PDA

View Full Version : How things going in Copenhagen?



BrianW
12-16-2009, 01:11 PM
These are the folks who are gonna save the planet?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/30664

skuthorp
12-16-2009, 01:56 PM
Nope, the planet will be OK, it's just that life will be somewhat diferent on it. I do not think that, even with all the hope of the world behind them, that much will come of Copenhagen other than to emphasise the problems. No 'soveriegn nation' especially China or India, is going to obey any dictum they don't like. And that applies to Aus and the US in spades. It's the sort of problem that we are not likely to be able to solve. The bottom line here is serious population decline, die off if it's as quick as some science says. It scares the pollies, it scares me. Things are likely to get a little rough.

Paul Pless
12-16-2009, 01:57 PM
i feel a little let down by both the protesters and the danish police... the protestors give up way too easy; yet at the same time, I've yet to see a policeman really wail on somebody with one of those pathetic little whip batons.

skuthorp
12-16-2009, 02:03 PM
Lot of theatre going on therre Paul, but with a leavening of serious 'professional' protesters who travel to these events just for the fight. It's all about the pictures and the nightly news. Without the pictures the conference might not make the bulletin.

Bruce Hooke
12-16-2009, 05:04 PM
From the article...


Despite the gloom, U.S. officials told POLITICO they made incremental progress in a variety of areas during marathon sessions Tuesday night and cautioned that all previous climate conferences have experienced similar turbulence. And late Tuesday, negotiators announced a major breakthrough on a deal to preserve wetlands and forests.

Kaa
12-16-2009, 05:07 PM
The bottom line here is serious population decline, die off if it's as quick as some science says. It scares the pollies, it scares me.

It's point is to scare you and the pollies. There is no serious science predicting population die-offs.

If you find some, please link. And not in terms of "possible" -- a great deal of things are possible -- but in terms of specific probabilities along with confidence intervals and all the other infrastructure of a serious forecast.

Kaa

Bill Griffin
12-16-2009, 05:17 PM
Thank you, Kaa

The Bigfella
12-16-2009, 05:22 PM
Let's not forget that these clowns, who have been running the "science" behind the AGW quasi-religion, just registered 45,000 delegates for a conference facility with a capacity of 15,000.

Do you trust them to get ANYTHING right?

WX
12-16-2009, 05:23 PM
High temps will kill the young and elderly. Increasing droughts will kill through famine. Death by extreme weather...in a nutshell.

bobbys
12-16-2009, 05:25 PM
These are the folks who are gonna save the planet?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/30664.

Are you sure you did not mean.

Co pen HOG En.

Thats the way the elite pronounce it me thinks.

Paul Pless
12-16-2009, 05:26 PM
High temps will kill the young and elderly. Increasing droughts will kill through famine. Death by extreme weather...in a nutshell.you got famine in there but left out pestilence (the white horse) and war (the red horse)

John Smith
12-16-2009, 05:34 PM
I confess to a bit of confusion. Based on what I saw tonight, the protesters WANT something done about climate change. This entire meeting is designed to do something about climate change, so what, exactly, are they protesting.

Then again, maybe we should protest the way our senate works.

Paul Pless
12-16-2009, 05:38 PM
so what, exactly, are they protesting.Most are protesting that nothing of any real effect is being done. Don't really matter what happens over there anyway, there ain't no way the U.S. will ratify the outcome of the talks, neither will China be able to hold up any strict cutbacks on their end.

JimD
12-16-2009, 05:39 PM
... No 'soveriegn nation' especially China or India, is going to obey any dictum they don't like...


neither will China be able to hold up any strict cutbacks on their end.

On the other hand, China might be the only country that could lead the charge if they wanted to. Their authoritarian government still has the ability to say 'make it so' and it will be done. If they can make a billion citizens all simutaneously swat flies or kill sparrows then they could quite easily convert to wind farms and solar panels.

Kaa
12-16-2009, 05:44 PM
Their authoritarian government still has the ability to say 'make it so' and it will be done.

That is, actually, quite doubtful. The authority of the Chinese government rests on its ability to keep order and allow people to get wealthier (in the full spectrum from just-off-the-farm workers to high-tech entrepreneurs). If it won't be able to provide that, all bets are off.


If they can make a billion citizens all simutaneously swat flies or kill sparrows then they could quite easily convert to wind farms and solar panels.

Let's hope they remember what happened last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward) they tried such things.

Kaa

PeterSibley
12-16-2009, 05:52 PM
That is, actually, quite doubtful. The authority of the Chinese government rests on its ability to keep order and allow people to get wealthier (in the full spectrum from just-off-the-farm workers to high-tech entrepreneurs). If it won't be able to provide that, all bets are off.




Kaa

Lets just say that they are MUCH more like to be able to do something than a Western democracy ....they are also more likely to be badly effected earlier than most Wesern countries .

The Bigfella
12-16-2009, 06:32 PM
High temps will kill the young and elderly. Increasing droughts will kill through famine. Death by extreme weather...in a nutshell.

Isn't Copenhagen "enjoying" record cold temperatures at the moment? ;)

paul oman
12-16-2009, 06:41 PM
yes, they should have planned the meeting in mid summer and turned off the AC units. Risky to have it in Dec. in case there is a cold snap or snow fall.

Say, you warming folks, can any of you tell me what % of the atmosphere is CO2?

JimD
12-16-2009, 07:00 PM
Let's hope they remember what happened last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward) they tried such things.

Kaa

Yes, I know. It was a disaster. But they were able to martial the population to do it. And that is the point. And I still maintain if they can command the construction of the Three Gorges Dam that displaced over a million citizens then they can build the wind farms too.

JimD
12-16-2009, 07:09 PM
Say, you warming folks, can any of you tell me what % of the atmosphere is CO2?

Your point?

LeeG
12-16-2009, 07:11 PM
Lets just say that they are MUCH more like to be able to do something than a Western democracy ....they are also more likely to be badly effected earlier than most Wesern countries .

agreed

JimD
12-16-2009, 07:43 PM
It would be a shame to build the wind farms over there, when Kansas is the Saudi Arabia of wind energy, and is very sparsely populated already. :cool:

I'm sure the Chinese would be happy to be given the contract to build wind farms in Kansas.

sailboy3
12-16-2009, 07:47 PM
The US is the one dragging it's feet over there. The whole conference deal is just a bunch of greedy politicians sitting around and releasing hot air while 100,000 protesters are out there demonstrating and getting clubbed by the police.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-16-2009, 07:53 PM
Canada doesn't even have a foot in it to drag... Little Stevie Harper is the most useless head of state on the planet.

sailboy3
12-16-2009, 07:56 PM
I felt a methane laden fart coming on... I tried to hold it in for the sake of saving the world from death by incineration... but alas it slipped the surly bonds that held it in. I regret to inform y'all the planet is now lost. There is no more hope. We're all going to die. I think I see the sky beginning to fall. It is too bad that I had children, only to loose them to the coming warmth of death! If only we could give these politicians of ours our lives and freedoms for generations to come so that they would save us from these frightening hypotheticals. I fear that my SUV outside might not start, because we're having unseasonably cold weather right now, but that means nothing, because I should be more afraid that it will start and destroy life as we know it, with firey heat!
Oh the irony and agony! With every CO2 laden breath I'm killing myself. I must stop breathing if I want to live! Only the all wise leaders in Copenhagen can save me now. Perhaps if I debase myself in some ritual to mother earth the environment will be appeased and have mercy on me the virus of the planet. Oh if only my mother had thought about the holy carbon and never bore me as a curse upon this poor planet. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyy yyyy!

And certainly people like you aren't doing anything to help. This is the biggest thing that's happened in the last century for people in the third world countries that are being effected by global warming and here are people making jokes about it. I get pissed off whenever people act so nonchalant about things like this. Here we go with carbon PPM levels in the atmosphere rising past 390, ha ha ha. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM????

seanz
12-16-2009, 07:57 PM
That's not foot dragging......it's a traditional dance that may have outlived its original purpose.

sailboy3
12-16-2009, 08:00 PM
Based on the news coverage I've read, it's China and India doing the foot-dragging.

Maybe so, but the US has them beat by a long shot. The mainstream media just doesn't tell you that.

JimD
12-16-2009, 08:14 PM
Canada doesn't even have a foot in it to drag... Little Stevie Harper is the most useless head of state on the planet.

Yup.

Kaa
12-16-2009, 08:23 PM
I love Kaa's posts on China.

They are so authoritative.

I love being corrected by knowledgeable people -- it means I'm learning.

As to sniping from the sidelines, I think I can give you lessons :D

Kaa

Kaa
12-16-2009, 08:25 PM
Yes, I know. It was a disaster. But they were able to martial the population to do it. And that is the point.

