Dick Blonov

This is the best system. Period.


DB

__________________
|TG-6th|Blonov

Kerostasis

Something awry with the oil market? No, no, no, you've got it backwards. THIS is normal. LAST YEAR there was something awry with the market--it was way too high. Historically speaking, its still fairly high even now.

I'm constantly amazed at people who suspect market manipulation has to be the only cause of gas prices coming back to where they've always been, even though they were lower than today, less than two years ago.

__________________

xTYBALTx

The cost of oil hasn't "always been" at any certain point any more than the climate has.

The interference of governments in the oil market - namely, OPEC - ensures that there is always something awry with the market. Incidentally, were it not for the interference of OPEC, prices may well be lower and therefore the "advancement" of alternative fuels further stymied.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Kerostasis

Ok, so I used "always" in a fairly loose manner there. Technically, I'd have to say "where they usually were", and then specify a range. However, since the range is "everything less than about $2.50", and "usually" means "everything except that one spike in the 80s, plus last year", it seemed close enough.

__________________

dfg872

I should clarify my comments on oil, a subject I'm not an expert in. What I meant by 'awry' is that the market is unpredictable and rather sensitive. Yeah, we're getting closer to where we should be in the market, but there is no way you can accurately predict what will happen. It doesn't negate my comment that we rely on oil from unstable regions that can cause the price to fluctuate wildly.

Yes, future predictions are based on computer models, but to say that global warming theory is based on them alone is a bit of a false statement. We have evidence of warming over the past that is based on much better and more reliable statistical analysis. My point was that the future is not certain, the models may be wrong, but why should we discount past trends completely. A model predicting a drop in temperature would be just as suspect. The prudent course demands that we act under the assumption that past trends will likely continue. If they dont, great, hurray, and we've managed to become less dependent on emission based energy. If the trend continues and we do nothing, well, it will be seen as one of the greatest historical blunders ever.

I am not saying that reducing CO2 emissions will be easy, but it can be done in a way that has minimal economic impact. Far more minimal then say, the cost of fighting a pointless war.

Take coal power plants. We have way more coal then we do oil, but it is rather inefficient as a fuel. Still, the quantity we have makes it the best home grown fuel sorce we have. If these plants were modified to capture the CO2 they emit, then we would significantly reduce emissions. If we simply provided economic incentives, we would see a recuction quickly. How we could get china on board, I don't know... However, we won't be able to convince anyone unless we take an early stance.

From there there are other steps such as increasing use in renewable sources. There's a great article in Scientific American that pretty much lays out all the steps involved in reducing emissions by reasonable methods. To say that because we don't know what will happen we shouldn't plan for possibilities is rather silly. What is the downside of taking reasonable measures to reduce our CO2 emissions? Take, for example, the new california law aimed at curtailing emissions by 25% over the next 13 or so years. People have said that it will have a negative economic impact, but yet the main california energy company was behind the bill. Some people realize that by taking action now, when it isn't urgent, we are able to prevent having to take drastic action in the future should predictions prove to be accurate.

I am not saying the earth will warm to the point of puting humanity in jeopordy, I am saying that there is a chance that it may. And that this chance is not based on a hunch but on the best science availible at this time. No one can know the future certainly. I don't know with certainty that I'll make it home from work tonight, but my past experience tells me that I probably will.

These models are not perfect and that is the nature of a systems with as many variables as the climate. They account for as many as they can, and what is telling is that no models predict cooling. The warming varies from 1 degree to as much as 7 degrees, but no cooling.

Let me sum up by saying that I don't think that the cost of taking measures to reduce CO2 is enough to cripple our economy, or even slow it by a large margin. You may disagree, and If it does slow the economy, there is nothing that says we can't deal with that when it arises. This country made it through a depression a civil war, two world wars, and a whole host of much more damaging things to be scared by the scant possibility of economic stagnation that could be caused by taking a progressive environmental policy.

Those who act early will be ahead of the game, and I think it would be nice to get on board. California will have an advantage, and luckily they are the single largest economy in the US. I am by no means being radical by looking at these models and saying "gee, if that happens, a lot of people will be screwed" and then thinking that we might want to do something, instead of discounting it as voodoo science. I sound like a broken record at this point, but I want to try and be as clear as I can. I do not take science as incontrovertable. Hell, there are people that still aren't quite sure Newton got it right with physics, and this is much more murky. But I don't discount it as completely false either.

