Thank you for explaining, Simon. Your detailed answer comes across as a well considered response, unlike your previous post.
My nephew is a libertarian. I don't agree with him on most points because they simply won't work, but I respect his right to his opinion. I believe there is a current, but different thread discussing governing methods.
How did we convert from horse and buggy to automobiles
Libertarian thought is rather prevalent among engineers. Maybe as high as 50% vs 15% of the population.Aero wrote:Thank you for explaining, Simon. Your detailed answer comes across as a well considered response, unlike your previous post.
My nephew is a libertarian. I don't agree with him on most points because they simply won't work, but I respect his right to his opinion. I believe there is a current, but different thread discussing governing methods.
Now the job of engineers is to make systems work, so you might want to reconsider "they simply won't work".
In addition the USA was founded on libertarian principles and the Constitution is suffused with libertarian ideas.
===
Take this article on solar thermal:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-b ... 0333.story
Obviously they are not going to meet their 2010 target. And if they did - without storage or extra generating capacity they are going to have an unstable system. And of course the 2020 target is worse.State lawmakers have told investor-owned utilities that they must procure 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010; Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing for a minimum of 33% by 2020. A landmark 2006 state law forcing California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels within 12 years also is boosting green generation.
I have been an avid fan of solar since I built my first solar powered electronic device in 1962. So I keep my eye on things.
With politicians (not engineers and economists/accountants) pushing solar and wind hard it will be our next bubble. We are not quite to the point of runaway but I think we are rather close.
If the BFR proves out in the next decade or so all the money forced into alternative energy will turn out to be a waste. I think a more organic approach (install it where it makes economic sense or where people are willing to pay extra for their energy) is best.
In any case California is going to ruin because the mind set of the people in the state is that you can regulate everything and get prosperity. Well you can't. Businesses find the state unattractive and the government of California is in a deep hole.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
You are right (I guess - but being in UK have not seen latest polls) that 50% of Americans are not convinced of a causal correlation between GW and burning fossil fuels. I have always felt that mass polls do not give reliable answers to scientific questions. As an enginer myself they certiainly do not to engineering ones! And though you have read the documents many have not.MSimon wrote: Man made global warming is a hoax. A wallet extraction scheme. Less than 1/2 of Americans are convinced. I have actually studied extensively the technical arguments in favor of AGW and they are shoddy at best and quite possibly a fraud.
I have not studied the source documents in detail. the nearest I came was some research after watching "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - a polemic documentary which makes an apparently good case for reexamining the accepted wisdom, and half-convinced me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle
The Wkipedia reference has lots of links - I found the detailed technical discussion after the program on news groups helpful.
It requires a lot of digging, and scientific background, to get to the bottom of some of the claims and counter-claims. Even then you rely on your own interpretation of the opinion of experts. In the end I could verify the clear flaws in the anti-GW arguments, and they did not stack up against the pro-GW conter-arguments. Do you have web references for the sources that convince you the other way?
The other angle is to look at the mass of scientists who have researched this issue, what they say, and what are the non-scientific pressures on them. Yes many of the IPCC scientists have some political interest in making MMGW an issue. But the US scientists have for many years had a very strong financial and political interest in debunking the idea of MMGW. And no democratic government likes to advocate unpopular austerity measures - so there is a background political interest in minimising any global problems and hoping they go away. (Actually war - military threats - are the one type of bad news that clearly benefit governments in power - there is a natural human instinct to pull together. Hence the balancing political interest in magnifying dangers of terrorism etc).
Between IPCC & US government or oil sponsored scientists the scientific arguments have been moving steadily in favour of the conclusion that burning fossil fuels directly causes GW and that the scale of the effect is significant (more than half of the current observed warming). Of course there are natural variations and it needs a large artificial stimulus to be sure that what we see now is not just more of the same. Unfortunately it seems likeley (no certainty with future prediction!) we now have that stimulus.