Perhaps there are more points than you think? :-)

And let me remind you that Mao's been dead for quite a while by now.

Kaa

Kaa
12-16-2009, 08:29 PM
This is the biggest thing that's happened in the last century for people in the third world countries that are being effected by global warming

LOL. Oh, boy...

So global warming is the biggest thing that happened to the third world during the XX century?? :D

Kaa

Kaa
12-16-2009, 09:22 PM
By the way -- here's an excellent post that addresses some root problems with AGW...

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11824

Kaa

George Jung
12-16-2009, 10:12 PM
Sailboy3 - what do 'your sources' have to say about the USA? Inquiring minds, and all....

The level of 'third world' organization and cooperation in co-opting this conference, is eye opening. The first day, they all walked out in protest - but came back the next day, having gotten their headlines and, presumably, the leverage they desired. It's a giant money transfer, from what I've seen - intended to transfer western wealth to these other nations. Curious - how does that address global warming and greenhouse gas emissions? Hush, right? That's not PC. Amazing how science has been hijacked for a political agenda. More amazing is who supports it.

skuthorp
12-16-2009, 11:19 PM
It's these smaller nations that will bear the brunt of climate change, and it is warming. They are the ones to go under water, become deserts, not be capable of feeding themselves etc. If you are from Tuvalu or the Sechelles then unless someone else takes you in you go under.

C. Ross
12-17-2009, 12:11 AM
Based on what I saw tonight, the protesters WANT something done about climate change.

Most of us want something done, somewhere between modest and radical.

But the semi-pro protesters thrive on experience and self gratification as a weird form of station identification, irrespective of actual outcomes.

It's a good gig with guaranteed results. By expressing Outrage and advocating enlightened New Lifestyles and in all ways exhibiting one's Moral Superiority you can avoid most of the hard work of real change, and instead wallow simultaneously in the righteousness of your vision and revel in the Struggle against The Man. It's entirely tautological and self-referential. What narcissist could ask for more?

Kaa
12-17-2009, 12:17 AM
If you are from Tuvalu or the Sechelles then unless someone else takes you in you go under.

Is it too much to keep the facts straight? :-)

90% of the population of Seychelles lives on the island of Mahé which is not an atoll, but rather a substantial chunk of granite. Its highest point is 905 m above sea level.

Maybe you were thinking of the Maldives?

Kaa

PeterSibley
12-17-2009, 12:40 AM
Most of us want something done, somewhere between modest and radical.

But the semi-pro protesters thrive on experience and self gratification as a weird form of station identification, irrespective of actual outcomes.

It's a good gig with guaranteed results. By expressing Outrage and advocating enlightened New Lifestyles and in all ways exhibiting one's Moral Superiority you can avoid most of the hard work of real change, and instead wallow simultaneously in the righteousness of your vision and revel in the Struggle against The Man. It's entirely tautological and self-referential. What narcissist could ask for more?

You know this ? From personal experience perhaps ?

C. Ross
12-17-2009, 12:49 AM
You know this ? From personal experience perhaps ?

Yes. Haven't we all seen the braggart who is more interested in attention for himself than his cause?

I don't think anarchists and anti-authoritarian poseurs do any good. They push authentic voices and hard work out of the way, and they harden opposition. They are the suicide bombers of free speech.

PeterSibley
12-17-2009, 01:01 AM
You seem to be painting with a very broad brush .

C. Ross
12-17-2009, 01:19 AM
You seem to be painting with a very broad brush .

I am Peter, that's fair, but I intend to be singling out only the counterproductive poseurs.

Personally, I believe in the scientific consensus on global climate change (disappearing ice caps are compelling enough) even though the multi-century research looks like it has data and analysis problems.

I also believe that taking measured action on energy conservation and carbon management would provide net benefit to the economy and quality of life even if we are wrong about the global warming science.

So I hate seeing knuckleheads attempting to frame this as a radical vs. establishment issue when it should be an issue for common cause and consensus.

The Bigfella
12-17-2009, 01:31 AM
FFS... who gives a rat's arse about Tuvalu? It is an infinitesmaly small percentage of the world's population. 10,000 people who camped on the wrong sand spit. Get over it.

I'll let the silly bastards camp in my back yard. We, in Oz, take more refugees than that every damn year. It isn't an issue. The damn glaciers have been melting for many, many centuries. Haven't they?

As for the African nations. So, they want money. Guess who will get that? The despots, of course. They'll spend it in the south of France, so France will support the idea of money to them. What money that has ever been paid to African nations has ever reached those in need?

Yep... same people will hand out the money... same despots will pinch it.

Same old, same old

PeterSibley
12-17-2009, 01:31 AM
It will never be a cause for common cause and consensus ,much as I would like it to be .Science will be triumphed by PR , that vastly better funded acme of communication .Democracies will never act and if (as I tend to believe ) GW is fact , we are in very serious trouble .

It's not something that will ever be proven to the satisfaction of those that fear they will loose financially and the idea of insurance seems strangely unwelcome in this scenario ,despite it's obvious advantages .

I am very negative about this , industry seems to have the whip hand and if their protestations are incorrect we will pay very heavily , at least our children will .

WX
12-17-2009, 01:35 AM
I'm not paying close attention because I know not a lot is going to come out of it...though the deckchairs will look good in their new paint scheme.

The Bigfella
12-17-2009, 02:39 AM
Peter, it isn't industry that has the whip hand, it is the status quo.

The case for change isn't sound. Too many issues, too many errors.... too many entrenched positions and perceived advantages eg "you owe us a debt".

PeterSibley
12-17-2009, 03:04 AM
Peter, it isn't industry that has the whip hand, it is the status quo.

The case for change isn't sound. Too many issues, too many errors.... too many entrenched positions and perceived advantages eg "you owe us a debt".

I think you just made my point for me .If the IPPC and the rest makes no inroad ,if this is real as I supect it is , the status quo will drag the chain until it is far too late as it may well be now .Nit pickers will find nits and ignore the mass of evidence .

Good Luck .

The Bigfella
12-17-2009, 03:34 AM
But Peter... there isn't a mass of evidence. The overwhelming evidence is of a quasi-religious, self-interested, conflicted position.

PeterSibley
12-17-2009, 03:39 AM
Crap .Done to death .Around and around ad nauseum .

The Bigfella
12-17-2009, 03:45 AM
Yep... and without a compelling reason to change, change will not happen. Management Consulting 101.

Nothing new in my message. All that's happened since I first related it is that the IPCC message has been weakened.

Yes we have climate change. That is the natural order of things on this planet.

Yes we have scientists clamouring for funding. Natural order of things.

Yes we have scientists manipulating data to theories. Natural order...

Oh yeah, since the sky pilots have been losing the argument for our feeble brains... the debate has moved.... the current "religion" ie, need for some way of rationalising things that "we" don't understand... has moved to "the earth"

martin schulz
12-17-2009, 05:32 AM
Perhaps this will cheer up some.

This morning 2 of the 4 chartered Traditional Museumharbour boats that took Flensburg Students to the Climate Conference in Copenhagen returned in mist/snow. I hear they had a wonderful, but strenuous trip.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii188/sionnachan/museumshafen/161209-Hafen.jpg

sailboy3
12-17-2009, 06:47 AM
To those that were wondering what my source of information is:
http://www.democracynow.org/

I'm positive that Democracy Now is the only American radio/TV/internet news station in Copenhagen right now so it would be fair to say that they have a good grasp on what's happening over there.
Also take a look at this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/16/police_tear_gas_beat_back_protesters

skuthorp
12-17-2009, 06:51 AM
I'm not paying close attention because I know not a lot is going to come out of it...though the deckchairs will look good in their new paint scheme.

Only confirms my well expressed thoughts about humans and longer term planning.

LeeG
12-17-2009, 06:54 AM
I'm not paying close attention because I know not a lot is going to come out of it...though the deckchairs will look good in their new paint scheme.

don't forget the band, it must play on.

sailboy3
12-17-2009, 07:01 AM
I don't want to play in your silly reindeer games. We've got real environmental issues to solve now, we can worry about your fictitious CO2 ignited doomsday scenario later when we have a better understanding about how water vapor regulates our greenhouse and keeps the temperature cozy.

All right, Rudolph :)

sailboy3
12-17-2009, 08:17 AM
We know the Senate won't ratify anything that the US representatives agree to anyway, just like last time, so the whole thing is a bit of a nonsense.

It has become an exercise in passing on the blame for the failure of the project.

So long as the US media can blame China, they'll be fine.

Exactly.

JimD
12-17-2009, 10:39 AM
Perhaps there are more points than you think? :-)

And let me remind you that Mao's been dead for quite a while by now.

