The Wall Street Journal editorial
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212362 ... torialPage
Sen. Lieberman is my senator and this is letter I sent him:
Dear Senator Lieberman
The Lieberman Warner bill cap and trade bill represent an enormous burden on the taxpayers and poor of Connecticut that is unnecessary and is going to be highly regressive, hitting the poor and the children hardest. The impact of this bill is going cost Connecticut the high tech skilled jobs that have historically made the state thrive. According to the Wall Street Journal the bill is an equivalent tax on energy especially electrical power generation. This represents a steep burden on the people of Connecticut because Connecticut is unsuited for energy production and has to import most of its energy.
Due to energy imports Connecticut has been highly sensitive to energy costs. A price increase for energy has grave impacts on Connecticut jobs, especially the service and support jobs that allow Connecticut to create wealth and invent new technologies. As a cold weather state the health of the citizens is more reliant on energy than some of the more southern states. The people who work in the support jobs we all depend on are honest hardworking people from diverse backgrounds who are struggling to make a living. They already have to deal with high taxes and living costs. This increase in energy costs will put pressures on them to either move to another state or country or become a burden on the state’s coffers, thereby increasing taxes. The problem is that the state needs its lawn cutters, painters, contractors, nurses aides and other service jobs as much as it need the wealthy who use those services.
The science of Global Warming has been from the beginning filled with too much noise and too little actual research. Much of the work in the global warming debate relies on computer models and data that are tainted to produce the result the scientists want rather than results that mirror reality. The worst perpetrator of this has been James Hansen’s GISS which has used data that even the weather service admits has been affected by urban heat island effects. Careful auditing of the data by talented amateurs has shown the flaws, but the data are still used by Hansen and the IPCC. The reality of climate science is that we really do not know enough to pick one cause for global warming or even understand the chaotic nature of the global climate system. The representation of a consensus in climate science represents bad science. True science never creates a consensus. True scientists a least listen to opposing arguments and provide counterarguments. They done not as so many Global Climate Change advocates have done resort to name calling.
Connecticut already pays far more share of the tax burden than it gets back. This bill only increases that burden on our state. It only represents an increase of a burden that is already stressed by a consortium of misinformed political decisions and poor decisions of the past. This bill only repeats what has been a series of mistakes in the past. If passed it will only increase taxes that are highly regressive and place a huge burden on small companies and those who can least afford to pay more for energy and will in general lower the living standards of the next generation. We cannot turn the clock backward. I do not think that anyone will want to live the living standards of the Nineteenth Century, yet that is exactly what this bill is asking our grandchildren to do.
The beneficiaries of this bill are a group of wealthy self interested elites who inhabit big conferences like Davos and who themselves place a large burden on energy usage and carbon footprints. I cannot see the rush to enable a bill that will hurt large numbers of hard working people in Connecticut and severely hurt the states’ economy for the benefit of a small group of jet setting elites who will not have to pay the consequences of their mistakes. I would like to believe that before undertaking a path that will have grave consequences for the state and the country we would undertake to make sure that the science is sound and that the crisis is real and urgent. That we would not just listen to the loud voices of those who have an agenda that they have long held that is antithetical to the interests of our nation. That we would not agree to make vast transfer payments to a wealthy aristocratic elite that will contribute nothing and soak our future’s wealth and prosperity. We should do better for our grandchildren than inflicting a life of poverty on them chasing a will of the wisp.
Sincerely
John C Carlton
PS
Some useful links for contrary views about AGW
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ca ... _stations/
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... ed_ci.html
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
Wall Street Journal on Liberman warner and my letter
I especially liked:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... ed_ci.html
Which hints at the troubles with modeling a BFR.
Our process and reactor is simpler than CVD except for one curve ball (truly). Magnetic fields. In the current effort we are severely hampered by a lack of feedback.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... ed_ci.html
Which hints at the troubles with modeling a BFR.
Our process and reactor is simpler than CVD except for one curve ball (truly). Magnetic fields. In the current effort we are severely hampered by a lack of feedback.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
A BFR's magnetic/electric fields are far simpler than the atmosphere and behave in known and measurable ways with decades of practical experience in magnetic and electric fields. Atmospheric modeling is something else.MSimon wrote:I especially liked:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ ... ed_ci.html
Which hints at the troubles with modeling a BFR.
Our process and reactor is simpler than CVD except for one curve ball (truly). Magnetic fields. In the current effort we are severely hampered by a lack of feedback.
Sen Inhofe agrees with me:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212449 ... torialPage
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212449 ... torialPage
Pfft - it's just the Navier-Stokes equations. Plus species transport, radiative heat transport and a bit of chemistry. All you need to know are solar influx, gravity gradients, the mechanical, thermal, and chemical transport boundary conditions at the surface of the earth (as functions of time projected into the future, and to a sufficient degree of accuracy), and the current state of the atmosphere (also to a sufficient degree of accuracy). Resolve the whole thing to the Kolmogorov scale and you're in business.Jccarlton wrote:A BFR's magnetic/electric fields are far simpler than the atmosphere and behave in known and measurable ways with decades of practical experience in magnetic and electric fields. Atmospheric modeling is something else.
As they say - it's a solved problem.
Anything bigger than Kn=0.1 or so, provided enough data is available.MSimon wrote:On what scale?
Of course, you have to make sure the problem is adequately resolved. If you want to avoid having to use a turbulence model, you want a mesh size of maybe a micron or so at the surface, expanding somewhat with altitude. Over the whole planet. This constrains your timestep to less than two nanoseconds for reasonable storm speeds, unless you go to high order.
The boundary conditions are also important, and it must be remembered that they vary in time, and that some of them represent interactions of the oceans and crust with the atmosphere. This will also have to be taken into account, at a resolution similar to that of the atmospheric fluid dynamics.
(I shouldn't make wisecracks like that. My research involves a number of poorly understood turbulent correlations, which I haven't yet come to grips with.)
I am curious to know what his solution was? I know that Will Rogers suggested boiling the oceans. When asked how to do it he said, "I never worry about the details."David_Jay wrote:Tomorrow's weather ??? How about the weather one second from now?
93143, your solution reminds me of Einstein's solution of the U-boat problem in WWII.
...I think I hijacked a thread.
Let's see... I calculate that on the supercomputer at our school, a 100-year run should take about 1e71 years, give or take a couple of orders. This assumes that adequate RAM is made available and that the initial conditions and boundary conditions (including the behaviour of every life form on earth for the duration of the run) are known to the micron/nanosecond scale.
Let's see... I calculate that on the supercomputer at our school, a 100-year run should take about 1e71 years, give or take a couple of orders. This assumes that adequate RAM is made available and that the initial conditions and boundary conditions (including the behaviour of every life form on earth for the duration of the run) are known to the micron/nanosecond scale.