Some prehistorians (for a good but partisan summary see Ronald Wright "A brief history of progress") have come to the conclusion that technological civilisation developed ove rthat last 10K years because of unusually clement and stable weather patterns, without the regulary coming and going of ice ages. If so it makes pushing the climate off its local equilibrium position look foolhardy.
Just one comment on "Don't step on me". I myself am in sympathy with this - I am content to leave others alone and have them do the same to me, with contact mutually agreed. But in an overpopulated and crowded world that principle becomes imposible. We compete immediately for food, water, space. I don't know how you think environmental constraints affect libertarianism? I often think I would be happier in a world with 1/100 the population.
Tom
Tom,
The one clear flaw in the AGW theory is the water vapor (WV) multiplier.
The IPCC admits
1. It does not know the magnitude
2. It does not know the sign
I'm a "slight warmer" myself. That is I agree that a doubling of CO2 will increase earth temps about 1 deg C.
Where the IPCC "results" get 3 or 4 or 5 deg C warming is by assuming a WV multiplier of the appropriate magnitude. Now over the past 3 or 4 IPCC reports the CO2 "heating" has declined and the multiplier has increased more than compensating.
==
The PDO has been known for at least several decades. It has only recently been included.
==
The known solar output oscillations are not included in the calculations - the 300 year solar cycle for instance. Solar output is assumed constant.
==
Further proof that the sun's magnetic field affects climate:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081449.htm
Something Svensmark has been saying for 4 or 5 years.
Note the sun's magnetic field has been weakening and the next solar cycle is delayed and if it has started it is weak. Which points to reduced solar output. - Which is not in the IPCC calculations.
Solar output has been rising for the last 11,000 years - not in the models. That may now be falling - the reduction of the solar conveyor is a good indication according to solar scientists.
==
Even if CO2 warming is true - planting trees is the cheapest remedy. That is not an allowed solution.
Why not?
==
If you can't use the cheapest solution then there is something crooked going on.
The one clear flaw in the AGW theory is the water vapor (WV) multiplier.
The IPCC admits
1. It does not know the magnitude
2. It does not know the sign
I'm a "slight warmer" myself. That is I agree that a doubling of CO2 will increase earth temps about 1 deg C.
Where the IPCC "results" get 3 or 4 or 5 deg C warming is by assuming a WV multiplier of the appropriate magnitude. Now over the past 3 or 4 IPCC reports the CO2 "heating" has declined and the multiplier has increased more than compensating.
==
The PDO has been known for at least several decades. It has only recently been included.
==
The known solar output oscillations are not included in the calculations - the 300 year solar cycle for instance. Solar output is assumed constant.
==
Further proof that the sun's magnetic field affects climate:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081449.htm
Something Svensmark has been saying for 4 or 5 years.
Note the sun's magnetic field has been weakening and the next solar cycle is delayed and if it has started it is weak. Which points to reduced solar output. - Which is not in the IPCC calculations.
Solar output has been rising for the last 11,000 years - not in the models. That may now be falling - the reduction of the solar conveyor is a good indication according to solar scientists.
==
Even if CO2 warming is true - planting trees is the cheapest remedy. That is not an allowed solution.
Why not?
==
If you can't use the cheapest solution then there is something crooked going on.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
There are no environmental constraints.
Remember Paul Erlich said there would be mass starvation in the by the 1980s?
It never happened.
If we are running out of metals the long term price should be going up. It is going down.
So we live in a world were metals per capita are going up as well as food supplies.
Bucky Fuller said there was more than enough to go around if we continually did more with less. We are continually doing more with less.
How in the world did that happen? Some very smart people have been working on the various problems.
Known oil reserves have been increasing over the years despite having used an amount of oil equal to the known reserves. How is that possible? We know how to get more oil out of the fields than we did when reserves were first calculated.
Economist Julian Simon predicted this.
Rates of population growth are declining all over the world as people get richer. The last thing we want to do is to make people poor.
Malthusians get all the headlines. The real world shows them to be wrong.
Remember Paul Erlich said there would be mass starvation in the by the 1980s?