Kaa

My knowledge of China is rudimentary but I don't think they have much of a history of consensus politics, at least not of the sort that reduces them to endless internal bickering and inaction as often exists in the US and other Western democracies, Mao or no Mao. Anyway, most likely in about ten years or so somebody is going to have a lot of crow to eat. See you then.

Kaa
12-17-2009, 10:51 AM
Most of us want something done, somewhere between modest and radical.

That looks to me like a precisely the wrong thing to do.

I a have a strong suspicion that the whole unholy mess of AGW action converges to "doing something" that's both

(1) Is sufficiently effective to screw up the global economy;

(2) Is not sufficiently effective to do anything noticeable about the climate change, if it actually takes place.

What's the antonym of "optimum"? :-)

Kaa

Kaa
12-17-2009, 11:06 AM
My knowledge of China is rudimentary but I don't think they have much of a history of consensus politics, at least not of the sort that reduces them to endless internal bickering and inaction as often exists in the US and other Western democracies, Mao or no Mao.

Instead they have a history of mass revolts and uprisings, not to mention an occasional civil war :-)

My point is that the situation of the Chinese government is less stable than you seem to think. It's not inconceivable at all that if it does decide to order another Great Leap Forward and it, unsurprisingly, goes tits up, the government will collapse. At which point the world will have an extremely interesting situation on its hands -- we were VERY lucky in how fortuitously the Soviet Union disintegrated, but do you want to try such games again with China? On the other hand, a nuclear winter will nicely offset global warming, will it not? :D

And, by the way, if you need a dictatorial government to push through a course of action that you can't make happen in a democracy -- doesn't it give you reason to pause and think?


Anyway, most likely in about ten years or so somebody is going to have a lot of crow to eat. See you then.

Well, the same thing could have been said ten years ago. And the crow is on a plate before the AGW crowd.

But don't you know that AGW is the new kind of science? :D

If it gets warmer, it proves AGW. If it gets colder, it proves AGW. If it rains more, it proves AGW. If it rains less, it proves AGW. There is no way to lose! Just chant "I believe..."

Kaa

JimD
12-17-2009, 12:36 PM
Kaa, I think you're wrong about China. And if you're wrong about GW no doubt you'll just shrug that off, too.

Kaa
12-17-2009, 03:22 PM
The Great Leap Forward was triggered by Mao's wish to have China adopt Lysenkoist biology, as then practised in Russia.

Partially. The imposed agricultural practices were certainly derived from the Lysenkoist approach -- but other socio-economic elements, like the aggregation of peasants into large communes, or the widespread building of backyard furnaces, or other ill-designed large construction projects (e.g. irrigation) were not.


There is not the slightest chance that today's crop of well educated meritocrats, ruling by consensus amongst themselves, would embark on any such course.

Well, I would tend to agree. Jim, however, expressed hopes that these meritocrats, unburdened by trappings of a democracy :-) would embark on a rapid and drastic transformation of their economy:


On the other hand, China might be the only country that could lead the charge if they wanted to. Their authoritarian government still has the ability to say 'make it so' and it will be done. If they can make a billion citizens all simutaneously swat flies or kill sparrows then they could quite easily convert to wind farms and solar panels.

And, like Jim, I reckon the rule of the CCP is pretty stable - it has sucessfully adapted the techniques of spin doctoring and the use of the Internet to its own ends and it is genuinely quite popular at present

Yes. At present. And this:

http://www.stratfor.com/mmf/122338

is the reason why.

If that turns out to be a bubble and the bubble bursts -- what do you think are the chances of the CCP's rule remaining "stable"?

Kaa

The Bigfella
12-17-2009, 03:25 PM
GDP at $2000 per head is a bubble?

seanz
12-17-2009, 03:43 PM
How can the 'P' in GDP ever be a bubble?



Nobody say Nauru.

TimH
12-17-2009, 04:38 PM
The ozone hole was a hoax too. Everyone knows people are too insignificant to have an affect on the atmosphere.

Paul Pless
12-17-2009, 04:40 PM
Everyone knows people are too insignificant to have an affect on the atmosphere.fart

TimH
12-17-2009, 04:43 PM
There is no serious science predicting population die-offs.

If you find some, please link.
Kaa

This page has a few hundred articles on the extinction hoax.


http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html





http://www.well.com/~davidu/bbc.gif (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2000325.stm) http://www.well.com/~davidu/cnn.gif (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html)

http://www.well.com/~davidu/fish.gif (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/) http://www.well.com/~davidu/lions2.gif (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3119434.stm)

TimH
12-17-2009, 04:49 PM
fart

LOL. That reminds me of a story.

I made this huge 3 gallon batch of chili back when I was a bachelor. I had been feeding off of this for about a week and drinking lots of chep beer.
One day in the shop I let one go. Didnt think too much of it.
A few minutes later I heard a bunch of commotion on the other side of the shop - about 200 feet away.
Seems they were trying to find the source of the stench. They never suspected it was of human origin (or came from me ) :D

WX
12-17-2009, 04:59 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8419578.stm

BarnacleGrim
12-17-2009, 05:26 PM
FFS... who gives a rat's arse about Tuvalu? It is an infinitesmaly small percentage of the world's population. 10,000 people who camped on the wrong sand spit. Get over it.

I'll let the silly bastards camp in my back yard. We, in Oz, take more refugees than that every damn year. It isn't an issue. The damn glaciers have been melting for many, many centuries. Haven't they?
I've been to Tuvalu. Charming place. But I'm sure they would all enjoy life in Australia and New Zealand. I bet a lot of them already are. We could send OrangeAfroMan over, though. No need to build a boat, the kids just paddle around in old refrigerators during high tide. :D

The Bigfella
12-17-2009, 05:30 PM
Look at it this way... Tuvalu could be the saviour of our coral reefs. If the seas rise, all our coral reefs will be buggered, we need a few areas like Tuvalu will be... ie just under the water... to keep the coral going until the glaciers form again and we get our reefs back.

Paul Pless
12-17-2009, 05:31 PM
beautiful logic there ian

LeeG
12-17-2009, 05:33 PM
This page has a few hundred articles on the extinction hoax.


http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html





http://www.well.com/~davidu/bbc.gif (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2000325.stm) http://www.well.com/~davidu/cnn.gif (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/23/green.century.mass.extinction/index.html)

http://www.well.com/~davidu/fish.gif (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/) http://www.well.com/~davidu/lions2.gif (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3119434.stm)

Tim, those are animals, we're 7billion and growing on the stored energy of fossil fuels!!!

WX
12-17-2009, 05:37 PM
Sealevel rise will mean the coral reefs will populate the new shallows and hopefully the rise will the slow enough for the outer reefs to keep up. I think the big problem is increasing sea temps, doesn't that cause bleaching?


The primary cause of coral bleaching is high water temperature. Temperature increases of only 1.5–2°C lasting for six to eight weeks are enough to trigger bleaching. When high temperatures persist for more than eight weeks, corals begin to die.

TimH
12-17-2009, 05:38 PM
Tim, those are animals, we're 7billion and growing on the stored energy of fossil fuels!!!

Good point. How long would it take those animals to turn into oil?

WX
12-17-2009, 05:45 PM
How long would it take those animals to turn into oil?

Depends how much fatty food you feed them. There is already a black market in Human fat...though not for oil.

LeeG
12-17-2009, 05:47 PM
dunno, 75million years? I think they'll turn into coal and it's the algae sludge that turns into oil.

It's a hell of a magical material, all that energy and carbon released in months that took millions of years to accumulate. That's a hell of a ratio.

TimH
12-17-2009, 05:49 PM
At any rate its a good thing we arent animals.

LeeG
12-17-2009, 05:51 PM
check it out, if you're 50yrs old the carbon emissions are 8times more than when you were born. Looks like it goes up, up ,up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png

LeeG
12-17-2009, 05:52 PM
At any rate its a good thing we arent animals.

exactly, until it turns out we are.

JimD
12-17-2009, 06:57 PM
...If that turns out to be a bubble and the bubble bursts -- what do you think are the chances of the CCP's rule remaining "stable"?

Kaa

Quite good, actually. And if its true that China is carrying huge US debt then its already a bubble. The losers in a green economy will be the fossil fuel producers. They've been winning and calling the shots long enough. Time to let someone else have a turn.

JimD
12-17-2009, 07:09 PM
And anybody who enjoys a standard of living based upon a world economy driven by cheap energy.

That just means you're using the wrong standard.

LeeG
12-17-2009, 07:42 PM
And anybody who enjoys a standard of living based upon a world economy driven by cheap energy.

Imagine building a big big house when you're young and have lots of cheap energy. But then you're older in a big big house and don't have the same income to run it.

