion of big research $.

heh heh heh - and to think I rode to ER on the Space Program. I really love the American taxpayer. Thank you so much. .
__________________
unclemick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 10:19 AM   #35
Recycles dryer sheets
Abreutime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
We need to know a lot more about these climate systems before deciding on a course of action, especially a drastic one like this. "Doing something" for its own sake is stupid, and possibly counterproductive. While it might seem that "just" reducing US burning of coal and oil is the conservative, safe thing to do, it could actually make things worse. Is it at least possible that reduced US demand for fossil fuels would lower the price sufficiently worldwide so that more of it gets burned in China and other places that use it less efficiently? Will these low prices speed or hinder the development and fielding of more efficient electricity production and use technology in the developing countries?
Interesting theory. I wonder if this is being considered by lawmakers in the US. Drastic domestic reductions may be a subsidy for our less efficient neighbors.
__________________
Abreutime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 02:06 PM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
So if most of the people who study this for a living say its real, I'll take their word for it. The question then becomes one of cost and benefit. Certainly hyperbole abound on both sides. And the truth is you don't know that the "proposed regulations will cost hundreds of billions of dollars" because the critical portions that will determine compliance costs haven't been decided yet (like whether carbon credits will be auctioned or allocated, what the emission limit is and how it changes over time, what industries are covered, etc. etc). So maybe a deep breath is in order.

But if "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change" then it would seem prudent to try and change our behavior to reduce our impact. Paying something today to do that sounds like a reasonable idea.
I think 5 of the worst polluted cities in the world are in China. Yet, by the provisions of the Kyoto treaty, they don't have to cut emissions. Why does the US have to blow apart its own GDP and the most populous country in the world gets a free pass?
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 02:52 PM   #37
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
Why does the US have to blow apart its own GDP and the most populous country in the world gets a free pass?
Because you forget the most important philosophical tenant of many in the govt today. And that is, whoever is poorer or seen as more downtrodden, is always right. And whoever is richer or more powerful, is considered wrong and imperialist. Does not really matter what the facts were.
__________________
armor99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 11:12 PM   #38
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 347
Comrades,Comrades
India and China are the worlds biggest polluters and will not be required to reduce emissions under Kyoto treaty. All of the EU countries that signed on to this farce have failed to meet their emissions targets despite regulations and taxes on industry.

Other than growing government and raising taxes what will the EPA accomplish with this? Unless all economies on the planet adopt the same regulations how do we decrease emissions world wide? I know we'll let the UN run the program. Maybe I can get a job in the Carbon Offset for Food program

I can hardly wait until I can get another Fiat 128/Yugo to travel the USA in as I did in the 1970's
__________________
USCG regulations say you have to go out. They don't say anything about coming back.
USK Coastie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2009, 11:49 PM   #39
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by USK Coastie View Post
Other than growing government and raising taxes what will the EPA accomplish with this?
What else would they need to accomplish? This might be the first case on record of the EPA actually doing what it was mandated to do...
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2009, 07:49 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go View Post
I don't ever expect my house to burn down but I buy fire insurance nonetheless.
Not an applicable analogy at all.

We know that houses do burn down. We have a reasonable assurance that the insurance company will pay for the damage if we pay out premiums and are not fraudulent. We have evidence and a history of this.

When it comes to climate change, we don't know:

A) How much is natural (IPCC says some/most is man-made over X time period... what does that really mean?)....

B) Of the amount that is man-made, how much is "that train left the station", and cutting back now has no/little effect?

C) What will be the effect of changes we make now? And as shown in other posts, how many of those changes will actually be counter-productive, creating more emissions world-wide?

D) What will be the effect of NOT making changes (related to B above)?

Has the IPCC updated it's predictions on sea level rise for the various scenarios? The last time I posted on that topic, they predicted a 16.5" rise if we do nothing, and a 13" rise if we take extreme measures. If either scenario comes to pass, we need to adapt - to either 13" or 16.5". BTW, their predictions had so much unknown in them, that the ranges for the scenarios over-lapped - so we might take extreme measures and get 18" of sea level rise, and that fits their model. So we won't even know if those actions really helped. It's a little like doing a rain dance when there is a 75% chance of rain predicted - when it starts raining, did the rain dance help?

Seems that instead of flying around the country telling other people to plug in a CFL, we ought to make plans to move people out of places like NOLA over the next 50-100 years. We can do that without massive evacuations, just start doing a build out now. That seems to get ignored, like plug in a CFL and the problem goes away, but that is NOT what the IPCC says.

So "just do something, just in case" is a poor answer, IMO, and in the opinion of these scientists that speak on the matter.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E-R forum music makers ? mh Other topics 9 07-07-2008 07:58 PM
The Electric Car - Domestic Auto Makers chinaco Other topics 3 05-22-2008 07:33 AM
How do market makers work? twaddle Stock Picking and Market Strategy 22 01-27-2008 08:13 PM
Apartment / Portable Ice Makers? BigMoneyJim Other topics 9 02-08-2006 04:41 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:34 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.