It never happened.
If we are running out of metals the long term price should be going up. It is going down.
So we live in a world were metals per capita are going up as well as food supplies.
Bucky Fuller said there was more than enough to go around if we continually did more with less. We are continually doing more with less.
How in the world did that happen? Some very smart people have been working on the various problems.
Known oil reserves have been increasing over the years despite having used an amount of oil equal to the known reserves. How is that possible? We know how to get more oil out of the fields than we did when reserves were first calculated.
Economist Julian Simon predicted this.
Rates of population growth are declining all over the world as people get richer. The last thing we want to do is to make people poor.
Malthusians get all the headlines. The real world shows them to be wrong.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon.
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-the ... -the-ipcc/
Appears plausible and supports your argument - but read all the comments. The key issue is that one graph of WV is not the whole story.
http://www.physorg.com/news146160316.html
Note this is new & better quality experimental evidence of water vapour concentration over the whole of the atmospheric column.
My conclusions:
(1) Yes - IPCC worked on the basis of theoretical model for WV multiple and this was not backed by experimental data, but neither was it contradicted. there was too much uncertainty in existing data.
(2) Now however we have new and more accurate data which is in line with the IPCC theoretical models.
Re "there are no environmental constraints."
You are arguing from recent past experience. Normally a good idea. Not so when useage increases exponentially. I agree, technology has kept pace with constraints in many ways so far. Raw material costs have generally gone down with more efficient prospecting & extraction methods. There remain some global constraints that we don't know how to deal with, and exponentially increasing population means we are now hitting them.
(1) Pollution levels in sea. Having imact in many areas. for example if I eat North Sea oily fish every day I build up unnaceptable levels of toxins. OK - we can live with this.
(2) Over-fishing of sea. There is a limit to how much fish globally we can catch. we have hit it.
(3) Water. Many areas of the world now have shortages in cheap fresh water due to massively increased useage. This is a transnational problem. (UK does not suffer from this one yet!).
(4) Virus spread.
This is sort of a finite resource problem, though of an unusual kind. We have now such fast global connectiveness that virus epidemics can spread globally very quickly. Had SARS been more infectious we would have been in big trouble.
History tells us that many times in the past hman population has increased due to better technology (e.g. agriculture) and then hit environmental constraints which destroy the technological civilisation. This time round we have more technological ability to think up new solutions - but equally the constraints we hit are now global, not local, so the stakes are much higher.
So - yes there always are environmental constraints. We don't know to what extent new technologies can expand them. We are in an unprecedented situation so I will not argue the "doom" side from history - which is easy to do. (Ronald Wright - A short history of progress does this nicely). But why should we assume that all constraint problems have technological solutions?
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-the ... -the-ipcc/
Appears plausible and supports your argument - but read all the comments. The key issue is that one graph of WV is not the whole story.
http://www.physorg.com/news146160316.html
Note this is new & better quality experimental evidence of water vapour concentration over the whole of the atmospheric column.
My conclusions:
(1) Yes - IPCC worked on the basis of theoretical model for WV multiple and this was not backed by experimental data, but neither was it contradicted. there was too much uncertainty in existing data.
(2) Now however we have new and more accurate data which is in line with the IPCC theoretical models.
Re "there are no environmental constraints."
You are arguing from recent past experience. Normally a good idea. Not so when useage increases exponentially. I agree, technology has kept pace with constraints in many ways so far. Raw material costs have generally gone down with more efficient prospecting & extraction methods. There remain some global constraints that we don't know how to deal with, and exponentially increasing population means we are now hitting them.
(1) Pollution levels in sea. Having imact in many areas. for example if I eat North Sea oily fish every day I build up unnaceptable levels of toxins. OK - we can live with this.
(2) Over-fishing of sea. There is a limit to how much fish globally we can catch. we have hit it.
(3) Water. Many areas of the world now have shortages in cheap fresh water due to massively increased useage. This is a transnational problem. (UK does not suffer from this one yet!).