The last century was our growth years. The next century isn't.

C. Ross
12-17-2009, 07:56 PM
That looks to me like a precisely the wrong thing to do.

I a have a strong suspicion that the whole unholy mess of AGW action converges to "doing something" that's both

(1) Is sufficiently effective to screw up the global economy;

(2) Is not sufficiently effective to do anything noticeable about the climate change, if it actually takes place.

What's the antonym of "optimum"? :-)

Kaa

Well, I'm barely literate in these issues, but that never stops anyone from having an opinion on the Forum, eh?

Your proposition #1: controls screw up the global economy. I think the right observation is "yes, but".

Aggregate energy consumption grows steadily (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html). Prices of energy (http://www.investis.com/bp_acc_ia/stat_review_2008/htdocs/index.html) vary a lot.

A reasonable hypothesis is that significant changes in energy cost due to price changes are absorbed pretty well in an economy. You don't see GDP growth or consumer inflation vary strongly because of energy price changes. Energy seems to be price inelastic -- demand churns on regardless of price.

A second reasonable hypothesis is that economies don't absorb changes in supply very well. Oil prices changed more in real terms over the last 2 years than they did during the 1973 oil shock, but there is no credible evidence that the world economy was affected by crude oil price changes as they were in 1973 when supplies were constrained. Again, more evidence that energy consumption is price inelastic -- a small change in consumption is harder to absorb than a big change in cost.

So if we could cure global climate change by spending more on energy, we're in great shape! We've proven over and over that industry and consumers can absorb major energy price changes.

But the proposed cure is less consumption, which we've not proven we can do. Let's be careful, though, we haven't tested this capability, except for random temporary shocks, which are useless as tests of future effects because, well, they're random and temporary and don't prove our ability to learn or adapt.

The best argument for cap and trade is that we can use proven price resilience as a way of injecting consumption resilience into the economy. By creating a predicable price signal through various supply chains, a strong cap and trade system will no doubt crater some industries that are inflexible in energy consumption or where their products are price elastic to consumers, or both.

The thing that bugs me about cap and trade proposals is that they ought to be initiated on the basis of BTU consumption and not carbon output, since the first can be directly measured by a market and the second cannot. After price signals have been injected into supply chains for five or ten years, then a switch to carbon output to achieve environmental goals would really work.

Your proposition #2 - not sufficiently effective. Is it worth it? I don't know...I don't follow the global climate change arguments closely enough to know how much change is needed how quickly, and no one really knows if the cost of change curve is worse than the risk of not changing curve.

But in the absence of proof, I'd argue that there is always a good argument for taking costs out of production, and the most likely response to energy rationing will be to reduce energy as a component of production and consumption. Again, some industries and lifestyle habits (like running my powerboat with two old internal combustion engines!) will not be adaptable to energy rationing, but most will.

LeeG
12-17-2009, 09:31 PM
The irony is that, amid all this chaos, the environmental ends of the Earth summit have been largely abandoned. Instead, both sides seem focused on negotiating what amounts essentially to a straight-out inter-regional transfer of wealth.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2349715#ixzz0a08ZwIRV




transfer or what happens when growth slows in one region and grows quickly in another?

LeeG
12-17-2009, 10:07 PM
Glad I don't live in your world! :)

You keep bitching, and I'll keep bringing the growth.

You get some manners
What I'm describing is different rates of growth

paladin
12-18-2009, 08:54 AM
Imagine building a big big house when you're young and have lots of cheap energy. But then you're older in a big big house and don't have the same income to run it.


Cuzzackley.....I wuz sitting on 4 1/2 acres of woods...4700 sq. foot house...1200 sq. foot shop...well water, septic tank......I bailed out and bought a 1200 sq. foot place with basement, 2 x 6 walls, heavily insulated....runs on a.c. but...I have 4 solar panels on the roof/solar water heater, a couple batteries in basement, and a pellet stove and a wood stove (not hooked up yet)......and my energy bill has fallen thru the floor, but then again, the money ain't worth as much any more either...

Kaa
12-18-2009, 11:15 AM
A reasonable hypothesis is that significant changes in energy cost due to price changes are absorbed pretty well in an economy. You don't see GDP growth or consumer inflation vary strongly because of energy price changes. Energy seems to be price inelastic -- demand churns on regardless of price.

I think it's a bit more complicated :-)

There are two different things. One is the the ability of the economy to absorb shocks. And it is true that most economies have learned to deal reasonably well with moderate energy price volatility. Their response to major price shocks (e.g. 1973), however, is considerably worse.

Two is the effect of persistently high energy prices on the economy. And here I would argue that they most certainly affect GDP growth and inflation. It would be very weird if they were not to do that.

As to elasticity, I think (specific) energy prices are inelastic in the short term, but fairly elastic in the long term, partly through substitution.


A second reasonable hypothesis is that economies don't absorb changes in supply very well. Oil prices changed more in real terms over the last 2 years than they did during the 1973 oil shock, but there is no credible evidence that the world economy was affected by crude oil price changes as they were in 1973 when supplies were constrained.

Um... in normally functioning markets there is no difference between a shortage and a price spike -- the former immediately converts itself into the latter.

As to "changing more",

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/6/5/saupload_inflation_20adjusted_20price_20of_20crude _20oil_20long_20term_20chart.png

the effect of the 2007-2008 oil price spike is hard to estimate. One could argue, for example, that to head off the oil price-driven recession most governments opened the floodgates of easy money even wider which contributed to the crash in the fall of 2008.


So if we could cure global climate change by spending more on energy, we're in great shape! We've proven over and over that industry and consumers can absorb major energy price changes.

Huh? I don't think so at all. The issue isn't what consumers can absorb (not that they are given much choice), the issue is effect on economic growth and, again, to hold that energy prices do not affect the economy is a... strange position.


But the proposed cure is less consumption, which we've not proven we can do.

Right now we're having "less consumption". For some reason everyone's very excited, keeps calling it a recession (or even a depression half a year ago), and is in favor of borrowing huge amounts of money from our children to "fix" this. :D


The thing that bugs me about cap and trade proposals is that they ought to be initiated on the basis of BTU consumption and not carbon output, since the first can be directly measured by a market and the second cannot.

Why not? Burning a ton of oil or coal outputs a precisely known amount of CO2 into the atmosphere...


Your proposition #2 - not sufficiently effective. Is it worth it? I don't know...I don't follow the global climate change arguments closely enough to know how much change is needed how quickly

I do follow :-) The answer is that nobody knows because the climatologists don't have any models which can give decent forecasts. You can have an easier task if you target CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and not the temperature, but in reality you actually care about the temperature...


But in the absence of proof, I'd argue that there is always a good argument for taking costs out of production,

Whaddaya mean, "taking costs out"? You are seriously increasing the price, and thus the cost, of a major production factor. That's not taking the costs out, that's pushing the costs up.

Of course the response would be the restructuring of the economy where energy-intensive processes and products would suffer while energy-indifferent ones would thrive. That's not necessarily a bad thing by itself, but it's not necessarily a good thing by itself either. And there is certain to be much pain in the process (and delay of growth), so the real question is what for?

Kaa

TimH
12-18-2009, 12:14 PM
Amazing how cheap oil was during Clintons days. No wonder he was able to balance the budget and the economy was booming.

paul oman
12-18-2009, 12:39 PM
C02 in the atmosphere is only 0.38% - all greenhouse gases combined are 3% of the atmosphere. Double c02 levels and we are still well under 1%. I If you were doing a report on atmospheric gases, you probably wouldn't even mention co2. Want to go after greenhouse gas emissions? why pick on co2, when other gases are more common (cannot make money from regulating them!)?

Water vapor (clouds etc) in the air probably have much more to do with temps - could it be that cloud control would be a smarter way to control planet temp?

If there is global warming, man made or not, better economic sense to spend the $ adjusting to it, rather than trying to stop it - that approach to gw is rarely mentioned.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-18-2009, 01:51 PM
If you want the story it's in the BBC Radio Four "Now Show" as a poem by Marcus Brigstock.

PeterSibley
12-18-2009, 04:12 PM
You assume that it will be just a 2 or 3 degree increase Paul ,what if it starts to feed back and just keeps rising .A bit like just letting your truck roll just a few yards down the hill ,what if it doesn't stop ?

WX
12-18-2009, 04:49 PM
better economic sense to spend the $ adjusting to it, rather than trying to stop it
Not if your country is on or near present sea level...that is one of the main reasons for trying to halt the effect.

JimD
12-18-2009, 05:57 PM
I'm not so sure that in the age of enormously powerful computers and nanosecond trading and speculation there is such a thing as normal markets anymore. Buy buy buy! Sell sell sell! just isn't what it used to be.

johnw
12-18-2009, 05:57 PM
Woody, the President proposes, congress disposes. If the president proposes a balanced budget, a balanced budget is far more likely to pass. Bush I and Clinton were willing to do that. Reagan and Bush II? Nope.