This country much learn that short term sacrifice can have much larger payoffs. We seem to know that in our personal lives, so why not as a society? When someone sacrifices there time and comfort to save up to buy a house or go to law school, they are revered by friends and family for the sacrifices made. When a society sacrifices economic growth for any reason, it is met with hostility. It was through great sacrifice that this country made it through some very trying times, and my hope is that, if the predictions are right, we can act before it becomes a much tougher thing to fix.

I think that's enough of a rant for now, I'll let people respond and discuss their views on this, and try to address them. I am rather reasonable, and don't think that I ever march unilateraly in a straight line. After all, I am still not convinced that anything will come of it, but I will not discount the possibility.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

Lucky Shot

If becoming less dependent on foreign oil is the goal, I can appreciate that. I don't feel that it is the goal of the current Global Warming crowd to drive us off of foreign oil. If you want to talk about Nuclear Power, Wind Power, Solar Power, I am all for it. I just don't like to hear alarmists who I feel are pushing for greater funding for their research or vying to keep viewers eyeballs who don't have the ability to accurately predict the future.

Why did the energy company need a bill to curtail emissions? I appreciate the sentiment, but if they were truly behind a cleaner environment, why didn't they just do it on their own? I like having a cleaner environment but do feel that if it's good for the business then the business will end up doing it on their own. Wouldn't a cleaner environment mean that more people would want to live in the area, therefore creating a greater demand for energy? It seems to make business sense without needing a bill for it. Let the markets decide.

So because you make it home from work every night, the world is going to heat up? It may be the best science that we have, but there was a time when our best science said the world was flat. It's because of skeptics who have challenged the "Leading Thoughts" that dramatic changes in understanding has happened.

The best climatologists predicted that this past hurricane season would be as bad or close to the last one. They used all of their data, past history, current trends to predict it. They failed to account for what Steeler called Dust Storms blowing sand into the Atlantic and Cooler Atlantic waters that would prevent proper conditions from happening. This was a 1 year prediction. How can it be said with great faith that the world is going to warmer 80 years from now? Climatoligists leave too many constants and it's impossible to accurately predict all the variables.

What are the costs?

California has higher gas prices and higher energy costs than the rest of the country. They deplete their environment of water and energy and there is constant talk of importing it from other areas of the country. The Colorado River is dry, and there is talks of diverting water from other areas of the country to continue their unsustainable way of life. They are destroying the Colorado River valley and destroying the environment. California may mean well, but they are not exactly the model citizen for the environment.

Lucky Shot

dfg872

Well, california may hurt it's envronment, and I'm ok with that. My only concern is emissions, which california is working to reduce. It first did it to counter unlivable smog conditions in the LA area. This was a very good thing. LA, is, in fact cleaner and a much nicer place to be.

There is a difference, allbeit a subtle one, between climate modeling and weather modeling. Predicting a single year of hurricanes is tricky and not well understood, and we are learning more all the time. Most scientists don't really try to impact policies. At least none of the good ones. They are, believe it or not, trying to learn more. At one time it was thought that global warming would spark a new ice age. Better understanding has led people to think that it's unlikely now.

I used the example of going home to illustrate uncertainty. Whether the world will heat up or not is not known. What is known, is it is warmer now then 100 years ago. CO2 absorbs in the infrared, and when it absorbs energy at this frequency it enters an excited state, causing it to move faster. Chemistry tells us that this results in a higher temperatue. The energy needs to go somewhere, blah blah greenhouse effect, etc.

The likelihood is that the planet is warming, and will continue to get warmer as long as we put CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate that we do. Can I say it with certainty? No, but then there will always be those who doubt. Hell, there are still people who probably think the world is flat. Believe it or not global warming theory is more similar to the theory that the earth was round when it was positted then it is like the world is flat theory.

The theory is based on strong observational science, not mere speculation. But alas, even if I had a time machine, went to the future, and came back with evidence, I don't think you would be convinced, so it isn't really worth the time.

Why need a bill? Say they want to reduce emissions, but don't want to get hit by companies that see it as an opportunity to sell cheaper electicity to california. By puting this bill in place they ensured that they can reduce emissions without threating their business since the bill has provisions to take into account the emissions being imported from other states.

The costs of reducing emissions are slightly increased prices for energy production. That, in turn, will result in slightly higher living costs. Most of all it will have the largest effect on large energy users, factories, etc. Either way it will encourage more conservation and drive the search for alternatives and more efficient uses for energy.

Letting the market do what it will is something that this country needs to get over. The open market was a failure almost from its inception and it has rarely been unguided by the government. Open markets lead to child labor. They lead to labor and environmental abuses that cannot be allowed to happen. To say that the market should work itself out can only be said by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. You can disagree with me on this, and you likely will. Hell, cite Milton Freeman all day long.

Yes, there are certain advantages to free trade, and, in general more prosper in that. But there will always be those who wish to take advantage. There are reasons that labor laws exist, and reason environmental laws exist. They do not mean to inhibit progress but that the people determined that certain things are not in the greater good of the community.

And there it is, at the heart of this is the right of individuals versus the good of the community. I think we can agree that there are things that should serve the common good, at the forfeiture of the individual. Where we differ is in where that line is drawn, and how grave the threat must be to draw it. I am simply arguing that even the possibility that the earth could warm warrents initiative to stave it off, if at all possible.

It is an uncertainty, and a risk to think that the earth will warm enough to warrent action that could cause economic harm. 10 years ago, I would be with you, thinking that there is not enough to warrent action. But the evidence keeps piling up, and at what point do we say, "now theres enough evidence, time to do something" ? I ask this honestly, is there a point where you would ever believe the earth was getting warmer, or are you content to stick to your guns even after the ocean has risen 6 feet?

Now, my tone turned a little more radical in this message, which is a betrayal to the fact that on this issue, I tend to be much more conservitive. I do not think it's a fact, and I do think that there is plenty of room for skeptiscism. Some would say it's hubris to even think that humans had the capacity to effect something as large as the climate. I stress again that it may not happen, and if we act, and nothing comes of predicted climate change then fine. That is my point, that we act, not because we think it will happen, but because in the end it's more prudent to act preventitivly, that way, should the threat manifest itself, we've prepared. If it doesn't, then we will all be able to expand emissions as much as we want.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

xTYBALTx

Why choose 100 years ago as the benchmark to determine warming? Why not 150 years? 300 years? 1000 years, 10,000 years? It would take a great deal of care indeed to choose a timeline with which the climate did not change.

I propose that we benchmark ourselves against the midieval warm period, discover the cooling trend, and increase CO2 emissions to stave off further cooling.

Furthermore, your description that the oil market is unpredictable is 100% correct. Any healthy market must have this characteristic. Unpredictability is a necessary component of a healthy market. It is not reasonable to say that the price of commodity X should be $Y, and deem any departure from $Y as a departure from where the price "should be."

Finally, the global warming theory is most definitely based upon speculation. It is an attempt to predict the future. That is, by definition, speculation. Your analogy to getting home safely at night is not reasonable: you have gone home safely at the end of the day hundreds if not thousands of times. How many times has anyone predicted what the weather would be like in 100 years and been 100% correct hundreds if not thousands of times? Oh, wait - that's right, the models are not even capable of reproducing past climate change reliably. To base policy upon such model's predictions of the future is irresponsible.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

leejo

Actually, my father-in-law, the CEO of an oil company, says that the oil market is entirely predictable: it's cyclical.

Maybe this market, like global warming, is misunderstood because people confuse noise with trends.

But a non-scientist commenting on global warming is probably...a lot like a scientist commenting on the oil industry.

dfg872

They have compared now with the medieval warm period. It's warmer now then it was then. And CO2 is higher now then it's been in recorded history.

Yes it's speculation, but it's speculation based on evidence and science. Not raw speculation... and I'm saying that whether or not the models are correct, the fact remains that lowering emissions is prudent.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

Lucky Shot

It may be cleaner than it was in the past, having visited, LA is no where near the top of my list of places to live, much less visit. I don't understand the double talk though with it's ok for California to hurt it's environment and that your only concerned about air quality. I thought the environment was all linked.

As a side point, the decrease of smog over the world, according to the New Scientist, has led to an increase in global warming. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7346 So again, which is it... Does Smog create a greenhouse effect, or does the lack of smog create global warming?

We didn't ask them to predict 1 day, but the course of how climate change would impact the number of hurricanes over last year. There was dramatic predictions of more and fiercer storms. They were way off, both climatogists and meteoroligists. They were way off in 1 year. It's quite possible that they will be off over time.

blah blah greenhouse effect is decreasing. In fact, shooting greater concentrations of Sulpher into the atmosphere can lead to a cooler planet. But I really don't want to see people attempting to shoot Sulpher into the atmosphere. It seems like we are always reaching for the perfect mix and the continuous overadjustments strike me of the Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly syndrome.

Got it, Cheaper Electricity bad... Create Significant Barriers to Entry in the utilities market... Good... For the electric company.