(4) Virus spread.
This is sort of a finite resource problem, though of an unusual kind. We have now such fast global connectiveness that virus epidemics can spread globally very quickly. Had SARS been more infectious we would have been in big trouble.
History tells us that many times in the past hman population has increased due to better technology (e.g. agriculture) and then hit environmental constraints which destroy the technological civilisation. This time round we have more technological ability to think up new solutions - but equally the constraints we hit are now global, not local, so the stakes are much higher.
So - yes there always are environmental constraints. We don't know to what extent new technologies can expand them. We are in an unprecedented situation so I will not argue the "doom" side from history - which is easy to do. (Ronald Wright - A short history of progress does this nicely). But why should we assume that all constraint problems have technological solutions?
MSimon,
I have just realised you raised a few other points I want to reply to.
I am a great fan of planting trees. I like trees. The worst cause of environmental degradation in agricultural land is deforestation followed by topsoil denudation (if that is a word).
I think the science on trees and CO2 balance is currently unclear. They take up CO2 when growing but unless the wood is sequestered it is not a permananet solution. there is debate as to how much CO2 ends up in the ground due to roots etc after the tree has died and decayed.
However EU CO2 trading system allows offsets and tree planting is conted as offset I believe (someone will correct me if I am wrong).
"Population growth decreases as people become richer". True, and it may save us. But not without some pain. If China & India were to become richer reaching the average standard of living of the USA the resource implications at current efficiencies are horrifying. We can hope that we and they become more efficient as they become richer but this means a lot of new technology and immediate transfer of the new technology to the developing countries. And the only driver for greater efficiency is higher resource prices (as was hapenning before the current slowdown).
I have just realised you raised a few other points I want to reply to.
I am a great fan of planting trees. I like trees. The worst cause of environmental degradation in agricultural land is deforestation followed by topsoil denudation (if that is a word).
I think the science on trees and CO2 balance is currently unclear. They take up CO2 when growing but unless the wood is sequestered it is not a permananet solution. there is debate as to how much CO2 ends up in the ground due to roots etc after the tree has died and decayed.
However EU CO2 trading system allows offsets and tree planting is conted as offset I believe (someone will correct me if I am wrong).
"Population growth decreases as people become richer". True, and it may save us. But not without some pain. If China & India were to become richer reaching the average standard of living of the USA the resource implications at current efficiencies are horrifying. We can hope that we and they become more efficient as they become richer but this means a lot of new technology and immediate transfer of the new technology to the developing countries. And the only driver for greater efficiency is higher resource prices (as was hapenning before the current slowdown).
You just plant more trees.I think the science on trees and CO2 balance is currently unclear. They take up CO2 when growing but unless the wood is sequestered it is not a permananet solution.
In any case we don't need a permanent solution. Just a 100 year solution while we lower the cost of alternatives to our current energy mix.
===
Consider this - if China and India don't sign on nothing we do will matter. And in fact it will force energy intensive production from the cleaner USA to the dirtier China.
That seems rather what would you call it - stupid?
Mass hysteria is not a good guide to the proper course of action and is hardly ever wise. It generally leads to unintended consequences.
===
If the matching of production to requirements is rather modern - say since the time of Malthus - it is not some magic we don't understand. Ingenuity is the reason. Human ingenuity. And from the looks of things we haven't run out of that yet. In fact we seem to get more every day.
===
I also failed to mention that the IPCC says we are in a cooling trend until 2015.
So what would I suggest? Force nothing until 2015. If temps start rising then go for solutions. We will have better technology in 2015.
===
Global warming science is not settled. At all. It seems unwise to force a solution before we actually know what we are doing. If solar output is declining we may need to burn carbon to keep warm.
===
If CO2 at 1,000 ppm did not cause "runaway" heating for millions of years it is not going to do it in 100.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The answer to the tragedy of the commons is ownership. It works.(2) Over-fishing of sea. There is a limit to how much fish globally we can catch. we have hit it.