C. Ross
12-18-2009, 06:20 PM
I think it's a bit more complicated :-)

There are PhD theses and fortunes being made and lost on these questions. Here all is sweetness and light and over-simplification.


There are two different things. One is the the ability of the economy to absorb shocks. ... Two is the effect of persistently high energy prices on the economy. And here I would argue that they most certainly affect GDP growth and inflation. It would be very weird if they were not to do that.

Sure, persistently high energy COST would have a negative effect on the economy, but of course price does not equal cost if there are substitutes...one of those substitutes being conservation.


As to elasticity, I think (specific) energy prices are inelastic in the short term, but fairly elastic in the long term, partly through substitution.

Exactly. Evidence shows we can relatively quickly change fuel types...but my point is that we have never really tested our ability to substitute for BTUs or watts.

If you assume we have no more engineering capabilities or production/consumption nimbleness to respond to carbon caps, you are right. The economy and standards of living will suffer.

But we've lived for millenia accustomed to cheap energy, and we have living patterns that have never presented us - meaningfully - with substitution choices for energy consumption!


Um... in normally functioning markets there is no difference between a shortage and a price spike -- the former immediately converts itself into the latter.

I agree with Andrew.


...to hold that energy prices do not affect the economy is a... strange position.

I'm holding the position that energy costs affect the economy, that price changes have been generally absorbed because of the price inelasticity of energy, and that we have not meaningfully tested our ability to reduce energy consumption.

Perhaps this will crater the economy as a whole, but as you point out, substitution of energy types happens. We now need to see if that engineering skill can be applied to decreased energy use as a unit of production and consumption. How aggressive we should be about this depends on how dire the problem is, and I have no informed opinion about that.


Whaddaya mean, "taking costs out"? You are seriously increasing the price, and thus the cost, of a major production factor. That's not taking the costs out, that's pushing the costs up.

Of course the response would be the restructuring of the economy where energy-intensive processes and products would suffer while energy-indifferent ones would thrive. That's not necessarily a bad thing by itself, but it's not necessarily a good thing by itself either. And there is certain to be much pain in the process (and delay of growth), so the real question is what for?

By now you get it...I'm arguing that we can use what we know works (price absorption and the ability to switch fuel types) and link those to what hasn't been tested (engineering and production/consumption choices that reduce carbon per BTU or watt).

I'm arguing that in the absence of global climate change concerns, it would be a good thing anyway to do this -- to avoid energy shortages due to depletion (not regulation) and to raise standards of living by reducing the amount of commodity consumption required per unit of consumption and production.

johnw
12-18-2009, 07:39 PM
FFS... who gives a rat's arse about Tuvalu? It is an infinitesmaly small percentage of the world's population. 10,000 people who camped on the wrong sand spit. Get over it.

I assume you feel the same about Florida.

johnw
12-18-2009, 07:44 PM
Well, I'm barely literate in these issues, but that never stops anyone from having an opinion on the Forum, eh?

Your proposition #1: controls screw up the global economy. I think the right observation is "yes, but".

Aggregate energy consumption grows steadily (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html). Prices of energy (http://www.investis.com/bp_acc_ia/stat_review_2008/htdocs/index.html) vary a lot.

A reasonable hypothesis is that significant changes in energy cost due to price changes are absorbed pretty well in an economy. You don't see GDP growth or consumer inflation vary strongly because of energy price changes. Energy seems to be price inelastic -- demand churns on regardless of price.

A second reasonable hypothesis is that economies don't absorb changes in supply very well. Oil prices changed more in real terms over the last 2 years than they did during the 1973 oil shock, but there is no credible evidence that the world economy was affected by crude oil price changes as they were in 1973 when supplies were constrained. Again, more evidence that energy consumption is price inelastic -- a small change in consumption is harder to absorb than a big change in cost.

So if we could cure global climate change by spending more on energy, we're in great shape! We've proven over and over that industry and consumers can absorb major energy price changes.

But the proposed cure is less consumption, which we've not proven we can do. Let's be careful, though, we haven't tested this capability, except for random temporary shocks, which are useless as tests of future effects because, well, they're random and temporary and don't prove our ability to learn or adapt.

The best argument for cap and trade is that we can use proven price resilience as a way of injecting consumption resilience into the economy. By creating a predicable price signal through various supply chains, a strong cap and trade system will no doubt crater some industries that are inflexible in energy consumption or where their products are price elastic to consumers, or both.

The thing that bugs me about cap and trade proposals is that they ought to be initiated on the basis of BTU consumption and not carbon output, since the first can be directly measured by a market and the second cannot. After price signals have been injected into supply chains for five or ten years, then a switch to carbon output to achieve environmental goals would really work.

Your proposition #2 - not sufficiently effective. Is it worth it? I don't know...I don't follow the global climate change arguments closely enough to know how much change is needed how quickly, and no one really knows if the cost of change curve is worse than the risk of not changing curve.

But in the absence of proof, I'd argue that there is always a good argument for taking costs out of production, and the most likely response to energy rationing will be to reduce energy as a component of production and consumption. Again, some industries and lifestyle habits (like running my powerboat with two old internal combustion engines!) will not be adaptable to energy rationing, but most will.
The thing I like about cap & trade is the way it uses markets instead of regulation. It's been pretty successful in the past, as well.

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

Of course, most environmental legislation has cost less than we were told it would by the industry affected, but Cap & trade seemed particularly effective at this in dealing with sulfur dioxide.

http://www.edf.org/content_Images/graph_acidrain2.gif
Betting against American's ability to fix technological problems has never been smart.

ishmael
12-18-2009, 07:58 PM
The reason there is no meeting of the minds in Copenhagen is that there is no consensus about this. When the likes of Al Gore spout that it's all settled, people react. Even with the increase in CO2, the Northern hemisphere has become colder over the last decade.

I don't think there's much doubt that CO2 has an affect. The question is how big and it what way? I know I react when I hear Al Gore make his pronouncements.

Climate change is not settled science, yet listening to Al Gore you'd think it was. He's a liar.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-18-2009, 08:03 PM
Bottom line: Nobody cares. The earth is warming, we're damaging it, and no one cares. so it goes.

ishmael
12-18-2009, 08:15 PM
"Bottom line: Nobody cares."

Oh, Peter I think people do care. I don't have kids but I'd care what sort of world they would grow up in.

What the sun is doing, the cooling or heating of the earth, is not high on the list.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-18-2009, 08:18 PM
The amount of disregard that the human race has for the planet they live on is surpassed only by the vehemence of the denial that anything has happened that we are responsible for. It's dark comedy at it's finest.

johnw
12-18-2009, 08:49 PM
So according to your theory Obama will send a completed budget to congress and they'll rubber stamp it for him.
According to my theory congress will write and pass a budget for Obama to rubber stamp.

Not what I said. 'Congress disposes' is generally considered to mean that they work out the details and the deals, adjusting the budget within the general contours set by the president.

Why do you think Bush I was so much more fiscally responsible than Bush II? Because he had a Democratic congress?

JimD
12-18-2009, 09:00 PM
Everybody cares for our planet to some degree. Some just don't believe it is headed off into insufferable heat, which is caused solely by mankind and is entirely preventable by taking money away from rich democracy's for the new sin of CO2 release and giving it to bankrupt tyrannies regardless of their environmental efforts.

So hypothetically, what would it take for you to believe in climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human industry? What sort of science? What sort of evidence? Because there will always be alternate theories. There are always alternate theories to everything.

JimD
12-18-2009, 10:52 PM
What sort of Science? That which was observed or is repeatable.(the scientific method)
If you have to cherry pick the data, fudge the computer model and then destroy the original data and hide your code, chances are you're not engaged in real science.
Observation tells us that the climate normally varies within certain ranges and seems to have certain longer term rhythms. Observation would not lead a person to believe that our earth will suddenly deviate from the usual weather into a deadly species killing heat. Observation tells us that water vapor regulates the temperature of the earth with a far stronger effect than any posible tiny effect from CO2. The output of heat from the sun is a far greater variable than the effect of CO2. Observation has shown both heating and cooling while CO2 levels rose. Real scientists who are not engaged in scare tactics seem to accept that climate change is normal, usually gradual, and not a source for great worry.

So when NOAA's own National Climate Data Center publishes these and other statements...

...Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans...The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels...The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend...
Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise...A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies... The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations...Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures...Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution...
The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades...


