Thanks for the vote of confidence guy.
Let me just say that I have led a very interesting life and couldn't pass the kind of dig up all the dirt scrutiny that passes for vetting.
I my get by as a Congress Critter though.
In any case I think I can be of more value to the world as an engineer and a commenter on politics.
How did we convert from horse and buggy to automobiles
Simon,
re interpreting historical record. As you might expect, the arguments are complex, and it is easy to produce superficial arguments one way or the other.
Here is a detailed analysis of the objections to Al Gore's ice-core data in his not always accurate & v polemic film. I think it answers your objection.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... p-and-co2/
Briefly (but you must read all through the original & then maybe do additional research to check) the historical record is of global temperature changes caused primarily by radiation change from sun with CO2 changing as a result, 1000 years later or more. These are very slow changes on geological timescale.
Current mechanism is quite different in timescale and direction. It is change in CO2 forcing change in temperature. Even then equilibrium is not reached for 100 years or so due to the heat contained in the oceans which varies v slowly. So we are only now seeing 1/3 of the rise in temperature that current CO2 levels have built in.
Sorry - I have not read this carefully enough to be even half expert - but I can take two opinions from different people and compare the quality of the arguments - so if you find me good web reference arguing against MMGW I will compare this with the counterarguments and change my mind if the anti case is stronger than the pro case.
Re auctioning off commons. Well I agree in principle. There is one problem with such a solution. Staraight capitalism does not necessarily deal with long-term undesirable effects. The imperative to make profit now overrides worries about lack of profit in 10 or 20 years. We see this time and time again in economic cycles when the same mistakes are made. That is OK, though non-optimal. When this type of mistake is made with the ecosphere it is sometimes (but not as often as greens would claim) impossible to recover.
I am not a green, and hope that technology will be up to pushing Malthusian limits out beyond the current earth population all living a "high" Western standard of living. But this is a hope, not a known fact.
Best wishes, Tom
re interpreting historical record. As you might expect, the arguments are complex, and it is easy to produce superficial arguments one way or the other.
Here is a detailed analysis of the objections to Al Gore's ice-core data in his not always accurate & v polemic film. I think it answers your objection.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... p-and-co2/
Briefly (but you must read all through the original & then maybe do additional research to check) the historical record is of global temperature changes caused primarily by radiation change from sun with CO2 changing as a result, 1000 years later or more. These are very slow changes on geological timescale.
Current mechanism is quite different in timescale and direction. It is change in CO2 forcing change in temperature. Even then equilibrium is not reached for 100 years or so due to the heat contained in the oceans which varies v slowly. So we are only now seeing 1/3 of the rise in temperature that current CO2 levels have built in.
Sorry - I have not read this carefully enough to be even half expert - but I can take two opinions from different people and compare the quality of the arguments - so if you find me good web reference arguing against MMGW I will compare this with the counterarguments and change my mind if the anti case is stronger than the pro case.
Re auctioning off commons. Well I agree in principle. There is one problem with such a solution. Staraight capitalism does not necessarily deal with long-term undesirable effects. The imperative to make profit now overrides worries about lack of profit in 10 or 20 years. We see this time and time again in economic cycles when the same mistakes are made. That is OK, though non-optimal. When this type of mistake is made with the ecosphere it is sometimes (but not as often as greens would claim) impossible to recover.
I am not a green, and hope that technology will be up to pushing Malthusian limits out beyond the current earth population all living a "high" Western standard of living. But this is a hope, not a known fact.
Best wishes, Tom
"Why should we make our data available to you, when your objective is to find something wrong with it?"
-- Phil Jones
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
-- Dr. Peter Venkman
-- Phil Jones
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
-- Dr. Peter Venkman
Tom,
I have read other papers which convincingly show the time constant as 5 years. i.e. we will see about 85% of the effect in 10 years.
In any case I'm not willing to destroy American industry in favor of China and India. If they get on board - fine. And they will not be getting on board. Heh.
In the mean time we can plant trees.
BTW did I mention that Europe has big plans for new coal fired plants? Did I mention that the USA with no regulation has come closer to the Kyoto targets it did not sign on to than Europe has?
==
You know what tickles me most about all this? It will hurt the first world and destroy the chances for the third world to rise out of poverty any time soon. Africa will be hurt the worst. Yipeeee!!!! (\sarc)
==
I have read other papers which convincingly show the time constant as 5 years. i.e. we will see about 85% of the effect in 10 years.
