Conquer Club

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:@MrsWDK and Mets.

If you look at the large economies in the world, they all have some form of industrial revolution. This was when finite resources were used at low efficiency to accelerate growth. The problem with a global carbon tax, is it affects those nations which have not yet had their industrial revolution. Its basically punishing others for our mistakes.

Quite. It's one thing for a developed, service-based economy to start heavily penalizing carbon emissions, quite another for a developing, production-based economy to do so.

DoomYoshi wrote:What does Red Cross have to do with anything?

"I'm telling you man, Einstein was wrong, my theory works better cuz alpha isn't constant".

I'm guessing that a carbon tax might have tax collectors, enforcers, regulators, punishments. I'm guessing that will cost money. I'm guessing some of the rest of the money will go to massive corporations. I'm guessing the end result will be no money for alternatives, the stated purpose of the tax, just as no money is available for permanent housing, the stated goal when asking for donations, and the reported output from those donations.

The Red Cross states that dealing with land issues is complex with their team of lawyers, lobbyists, connections, so obviously they feel less equipped to handle those than the people without homes, material, tools, money or advocates. Based on taxation history, I suspect that that is what will happen with a carbon tax.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ns-up.html

So, 40b tonnes of CO2 emissions per year worldwide. A $10 tax per tonne, $400 b. Of which just enforcing the tax, collecting it and counting it will cost...

Seems like no money will be left to deal with the reason for having the tax.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Global warming does not cause an increase in average air temperature. The name "global warming" is a massive misnomer.

Global warming causes an increase in fluctuations of the weather to the extremes. More extreme high temperatures, more extreme low temperatures. More periods of drought, more periods of snow. Reduction in temperature conditions in between.

Cocaine's a hellava drug.

mrswdk wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:@MrsWDK and Mets.

If you look at the large economies in the world, they all have some form of industrial revolution. This was when finite resources were used at low efficiency to accelerate growth. The problem with a global carbon tax, is it affects those nations which have not yet had their industrial revolution. Its basically punishing others for our mistakes.

Quite. It's one thing for a developed, service-based economy to start heavily penalizing carbon emissions, quite another for a developing, production-based economy to do so.

I dont know this for sure, but I had the feeling that China is already on the way out of its industrial revolution anyway. I base this on the fact that precast construction is starting to take over from in-situ concrete in China, which is a massive indicator. This is from my very narrow construction viewpoint, I have no idea about all the other aspects.

http://www.3ders.org/articles/20150118- ... china.html

On March 29, 2014, ten 3D printed houses, each measuring 200 square meters, appeared in Shanghai, China. The buildings were created entirely out of concrete using a gigantic 3D printer, and each costs only 30,000 RMB ($4,800).

WinSun estimates that 3D printing technology can save between 30 and 60 percent of building materials and shortens production times by 50 to even 70 percent, while decreasing labor costs by 50 up to even 80 percent. Future applications include 3D printed bridges or tall office buildings that can be built right on site.


And if the 3D printed villa and 6-storey residential house weren't enough, WinSun made three additional announcements today. The first is that they will collaborate with Nile Sand Material Technology Co. LTD. Within two years, both companies plan to establish 12 Dream Factories in desert using a sand 3D printer developed by WinSun. They are currently looking for new materials to be combined with the sand. Ma said that its energy and material saving abilities, as well as the environmental protection it offers, are the greatest advantages of 3D printed architecture. They have found that desert sand is an excellent building material, which can be used to create sand fixation walls and vertical green walls for the desertification control of the sand.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Global warming does not cause an increase in average air temperature. The name "global warming" is a massive misnomer.

Global warming causes an increase in fluctuations of the weather to the extremes. More extreme high temperatures, more extreme low temperatures. More periods of drought, more periods of snow. Reduction in temperature conditions in between.

No, no, no, no. Global warming is causing an increase in average air temperature. It has already happened. The average surface air temperature has increased by over 1 degree Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution began -- this is a clearly measured quantity. It is true that global warming will cause more weather extremes, and that some places (e.g. the Arctic) will warm more than others -- but it is also true that the average temperature is increasing.

mrswdk wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:@MrsWDK and Mets.

If you look at the large economies in the world, they all have some form of industrial revolution. This was when finite resources were used at low efficiency to accelerate growth. The problem with a global carbon tax, is it affects those nations which have not yet had their industrial revolution. Its basically punishing others for our mistakes.

Quite. It's one thing for a developed, service-based economy to start heavily penalizing carbon emissions, quite another for a developing, production-based economy to do so.