...it is because the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is cherry picking, fudging, destroying, and hiding? Why would NOAA do this? Why would they have an agenda? The entire lot of them have been duped? Their data corrupted by some nefarious fifth element? They are all unscrupulous cads with something to gain by lying to us all? And all the other nations' similar scientific organizations that have drawn similar conclusions? They are all frauds or dupes? Part of a global international conspiracy? How could this be?

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 12:43 AM
According to our new Leader of the Opposition , it's all the result of a worldwide left wing conspiracy to bring down capitalism ,every damn scientist seems to be on board ,government agency scientists , university funded ones ..Commos ..the lot !:D

The only sane voices work for coal companies ..they are the only ones telling the truth :rolleyes:.

coelacanth2
12-19-2009, 02:28 AM
Looks like a nonbinding, spin friendly face-saving spin opportunity for a few public servants, at public expense. Why did Pelosi et al have to go over there? Hope the plane isn't delayed by the early blizzard here. Then to spin this golem of a "healthcare" bill:rolleyes:

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 03:48 AM
In Obama's defence Andrew ,the POTUS is probably th most hamstrung of any Western leader when it comes to influencing the legislation that is passed in his/her country and the Chinese Premier is probably the most effective overall .

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 05:04 AM
Very likely and their system of non government , but that said we have a Westminster system with every possibility of effective action , but not the actuality .The business lobbists are all powerful ....well, their campaign finance is .

shamus
12-19-2009, 05:08 AM
C02 in the atmosphere is only 0.38%

Shyte! Then we are in trouble. It was only a tenth of that last time I checked.

BrianW
12-19-2009, 05:13 AM
What a waste of space that man is.

By far, the best thread I ever started! :eek:

shamus
12-19-2009, 05:17 AM
I've decided to reduce my nett CO2 emissions by 50% in 2010.
Will you join me?

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 05:19 AM
I'd imagine that the Communist Party leadership will be thinking very very hard about this .They will be balancing the enviornment versus the political ,it will be interesting to watch as China is probably the most exposed (with India ) of the powers .They at least have the ability to make some changes ...I very much doubt Obama has a snowball's chance in hell...and he knows it .

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 05:22 AM
I've decided to reduce my nett CO2 emissions by 50% in 2010.
Will you join me?

Yes , it willl be a lot easier if I can get this damn biodiesel rig working properly .:rolleyes: It will get the 5 of us down to around 3 tons pa .Too much but better than now .

Nett ? I take it you have a plantation growing up in the hills ? I have a fair bit of new growth but no idea how to calculate it .

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 05:58 AM
I was thinking more of the sources of their rivers , what percentage are from snow covered mountains and glaciers ?

shamus
12-19-2009, 06:03 AM
Nett ?

I think I'll slaughter half my cattle and turn some land over to a tree collection. On how to count your trees, I believe a power pole size tree is good for about 40 kilos.

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 06:09 AM
100%

That would appear to be a concern ...and a selling point .

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 06:10 AM
I think I'll slaughter half my cattle and turn some land over to a tree collection. On how to count your trees, I believe a power pole size tree is good for about 40 kilos.

About I week of quiet driving .I have a decades worth , but I've been here 3 .

shamus
12-19-2009, 06:14 AM
That's 40 kilos CO2 per annum. Is that how you were working it?

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 06:23 AM
Oh ! That looks better , I was thinking per tree ,total ....so I wasn't really thinking , there would be a ton of dry wood in each one .I've got 20 acres here , 90% cover ,so the carbon sink is definitely adequate for the family .

40kg per tree ? I think I'm ahead .

shamus
12-19-2009, 06:34 AM
But mature forests might be as low as 8kg per hectare. You need to cut mature trees, turn them into boats, plant new trees, ...steadily.

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 06:44 AM
Cut mature trees , use them to fill old coal mines at Ipswich and the like .The whole town sits on a rabbit warren of interconnecting tunnels , occasionally a street drops a few metres ....oooppps .

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 06:46 AM
But mature forests might be as low as 8kg per hectare. You need to cut mature trees, turn them into boats, plant new trees, ...steadily.

or just replant old ag land that should never have been cleared , there's plenty of that up here .

JimD
12-19-2009, 11:04 AM
...commitments will be the subject of further negotiation, with the aim of a final deal at next year's summit in Mexico... http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/18/copenhagen-last-day.html
Why even bother bringing it up at Mexico? Canada's prime minister did not even speak at the conference.

ishmael
12-19-2009, 11:34 AM
Humans being hungry and rapacious of lumber and such is a much more important issue than CO2 emissions. Three billion people coming into the middle class in China, India, SE Asia is going to pressure the ecosystem in many ways. I don't think CO2 emissions is where we, the world community, should be focused.

TimH
12-19-2009, 12:14 PM
I do my part. I drive about 10 miles a week in my little four cylinder Ford Ranger.

When I get my 5.0 Mustang on the road again it will be a different story :)

JimD
12-19-2009, 01:56 PM
Yes, but I was fool enough to think that he would at least make an effort. He certainly hasn't a snowball's chance in hell now.


He never had a snowball's chance. He can't even improve health care for tens of millions of Americans who stand to immediately and directly benefit from it. How's he going to get climate change laws through when almost none of the elected lawmakers and not many more of the citizens care about it enough to make major changes to how life is lived? Obama's already down in the polls because he can't instantly turn around an economy that's been running on empty for ten years. About the only thing an American president can do anymore without banging his head against an impenetrable wall of public apathy and partisan interference is decide which country to bomb the hell out of.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-19-2009, 02:27 PM
.....About the only thing an American president can do anymore without banging his head against an impenetrable wall of public apathy and partisan interference is decide which country to bomb the hell out of.

And has, to that extent, greater freedom of action than a Brit PM.


Anyways - returning to our muttons - Doggerel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_RlKxz_ymQ) - for fun and cynicism.

johnw
12-19-2009, 03:22 PM
It's a stitch up.

China, the USA and India went into a room, with Brazil and South Africa, who were presumably flattered to be invited by the big boys, and wrecked the attempt to get anything done,

I have been slow to realise that Obama is no better than Bush. Sorry.
Bush told the scientists the government employs to shut up so people would remain apathetic. It will take time for the information now allowed out to affect public attitudes.

I'd say having a president who is not actively working against doing anything about the problem is a welcome change. Is it enough? No, not yet. We're not going to face up to the problem until it is obvious to the meanest intellect, which means the solution will be much more painful.

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 04:04 PM
and far too late .

BrianW
12-19-2009, 04:20 PM
It will take time for the information now allowed out to affect public attitudes.

The information has been out for a very long time. So long, people are starting to doubt it.

johnw
12-19-2009, 04:33 PM
The information has been out for a very long time. So long, people are starting to doubt it.
Yeah, people are funny. What will erase those doubts? Real harm from climate change. And by that time, fixing the problem will cost far more.

JimD
12-19-2009, 04:45 PM
... What will erase those doubts? Real harm from climate change. And by that time, fixing the problem will cost far more.

Forgive me if it is I who have misunderstood, but that's not quite understanding the problem. The problem, if one believes it, is that by the time it results in what most people will see as real harm it will be too late to reverse. The climate models generally predict a doomsdayish senario of runnaway warming. Kinda like a big truck rolling down a steep mountain road. If you don't brake early you can't brake at all. The next couple decades will be interesting.

JimD
12-19-2009, 04:56 PM
The information has been out for a very long time. So long, people are starting to doubt it.

We only believe in things that either happen very quickly or have already finished happening. And sometimes not even then.

WX
12-19-2009, 05:28 PM
I think we're buggered. it's going to take 50 years for the pollies to get past the point of "How much must I pretend to do without giving anyone else the upper hand in trade". In 50 years when GW really starts to bite they will spend the next 50 years berating and lamenting that the previous world leaders failed to take action, while working out how they can avoid doing anything.
That is an extreme cynics view and one that I hold most of the time. The Human race does from time to time however, surprise me.

johnw
12-19-2009, 05:35 PM
I'm more optimistic about the politics. That said, we might still be buggered. Depends on whether current models overestimate or underestimate the pace of change.

WX
12-19-2009, 05:38 PM
Depends on whether current models overestimate or underestimate the pace of change.
So far they have erred on the side of underestimating...as far as I can tell.

johnw
12-19-2009, 05:56 PM
So far they have erred on the side of underestimating...as far as I can tell.
Which few people seem to have noticed. The right's still trying to sell the idea that the science overestimates it, but there's at least a 50-50 chance that they are understating the pace of change.

Which makes me nervous.

WX
12-19-2009, 06:02 PM
I find myself checking out the countryside and trying to work out where the best anchorages will be. Also which areas will be hit first...given a 500mm to 1000mm rise. it turns out to be quite of lot of land around here.