In any case I'm not willing to destroy American industry in favor of China and India. If they get on board - fine. And they will not be getting on board. Heh.
In the mean time we can plant trees.
BTW did I mention that Europe has big plans for new coal fired plants? Did I mention that the USA with no regulation has come closer to the Kyoto targets it did not sign on to than Europe has?
==
You know what tickles me most about all this? It will hurt the first world and destroy the chances for the third world to rise out of poverty any time soon. Africa will be hurt the worst. Yipeeee!!!! (\sarc)
==
http://burningbabylon.wordpress.com/200 ... uiet-wars/Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re China/India vs US
Your logic here seems correct only if you view global economics as a zero-sum game - we will do it, fine, if they will! Thought you were an engineer?
Re coal-fired plants
Europe manages the whole issue no better. Global long-term constraints are very very difficultfor any democracy to handle. In fact the system most able to do the right thing (which does ot mean that they will) is that in China. Government can persist with thoroughly unpopular measures. But then one party rule and openness do not go together and without completely open debate any political system will come unstuck.
BTW some of the German plants are CO2 sequestration coal-fired, pumping CO2 into geological formations where it will form carbonates. Less efficient and much more expensive, but low emmissions.
Re GW time constant. This must be resolvable. I guess the difference would be assumptions made about the depth of ocean mixing - deeper you go the longer the time constant. Also there are different time constants associated with different processes - atmosphere+ surface vs ocean for example. I would have to do more reading to work this out.
Best wishes, Tom
Your logic here seems correct only if you view global economics as a zero-sum game - we will do it, fine, if they will! Thought you were an engineer?
Re coal-fired plants
Europe manages the whole issue no better. Global long-term constraints are very very difficultfor any democracy to handle. In fact the system most able to do the right thing (which does ot mean that they will) is that in China. Government can persist with thoroughly unpopular measures. But then one party rule and openness do not go together and without completely open debate any political system will come unstuck.
BTW some of the German plants are CO2 sequestration coal-fired, pumping CO2 into geological formations where it will form carbonates. Less efficient and much more expensive, but low emmissions.
Re GW time constant. This must be resolvable. I guess the difference would be assumptions made about the depth of ocean mixing - deeper you go the longer the time constant. Also there are different time constants associated with different processes - atmosphere+ surface vs ocean for example. I would have to do more reading to work this out.
Best wishes, Tom
-
OneWayTraffic
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:35 pm
2 hours on foot is 30mins by bicycle.Nanos wrote:> Are there complaints?
Sure! but what are people going to do about it..
My girlfriend walks 2 hours a day to work and back and her other workers think her kinda-weird for doing that, as they reply 'no one walks today with buses, trains!' as if to do so is free somehow..
.
tom clarke,
I am an engineer.
If I am pouring a gallon a minute into a 5 gallon bucket and my friend Tom is pouring in a gallon a minute and increasing his rate. And my friend Jill is pouring in another gallon a minute and increasing her rate. And my friend Sally is pouring in 1 gallon a minute and increasing her rate. And I cut back to 1/2 gallon a minute.
How much difference is my cutting back going to make?
Now what I propose is putting some holes in the bucket - planting trees - to slow things down and maybe reverse them. I also suggest collecting the escaped water (trees) and adding them back to the bucket (burning them) if the bucket gets too empty.
So not only have I handled the problem cheaply - I'm ready for what ever happens. My control system can go plus or minus quickly.
The proposed system can only go minus. Not robust.
I am an engineer.
If I am pouring a gallon a minute into a 5 gallon bucket and my friend Tom is pouring in a gallon a minute and increasing his rate. And my friend Jill is pouring in another gallon a minute and increasing her rate. And my friend Sally is pouring in 1 gallon a minute and increasing her rate. And I cut back to 1/2 gallon a minute.
How much difference is my cutting back going to make?
Now what I propose is putting some holes in the bucket - planting trees - to slow things down and maybe reverse them. I also suggest collecting the escaped water (trees) and adding them back to the bucket (burning them) if the bucket gets too empty.
So not only have I handled the problem cheaply - I'm ready for what ever happens. My control system can go plus or minus quickly.
The proposed system can only go minus. Not robust.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
At this point, anything getting in the way of China modernizing their economy will be met with crushing blows. China is trapped behind a wall of an aging demographic, which decrees rapid industrialization. If they don't industrialize, there's simply no way to care for all those old people -- and then you have a social revolution on your hands, one they're barely containing now (among other problems, zillions of young men with no young women to marry).tomclarke wrote:In fact the system most able to do the right thing (which does ot mean that they will) is that in China. Government can persist with thoroughly unpopular measures.
Yes.scareduck wrote:At this point, anything getting in the way of China modernizing their economy will be met with crushing blows. China is trapped behind a wall of an aging demographic, which decrees rapid industrialization. If they don't industrialize, there's simply no way to care for all those old people -- and then you have a social revolution on your hands, one they're barely containing now (among other problems, zillions of young men with no young women to marry).tomclarke wrote:In fact the system most able to do the right thing (which does ot mean that they will) is that in China. Government can persist with thoroughly unpopular measures.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
> 2 hours on foot is 30mins by bicycle.
True, I am in the process of teaching my girlfriend to ride a bike, but even if she did so, traffic is so bad here, she'd probably end up in an accident pretty quick like. (Plus I reckon it would be better if I drove/cycled her to work and back in a 3 wheeler which can hog the lanes better than an ordinary 2 wheel cycle.)
I'm a great fan of planting trees too, though strangly many here want to keep the countryside as it is, without trees... something about damaging the environment and destroying existing eco-systems which only came about after we chopped down all the trees in the first place!
But on the plus side, with farms going bust, there is a lack of sheep to keep the trees from growing naturally..
So unless the greens start organising huge rallies to go and weed the countryside, then in time the problem will go away..
True, I am in the process of teaching my girlfriend to ride a bike, but even if she did so, traffic is so bad here, she'd probably end up in an accident pretty quick like. (Plus I reckon it would be better if I drove/cycled her to work and back in a 3 wheeler which can hog the lanes better than an ordinary 2 wheel cycle.)
I'm a great fan of planting trees too, though strangly many here want to keep the countryside as it is, without trees... something about damaging the environment and destroying existing eco-systems which only came about after we chopped down all the trees in the first place!
But on the plus side, with farms going bust, there is a lack of sheep to keep the trees from growing naturally..
So unless the greens start organising huge rallies to go and weed the countryside, then in time the problem will go away..
Most of the "excess men" became so due to the exporting of "excess" female babies to the western world. Maybe we should ship them all back, infected with western memes, as brides. Hmmm.scareduck wrote:At this point, anything getting in the way of China modernizing their economy will be met with crushing blows. China is trapped behind a wall of an aging demographic, which decrees rapid industrialization. If they don't industrialize, there's simply no way to care for all those old people -- and then you have a social revolution on your hands, one they're barely containing now (among other problems, zillions of young men with no young women to marry).tomclarke wrote:In fact the system most able to do the right thing (which does ot mean that they will) is that in China. Government can persist with thoroughly unpopular measures.
Actually it is a result of the one child policy. Males being preferred. Ultrasound, abortion, and abandonment do the rest.KitemanSA wrote:Most of the "excess men" became so due to the exporting of "excess" female babies to the western world. Maybe we should ship them all back, infected with western memes, as brides. Hmmm.scareduck wrote:At this point, anything getting in the way of China modernizing their economy will be met with crushing blows. China is trapped behind a wall of an aging demographic, which decrees rapid industrialization. If they don't industrialize, there's simply no way to care for all those old people -- and then you have a social revolution on your hands, one they're barely containing now (among other problems, zillions of young men with no young women to marry).tomclarke wrote:In fact the system most able to do the right thing (which does ot mean that they will) is that in China. Government can persist with thoroughly unpopular measures.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Kiteman - No, the excess male population comes from the medical ability to know the baby's gender before birth, and wide ranging abortion. The rural Chinese need a son or sons to continue the peasant work of feeding the nation and of caring for the family plot of land. In the big cities this pressure is not so strong so the gender ratio is more nearly equal. The Chinese girls exist but I believe it was George Cohan who said, "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, once they've seen Broadway?"
Chinese city girls can choose to go "Down on the farm," choose a career in the city and perhaps marry locally or overseas, or get a small dog and raise it as a child, just like people all over the Earth do.
By the way, don't overlook the pressure to migrate that the Chinese "One family-One child" law puts on a young woman because she wants more than one child.
Chinese city girls can choose to go "Down on the farm," choose a career in the city and perhaps marry locally or overseas, or get a small dog and raise it as a child, just like people all over the Earth do.
By the way, don't overlook the pressure to migrate that the Chinese "One family-One child" law puts on a young woman because she wants more than one child.
Aero