Ok, so economically, it will raise costs, specifically for everyone including business. Business will be less likely to flourish, perhaps even consider finding a cheaper place to be? So fewer jobs and higher costs for the people living in California? I guess that's a win.

Wow, and here it comes. I do disagree and there won't be much room for me to move on that.

What if you are wrong about how much warmer the planet is going to get? What if your proposed actions make the world cooler than we can live in? What if we spend this considerable, unknown amount of money for a problem that isn't caused by humans? It's mid-october and I am already sweeping snow off of my car.

I disagree that humans are the cause of a climate shift and have not seen the 6 foot rise in oceans that you have seen in the past 10 years. If Global Warming is a human induced creation, please explain why scientists think Mars is warming? There are too many other reasons out there for every problem to be my fault that I drive a car.

The Earth is much more resiliant than we give it credit for while I think it's entirely reasonable that climate change exists, I believe it's cyclical and relatively outside of human control.

Lucky Shot

dfg872

I never said the earth wasn't resilient... it's the humans who aren't. The 6 foot reference was meant to be in the event the oceans should rise 6 feet. I didn't say they had or will, it was a hypothetical. As far as california's environment, I don't care if we develop land, destroy wetlands, etc. In fact I think development should be encouraged.

And yes, Sulfer dioxide does cause cooling, it is not a greenhouse gas. It reflects sunlight. Just as a volcano spewing tons of sulfer into the air tends to cool things down for a bit. What sulfer does do is create bonds with water vapor, creating sulfuric acid. That water-acid mixture falls to the ground, and it isn't pretty. That's why scrubbers were added to plants. My environmental policy is simple, lets try not to do things that make it hard to breath or cause our infrastructure dissolve. I could care less about panda bears.

The reason I chose to favor action is because I think it's something that will be good in the long run. You say the greenhouse effect is decreasing? Your evidence? Snow in october? I'm honestly curious on this one since the measurements of radiative forcing due to CO2 are still going up. Now radiative forcing does not mean tempurature, but the collective amount of energy increase measured. How is this done?

Satellites measure the earth's blackbody tempuratue. That is the tempurature at which the earth is emitting as much energy as it recieves. It's why the sun appear's yellow. It happens to have a black body tempurature that falls in the visable light spectrum. Ours sits in the infrared, and that's why gases that absorb infrared radiation cause an amplification. Without CO2, H20, and other gases the earth would be far too cold to support life. Without convection and weather, the earth would be far too hot to support life. so the greenhouse effect neither increases or decreases. It exisits. Of that, there is no doubt.

I won't comment on mars, because I have no idea. I've never looked into mars. I know it's of a reddish color.

If the proposed actions made the world cooler, we'd be able to counter them far before it got to the point of being too cold.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

dfg872

Note on economics and the market: My point was not that market's should not exist, because the should. It's just naive to think that they can run entirely unfettered. Those who would argue that the government has no place in regulating markets need only to look at the plethora of regulations that have proven good for the economy and the nation as a whole. I am no economic liberal mind you. I still believe that the government that governs least, governs best. It's why I think it's good that local governments are taking it up instead of the national one at this time. I honestly don't think that the small measures we take will have enough of an effect to drive out business. As long as california keeps its taxes low and has as many people as it does, businesses will stay. Thats why I vote republican almost always. This one issue happens to be important enough for some government oversight, since the market will clearly not do it itself. I think I'm done now.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

leejo

As a practical matter, I have no idea what we're arguing about. Suppose GW is real, our fault, and we can fix it. What might you propose?

I think one problem is that Al Gore has behaved like such a nut. Another problem is that the people who typically beat the GW drum are typically in favor of all sorts of regulation and targetted taxes to effect their goal: to make gasoline extremely expensive and to force the auto industry to build more "efficient" vehicles.

Meanwhile the market has voted for "safe" vehicles in the form of tanks that can be crammed, more or less, into standard parking spaces.

There's a basic trust issue out there that no-one has bridged. But if you ask people if we should wean ourselves of oil...well sure, I'm for that. But how do you propose doing it? If you mean invest in other energy sources like building nuclear power plants, ok. If you mean taxing the crap out of coal or gas, well we have a problem. Dig?

In many ways, I think ultimately no-one is going to give a crap about global warming. Either we'll develop other cheap energy sources and be done with the issue, or we'll continue to punt the problem in favor of cheap televisions and a strong economy. But when people say "it won't hurt the economy...much" people like me know we're about to get screwed.