BarnacleGrim
12-19-2009, 06:02 PM
Cut mature trees , use them to fill old coal mines at Ipswich and the like .The whole town sits on a rabbit warren of interconnecting tunnels , occasionally a street drops a few metres ....oooppps .
Why not put the logs to some use before shoving them down the hole?

Make paper, then landfill it. That's what I do. It may not be carbon neutral, but it's a lot better than recycling.

WX
12-19-2009, 07:21 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8422133.stm


Make paper, then landfill it. That's what I do. It may not be carbon neutral, but it's a lot better than recycling.
I'm having trouble with your logic there.

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 09:46 PM
The information has been out for a very long time. So long, people are starting to doubt it.


That's what you get with a TV culture , if it isn't proven by the ad break ,swap channels .

skuthorp
12-19-2009, 09:54 PM
I think we're buggered. it's going to take 50 years for the pollies to get past the point of "How much must I pretend to do without giving anyone else the upper hand in trade". In 50 years when GW really starts to bite they will spend the next 50 years berating and lamenting that the previous world leaders failed to take action, while working out how they can avoid doing anything.
That is an extreme cynics view and one that I hold most of the time. The Human race does from time to time however, surprise me.

That's about my opinion too, and I think it's the human race that's going to be surprised. But it won't be pretty, and a few billion people on the move when climates are becoming unstable, food production and distribution unreliable and probably extreme politics and religions attracting people looking for some solution and someone to blame.

PeterSibley
12-19-2009, 10:05 PM
As I've said before , white middle class refugees on the evening news is going to be the only possible motivation .To which I will add , some of those refugees better be rich middle class Chinese .

jbelow
12-20-2009, 08:24 AM
Glad I don't live in your world! :)

You keep bitching, and I'll keep bringing the growth.

Big Woody , we could kick that growth rate up several notches by spliting and fusing some atoms . Save the carbon fuels for public transportation and go nuclear for the power grid. Hell ! if they would allow domestic drilling and build some new oil and gas plant , we could get some growth rate. The libtards need to keep the masses down and dependent upon them for our needs.

PeterSibley
12-20-2009, 04:44 PM
The libtards need to keep the masses down and dependent upon them for our needs.????:confused::rolleyes::D

PeterSibley
12-20-2009, 05:17 PM
My money is on China , they have very real motivations and are not handicapped by the US's political system .

WX
12-20-2009, 05:18 PM
I was listening to the news this morning and there are an awful lot of people very unhappy with how it was done. I think Obama's honeymoon is over.
brace yourselves because there is going to be a backlash.

tomlarkin
12-21-2009, 12:23 PM
BigWoody - you should attribute your C&P. I wouldn't consider the Heartland Institute (http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/21993/Real_Scientists_vs_Media_Darlings.html) a 'Fair and Balanced' source.

johnw
12-21-2009, 02:00 PM
Yes, I think so.

That was a nasty bit of cynical "old style politics" by a machine politician.
So how was this supposed to work? 193 players were supposed to work things out and agree unanimously on something? How often does that work? Even if you take it down to the two biggest emitters, they don't trust each other enough to make concessions.

The G-20 would be a better group to work this out. That would take care of the vast majority of the world's emissions.

johnw
12-21-2009, 02:57 PM
That may be quite a sensible way of looking at it, but, assuming that to be the case, one must then ask, "Why was it done this way"?

A possibly cycnical answer is "They trust each other enough not to make concessions".

It is mighty improbable that Beijing and Washington were not in touch with each other on this subject, in advance of the meeting.

A substatial minority of the G77 could be relied on to go for the cash, not the emissions cuts.
I suspect it was done this way because it was so obviously not working the other way.

Politics has, after all, been called the art of the possible.

johnw
12-21-2009, 03:12 PM
Well, what happened in Copenhagen is a start. The longest journey starts with a single step, or at least buying a ticket.

Kaa
12-21-2009, 03:17 PM
The longest journey starts with a single step, or at least buying a ticket.

It is advisable not to buy tickets from frauds and hucksters, though... :D

Kaa

C. Ross
12-21-2009, 03:29 PM
A possibly cycnical answer is "They trust each other enough not to make concessions".

It is mighty improbable that Beijing and Washington were not in touch with each other on this subject, in advance of the meeting.

A substatial minority of the G77 could be relied on to go for the cash, not the emissions cuts.

A possibly real politik answer is "We are too dependent on each other to withstand frank negotiations".

There is merit in the US position that India and China must make reductions as well; China played the card of "defender of undeveloped nations" extraordinarily well. A cynic might well say they successfully camouflaged their position as #1 in the greenhouse gas derby. There is also merit in the Chinese position that the US has done nothing meaningful and is much more able to afford leadership.

The US came in with too many positions on global warming and too many contentious issues at home demanding political capital. President Obama looked uncomfortably like President Wilson at the League of Nations conference.

johnw
12-21-2009, 03:56 PM
The rest of the world can't understand why a president can't do what he wants with majorities in congress. It is hard to understand why supermajorities are required to do anything big. I'm afraid our federal system is being Californicated.

C. Ross
12-21-2009, 06:53 PM
The rest of the world can't understand why a president can't do what he wants with majorities in congress.

Presidents Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, and Reagan did more with smaller majorities, or minorities.

The President and his party are not on the same page, the Congressional leadership is disorganized and the ranks are undisciplined.

President Obama can be criticized for having an agenda that's too broad, but failure to make progress is undeniably the fault of the Democratic leadership of both houses. The Republicans are offering only scattered, foolish and poorly executed resistance, and polls clearly show that the American public is not behind them even on hot button issues. It's popular to say that the President has tripped himself up reaching out to Republicans -- nonsense, it's his own party's failure to act cohesively that's the problem.

This isn't an American structural problem, it's failure of one of its parties to follow its leader.

johnw
12-21-2009, 07:05 PM
Presidents Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, and Reagan did more with smaller majorities, or minorities.

The President and his party are not on the same page, the Congressional leadership is disorganized and the ranks are undisciplined.

President Obama can be criticized for having an agenda that's too broad, but failure to make progress is undeniably the fault of the Democratic leadership of both houses. The Republicans are offering only scattered, foolish and poorly executed resistance, and polls clearly show that the American public is not behind them even on hot button issues. It's popular to say that the President has tripped himself up reaching out to Republicans -- nonsense, it's his own party's failure to act cohesively that's the problem.

This isn't an American structural problem, it's failure of one of its parties to follow its leader.
Congressional behavior has changed. From Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg

johnw
12-21-2009, 07:09 PM
The Republicans are offering only scattered, foolish and poorly executed resistance,

They've shown remarkable party discipline, I'd say. It seems to me that they have offered foolish and poorly thought out arguments, but their resistance has been masterly. When was the last time a Republican bill passed with zero Democratic votes?

C. Ross
12-22-2009, 12:11 AM
Interesting graph, John.
Congress has gotten reliably more partisan. In the current Congress, the Democrats are voting party line more than Republicans (a fact that would shock some of our more rabidly partisan friends who seem to think Republicans do nothing but say "no").


According to a database of voting records compiled by The Washington Post, Democrats, who control the Senate, House and White House, have backed their leadership more loyally this year than Republicans. The Post showed that, on average, House Democrats voted with a majority of their party 92.6 percent of the time compared with Republicans' 87.5 percent.I would argue, from impressions and not data, that while Democrats are doing a fine job toeing the line once a bill comes up for a vote, they are doing a lousy job getting their agenda through committees. The compromises made so far have mostly been to retain the Blue Dogs who are vital, and not to collect Republican votes which are clearly unnecessary. Make no mistake, when President Obama talks about working across the aisle, that is more a statement to his own party's moderates and conservatives than it is to actual Republicans across the actual aisle.

My main beef is that Republicans are only playing defense, and little offense. The Republicans have not yet coalesced around their agenda...they are wandering in the woods a little after the Bush disaster, and will take some time to regroup.

johnw
12-22-2009, 01:28 PM
I think the Republicans will do fine at the mid-term elections, because the economy will still be lousy. Not that they have an agenda for fixing it.

If you look at this not in terms of legislation but in terms of filling judicial vacancies, I think you'll find the parties equally culpable in using the filibuster. It's keeping our courts from working properly. I'd say the increasing partisanship has made the rule unworkable. It's been changed before, it can be changed again, and it needs to be.

JimD
12-22-2009, 01:56 PM
The rest of the world can't understand why a president can't do what he wants with majorities in congress. It is hard to understand why supermajorities are required to do anything big. I'm afraid our federal system is being Californicated.