But this is of course not the root issue. Because even if the US were to right now pay for all of its historical greenhouse gas emissions, mrswdk would still howl about how China isn't done developing yet and cannot afford to pay for its share.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:@MrsWDK and Mets.

If you look at the large economies in the world, they all have some form of industrial revolution. This was when finite resources were used at low efficiency to accelerate growth. The problem with a global carbon tax, is it affects those nations which have not yet had their industrial revolution. Its basically punishing others for our mistakes.

Quite. It's one thing for a developed, service-based economy to start heavily penalizing carbon emissions, quite another for a developing, production-based economy to do so.

But this is of course not the root issue. Because even if the US were to right now pay for all of its historical greenhouse gas emissions, mrswdk would still howl about how China isn't done developing yet and cannot afford to pay for its share.

Say what you like, but that still doesn't mean that China is capable of doing the same things as a country like the US.

If you took away all of USA's and Europes effect on the environment, we would not be discussing whether China should tax their CO2 emissions, Global warming would not be a concept.

quite so, but these effects have also encompassed a new age of enlightenment. can't put a price on antibiotics.

It took the Catholic church 150ish years to drop the ban on heliocentric books, but only a few days after this thread to reply:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... encyclical

I'd thought they'd given up indulgences.

Metsfanmax wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Global warming does not cause an increase in average air temperature. The name "global warming" is a massive misnomer.

Global warming causes an increase in fluctuations of the weather to the extremes. More extreme high temperatures, more extreme low temperatures. More periods of drought, more periods of snow. Reduction in temperature conditions in between.

No, no, no, no. Global warming is causing an increase in average air temperature. It has already happened. The average surface air temperature has increased by over 1 degree Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution began -- this is a clearly measured quantity. It is true that global warming will cause more weather extremes, and that some places (e.g. the Arctic) will warm more than others -- but it is also true that the average temperature is increasing.

has there ever been an increase like that in a similar time frame at any other time in history? Or is this 1 degree increase in the last 125 or so years a totally new phenomenon for the earth in it's history?

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Global warming does not cause an increase in average air temperature. The name "global warming" is a massive misnomer.

Global warming causes an increase in fluctuations of the weather to the extremes. More extreme high temperatures, more extreme low temperatures. More periods of drought, more periods of snow. Reduction in temperature conditions in between.

No, no, no, no. Global warming is causing an increase in average air temperature. It has already happened. The average surface air temperature has increased by over 1 degree Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution began -- this is a clearly measured quantity. It is true that global warming will cause more weather extremes, and that some places (e.g. the Arctic) will warm more than others -- but it is also true that the average temperature is increasing.

has there ever been an increase like that in a similar time frame at any other time in history? Or is this 1 degree increase in the last 125 or so years a totally new phenomenon for the earth in it's history?

Of course, it is not possible for me to answer whether this has happened before; we don't have a complete temperature record of all the Earth's history. But from the data we do have available based on temperature reconstructions, this rate of warming does seem to be highly anomalous. In the past records when we've seen shifts from ice ages to warm periods (say), it typically took a few thousand years to make that transition. In the worst-case "business as usual" type scenarios where we take zero action to limit greenhouse gas emissions (unlikely due to political considerations), we'd have done about as much warming in something like 100 years as it took the planet 5,000 years to get out of an ice age with.

I must emphasize though that it doesn't really matter whether this has happened before. When it did happen, we're talking about the difference between an ice age and the climate we have now. That would be very hard for humanity to adjust to (I'm sure I don't need to emphasize). We would like to avoid having to make a titanic shift in the way humanity lives, if at all possible.

Of course, I don't think we're going to get there. Not because it couldn't happen -- it possibly could -- but because we're seeing enough political and technological activity happen that we have a good chance of saving our own asses on this one. We should be doing more, a lot more, but other countries have gotten the memo and are taking action, and companies like Tesla are doing a lot of the work to make it easier to make the right choice.

That doesn't mean I'm not scared of climate change. It just means that the threat we face probably isn't a global ice age (though again, through no real thanks to Congress). However, we still face lots of sea level rise, changes in agriculture patterns, eviction of entire nations from the places where they live, drought, intensified resource conflict, etc.

Please read and thoughts.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Q6s2mzrmgA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... loHXFNfUxw

Nothing to add, really. The second link explains current thinking on the CO2 lag in the past.

But has CO2 levels ever risen before the temperature did? If not then why worry about CO2 levels rising before temperature if its not an adequate indicator for global warming? Why is the sun not included in being a major factor for global warming? Has anyone considered the legitimate ramifications of weather modification currently happening as a factor?

mrswdk wrote:
Say what you like, but that still doesn't mean that China is capable of doing the same things as a country like the US.

Chili cheese fries and the baconator?

warmonger1981 wrote:But has CO2 levels ever risen before the temperature did?

I don't know. I am not aware of that happening any time at the end of the last few ice ages though.

If not then why worry about CO2 levels rising before temperature if its not an adequate indicator for global warming?

The lag doesn't mean that CO2 is not causally connected with global warming. What is going on is that there is some initial temperature increase for some reason other than a CO2 increase (in the case of the ice ages, the thought is that it was orbital changes causing differences in the Sun's intensity on the Earth). Then this triggers a positive feedback loop because the warmer climate can hold more CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 definitely has a warming effect on the planet -- there is zero doubt about that, even from the global warming "skeptics." So the release of this CO2 warmed the planet more, and as the climate got warmer it also got able to hold more CO2, resulting in a loop that continues until the planet is able to reach a new equilibrium several degrees Celsius warmer and ending the ice age. On this explanation, the ice ages wouldn't necessarily have been able to warm by nearly as much to the present-day temperature without this carbon-dioxide temperature feedback.

In this case we are seeing the same pattern: the Earth's climate was essentially in an equilibrium so it didn't have a way to get an initial spike of CO2 into the atmosphere. But now industrial civilization has come along and done just this. So we are expecting to see similar kinds of feedback processes now that we have unleashed that beast.

Why is the sun not included in being a major factor for global warming?

Mainly because the Sun's intensity hasn't markedly increased in the last century or so, in a way that would explain what is going on. It has mattered in the past when explaining the ends of the previous ice ages, but that was because of intensity variations that took place over a longer time scale (and were also likely due to orbital changes, not changes of the Sun's output itself).

Has anyone considered the legitimate ramifications of weather modification currently happening as a factor?

Yes. The most salient fact is that clouds tend to reflect sunlight, and weather patterns will affect how much sunlight reach the surface. And actually this contribution to climate change is basically the most uncertain we have in the near term. But most estimates of cloud processes indicate that the net effect on the climate's temperature is rather small (since there are counter-balancing processes that also trap heat on Earth).

This might shed some light on the weather modification.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... sVPyZrPInw

No. There is no global program (or even a US program) to intentionally modify weather patterns. There is only unintentional effects due to (say) airplane contrails. This stuff is conspiracy theory land, not hard scientific fact, and the evidence presented for the conspiracy is essentially nonexistent.

I'm sure your right about no weather modification ever happening.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... sySg0lB__Q

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... _UKyOQYWBQ

http://www.britannica.com/science/cloud-meteorology

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... oS8l2gIK5w

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... ThV-azT0yA



So yeah never any modification happening here.

Whoa now hold on. I didn't say we've never engaged in cloud seeding. I said we are not currently doing it as part of a program to modify large-scale weather patterns. It was done a bit (especially by the USSR) in the Cold War for strategic reasons, but people quickly realized that it was really tricky to actually do what you want with cloud seeding over long stretches of time. At best all we've been able to do is seed rain events in nearby locations or slightly earlier than it otherwise would have occurred, but you can't stop it raining, you can only change where and when it occurs by small amounts (to protect events like the Olympics). No one actually knows how to modify weather patterns reliably and consistently over long stretches of time, which is why I am confident that it isn't happening.

Relevant to China

Significant increases of heavy precipitation and decreases of light precipitation have been reported over widespread regions of the globe. Global warming and effects of anthropogenic aerosols have both been proposed as possible causes of these changes. We examine data from urban and rural meteorological stations in eastern China (1955–2011) and compare them with Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) data (1979–2007) and reanalysis data in various latitude zones to study changes in precipitation extremes. Significant decreases in light precipitation and increases in heavy precipitation are found at both rural and urban stations, as well as low latitudes over the ocean, while total precipitation shows little change. Characteristics of these changes and changes in the equatorial zone and other latitudes suggest that global warming rather than aerosol effects is the primary cause of the changes. In eastern China, increases of annual total dry days (28 days) and ≥10 consecutive dry days (36%) are due to the decrease in light precipitation days, thereby establishing a causal link among global warming, changes in precipitation extremes, and higher meteorological risk of floods and droughts. Further, results derived from the GPCP data and reanalysis data suggest that the causal link exists over widespread regions of the globe.

tl;dr: Global warming is causing eastern China to be more susceptible both to floods and to droughts.

Meh. So those areas just import more water from elsewhere.