Instead of allowing free fishing you auction off fishing rights.
You know - the libertarian solution. Secure property rights.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Actually, the Amazonian natives may have hit on the solution about a millinium ago {edit: ok, maybe 7 millenia ago}. Plant trees. Harvest. Bake until mostly black. Mix with soil.MSimon wrote:You just plant more trees.I think the science on trees and CO2 balance is currently unclear. They take up CO2 when growing but unless the wood is sequestered it is not a permananet solution.
In any case we don't need a permanent solution. Just a 100 year solution while we lower the cost of alternatives to our current energy mix.
It is called "terra preta" and does two great things. It makes the soil much more productive, and it sequesters carbon.
Yes and no.rj40 wrote:I didn't mean to start another global warming/change argument. Sorry. What do people think of Friedman’s (sorry, FriedPERSON’S) argument? Is his cell phone development analogy valid?
In his description of the progression yes. Or at least that is the way the progression ought to run.
But to say that people's needs are already satisfied so that progress is not possible no.
After all when the auto came in to being the masses had horses and gasoline powered vehicles were a luxury (the current equivalent is the Tesla battery powered car). Why did autos take over? They were cheaper to operate than horse transportation. However, that took a while.
If we are patient the same thing will happen with hybrids and then electrics. If we force the more expensive option it will be a net loss to the economy. Prices will come down faster if the new types of vehicles have to compete with those already on the road.
The trouble is we elect lawyers to Congress. We should elect engineers and economists. Lawyers are inherently zero sum thinkers.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
> 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..
But then, they are being paid a lot more than her and most have company cars anyhow...
The company she is working for has just gone into receivership, so hopefully she will actually have a job next month, or I'll be posting comments via a wireless link from a tent someplace..
(Reminds me of the last time I was homeless and using a palmtop to post forum messages whilst I enjoyed the delights of double walled corrugated cardboard flooring..)
> If CO2 at 1,000 ppm did not cause "runaway"
> heating for millions of years it is not going
> to do it in 100.
I reckon is an excellent argument and one which leaves the greens I've asked so far, speechless in their replies..
> Global warming science is not settled. At all.
> It seems unwise to force a solution before we
> actually know what we are doing.
Generally agreed, though I reckon there are many green solutions which benefit both camps, which we can do today. eg.
Solar panels, good yes ?
Coal power stations, well, less green, but they do keep the lights on..
If Solar panels become cheaper than coal power stations, then we build less coal right ? (Everyones happy then..)
Whilst I'd love to see solar power stations now, if they cost more than coal ones, we might simply not be able to afford them!
I'm all for green solutions, but economic ones get my first vote, and ones which reduce pollution get my second vote/etc.
> MSimon, any plans to run for president?
Would get my vote.
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..
But then, they are being paid a lot more than her and most have company cars anyhow...
The company she is working for has just gone into receivership, so hopefully she will actually have a job next month, or I'll be posting comments via a wireless link from a tent someplace..
(Reminds me of the last time I was homeless and using a palmtop to post forum messages whilst I enjoyed the delights of double walled corrugated cardboard flooring..)
> If CO2 at 1,000 ppm did not cause "runaway"
> heating for millions of years it is not going
> to do it in 100.
I reckon is an excellent argument and one which leaves the greens I've asked so far, speechless in their replies..
> Global warming science is not settled. At all.
> It seems unwise to force a solution before we
> actually know what we are doing.
Generally agreed, though I reckon there are many green solutions which benefit both camps, which we can do today. eg.
Solar panels, good yes ?
Coal power stations, well, less green, but they do keep the lights on..
If Solar panels become cheaper than coal power stations, then we build less coal right ? (Everyones happy then..)
Whilst I'd love to see solar power stations now, if they cost more than coal ones, we might simply not be able to afford them!
I'm all for green solutions, but economic ones get my first vote, and ones which reduce pollution get my second vote/etc.
> MSimon, any plans to run for president?
Would get my vote.