John, presumably I am part of the rest of the world and I can understand quite clearly. Its a little offensive to the rest of the world to be told by Americans what we do and don't understand, if you understand what I'm saying.

johnw
12-22-2009, 02:16 PM
John, presumably I am part of the rest of the world and I can understand quite clearly. Its a little offensive to the rest of the world to be told by Americans what we do and don't understand, if you understand what I'm saying.
Most Canadians do understand how our system works. Most of them are not as easily offended as you are, but if I gave offense, I do apologize. It is not so well understood by those who are not our neighbors. I based the generalization on conversations I've had while traveling in Europe and Asia. I'm sure there are many people there who understand our system as well, but the knowledge is usually incomplete. Few in these regions understand why we get vice presidents who most of us would never vote for, either.

Kaa
12-22-2009, 02:28 PM
It is hard to understand why supermajorities are required to do anything big.

We're getting somewhat offtopic, but no, it's not hard to understand at all.

By the way, are you sure your opposition to filibuster/cloture rules would be as enthusiastic if it were the Republicans who were trying to get 60 votes in the Senate..? :-)

Kaa

Flying Orca
12-22-2009, 02:31 PM
By the way, are you sure your opposition to filibuster/cloture rules would be as enthusiastic if it were the Republicans who were trying to get 60 votes in the Senate..?

I'm shocked, shocked that you might suggest such a thing! :eek: :D

(...but to be fair, I suspect a lot of people are fed up either way.)

C. Ross
12-22-2009, 02:36 PM
Ah, three countries, divided by a common language.

I respect John as much as anyone else here, and this isn't meant to be abrasive, but "...the rest of the world can't understand us..." is often used as a dog whistle in some American circles to mean "...I'm so embarrassed that we aren't more European..."

C. Ross
12-22-2009, 02:38 PM
See? It works! ;)

JimD
12-22-2009, 02:38 PM
Jim. They say "sarcasm never crosses the Rockies"

That was before the railroad went through.

C. Ross
12-22-2009, 02:43 PM
A less flippant comment: our system's last major overhauls were the Budget Act of 1974, which affects every money bill that goes through Congress; the Federal Elections Act of (I think) 1975; and the rule that allowed the majority in the Senate to invoke cloture in 1919. The history of the Rules Committee in the House is important, too. It reflects the waxing and waning power of the majority over the centuries.

The House was originally organized under the Jefferson Manual, which is now quite obsolete.

johnw
12-22-2009, 03:18 PM
We also changed the filibuster rule under LBJ, to require 60 votes instead of 67. This thing has been building for a long time, and we've made changes a couple times in the past. No, we don't need to be more European, but we do need to tweak the rules now and then when weaknesses show up.

C. Ross
12-23-2009, 12:04 AM
Andrew
I'd be interested in your take on this article in the Guardian, pinning blame on China for failure of talks and setting up Obama as fall guy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

C. Ross
12-23-2009, 01:07 AM
Certainly in keeping with Chinese behaviour in other matters that I have been seeing. No more Mr Nice Guy.

Not a happy story if true.

C. Ross
12-23-2009, 01:25 AM
Perhaps it can. Errrr.... what's on their agenda?

PeterSibley
12-23-2009, 01:32 AM
I find the article a little difficult to credit ,how was China able to apply so much pressure that individual countries removed their own targets at Chinese command ? Surely an "agreement " signed by all but China and perhaps India would have been a better outcome for all concerned .

ShagRock
12-23-2009, 01:42 AM
That is a very enlightening report. I would think that it is likely to be correct.

But is it? When I read that article, I couldn't help wondering if Britain's energy minister was engaging in a bit of political grandstanding; blame games are easy excuses.

C. Ross
12-23-2009, 01:59 AM
Surely an "agreement " signed by all but China and perhaps India would have been a better outcome for all concerned .

One would think so, Peter.

In multilateral trade negotiations a solid plurality never seems to be enough. Funny how the desire for unanimity and consensus can be a straightjacket to common sense. And a single skunk can break up the garden party.

I will look forward to reading more about this. I cannot imagine that the US, China or India will come out of this looking like progressive leaders...seems like everyone looks either scheming or gutless. Seriously disappointing.

PeterSibley
12-23-2009, 02:01 AM
Same as always:

Build Up The Country

Strengthen The Central Rule of the Communist Party

How seriously does the Party take GW Andrew ? They may be making a very short term decision ....which would be a surprise .

PeterSibley
12-23-2009, 04:15 AM
Peter - there are people who post here, who have the benefit of a free Press, who don't take it seriously.

The CCP is mainly concerned with staying in power. To that end, the CCP depends on big business, espescially but not only the State Owned Enterprises, who in turn must maintain economic growth.

China does have an environmental lobby, but it is well advised to focus on water pollution and on deforestation, both of which are mainly caused by smaller scale enterprises.

The idea of risking a cut in China's growth rate by cutting emissions is not on anyone's radar screen.

Depressing , I had thought their decision making was a little broader .

Was the first sentence aimed at me ?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-23-2009, 04:19 AM
Anyone else see this as a considerable embarassment for Europe, separately and severally rather than collectively.

PeterSibley
12-23-2009, 04:23 AM
Europe ? why so narrow ?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-23-2009, 04:37 AM
Nobody in Europe had a seat at the top table - two dozen non-entities failing to represent three hundred million people.

ishmael
12-23-2009, 06:05 AM
The problem is, and you risk being shouted down as a troglodyte or ignored if you raise the issue, there is no consensus that our CO2 is raising the planet's temperature. Many good climate scientists don't believe it so.

Do you hear the opposition? No, they are squelched.

Until they are heard, in full open debate, nothing good is going to happen.

PeterSibley
12-23-2009, 06:09 AM
Good Grief ,are you still waffling about that ? There as been a debate ,a long one and a good one .You were asleep at the time .

Kaa
12-23-2009, 12:12 PM
Peter - there are people who post here, who have the benefit of a free Press, who don't take it seriously.

/waves

Hello, you called? :D

I happen to think that science underneath the catastrophic projections of the future horrors of AGW is very very shaky to the extent that I am not sure I want to call it science at all. More or less informed speculation, maybe.

I also happen to think that some people and organizations picked up the AGW idea and started to ram it down everybody's throats for their own benefit -- benefit in terms of power, money, and prestige. By now there is a LOT of money tied in carbon credits, green technologies that need subsidies, etc. -- and a LOT of people have strong financial and other interests to make sure the AGW is a sufficiently effective scarecrow to make the money flow continue.

As to Chinese leaders, I am pretty sure that they play lots of political games with the obvious goal: to return China to it's natural position of being the center and the ruler of the civilized world :-) I also suspect they are rather less hysterical about AGW than Western lefties :D

Kaa

johnw
12-23-2009, 01:54 PM
Andrew
I'd be interested in your take on this article in the Guardian, pinning blame on China for failure of talks and setting up Obama as fall guy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
Well, that makes sense. The world's biggest emitter kills the deal, allowing it to continue emitting.

This could come back and bite them if China suffers the sort of alternating floods and droughts that it had during the Medieval warm period. That sort of thing tends to undermine the mandate of heaven.

johnw
12-23-2009, 02:10 PM
Most years, the Colorado River never reaches the sea. Water is a huge issue for the future.

Kaa
12-23-2009, 02:12 PM
Where we may part company is that I do think there is a problem with anthropogenic carbon dioxide and related emissions to atmosphere and indeed with the planet wide reduction in vegetation, and that it would be wise to take measures to curtail the same.

I am not sure we part it here :-) I agree that there is "a problem with anthropogenic carbon dioxide and related emissions to atmosphere" -- my disagreement with the prevailing view lies in the areas of:
* How well do we understand the issue (I think our understanding and, importantly, the ability to forecast is very much overstated);

* What is the magnitude of the problem;

* What should be done about it.
I also think there was some rather bad science and blatant scientific misconduct done in the name of supporting AGW.

However, I have absolutely no problems with the idea that humans are sufficiently influential to affect Earth's climate.


Are you reticulated, by the way?;)

Ah, no, that would be my cousin :-) I tend to be classified as an Indian rock python, Python molurus.

Kaa

PeterSibley
12-23-2009, 04:28 PM
-- my disagreement with the prevailing view lies in the areas of:
* How well do we understand the issue (I think our understanding and, importantly, the ability to forecast is very much overstated);

* What is the magnitude of the problem;

* What should be done about it.

Kaa

Thank Kaa ,just slightly reassuring .I agree with your assessment ,especially the highlighed sentence ...that's the problem .We just don't know either way .

Peerie Maa
12-24-2009, 05:37 AM
I also think there was some rather bad science and blatant scientific misconduct done in the name of supporting AGW.


Kaa

Kaa,
If you are worried about the attempt to sabotage one labs work, this plot indicates how many independant workers are using different data sets to come up with the same conclusion. They cannot all be flawed.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg