Conservatives and climate change

[BenBurch]

It's not a conspiracy though, they're still investigating Mann for fraud.

Who is? And what have they discovered in the years they have had to investigate?

 

[mhaze]

[eta]
Oh my! I didn't realize this was a 19-page thread already! I'm sure my point has already been better argued. My apologies!
[/eta]

It's actually very simple, conceptually. ....

For any fence sitters and/or lurkers, it should be noted that mhaze's conclusions are at odds with essentially all of Earth science. ....

We'll just test the hypothesis that "OMGturt1es is RIGHT". Simple enough.

I'll just pick one example.

Orbital and sensor corrections for the very-important Channel 2 of the MSU on polar orbiting satellites, including the "2LT" derivative product, have been an area of intense study. This is basically all math.

It's

(A) hard
(B) easy​

It's HARD MATH!

That WAS EASY!



Now class, for another question.

Did this guy, OMGturt1es, attempt to misrepresent what I've said, reframe the argument, and generally engage in another Warmer-style slide into the murky depths of confusion? Is he just yet one more True Believer that somehow cannot grasp the importance of tackling head on the big argument under discussion?

Yep.

See? That WAS EASY, TOO.

 

[lomiller]

Water is therefore a negative feedback. If the planet warms up, water vapor increases and warms it up some more but there are limits. If the planet cools down, water vapor decreases, and the planet cools down faster.

Not quite. H2O is a positive feedback, but short lived which means the feedback loop will return to its equilibrium point very quickly if you add/remove it from the atmosphere.

The thing to keep in mind about positive feedback is that it amplifies any change, and it doesn’t matter if the change is positive or negative. IOW positive feedback will amplify cooling signals and make a small drop in temperature larger OR amplify warming signals and make a small increase in temperature larger. For zero change in the signal they will simply return to equilibrium if perturbed.

 

[mhaze]

He wrote that book in the early 40s. But frankly with your dismissal of a diplomatic agreement on carbon taxes as a "new world order", you've jumped the shark. I'm not debating you anymore, even putting aside your glaring factual errors your arguments are ridiculous.

And the book's relevance is just being understood today. And industries have moved to where they were most profitable since the times of the Phoenician traders.

Don't like NWO? You can call it anything you want, but you've got to somehow, take your comments about getting all the nations to agree (or to be strong armed into agreeing) and CALL IT SOMETHING. The fact that I chose to use the phrase NWO is irrelevant, I'm okay with whatever you'd like to call it.

We could agree on Crazy Green World Government, for example. Take your pick. Expect to be laughed at if you want to make it warm and fuzzy happy sounding.

 

[BenBurch]

Not quite. H2O is a positive feedback, but short lived which means the feedback loop will return to its equilibrium point very quickly if you add/remove it from the atmosphere.

The thing to keep in mind about positive feedback is that it amplifies any change, and it doesn’t matter if the change is positive or negative. IOW positive feedback will amplify cooling signals and make a small drop in temperature larger OR amplify warming signals and make a small increase in temperature larger. For zero change in the signal they will simply return to equilibrium if perturbed.

I stand corrected.

 

[DC]

this is so laughable a guy like mhaze with his laughable posting style complains about "warmer-style posts" this i ridiculous.

welcome to ignore.

 

[DC]

And the book's relevance is just being understood today. And industries have moved to where they were most profitable since the times of the Phoenician traders.

Don't like NWO? You can call it anything you want, but you've got to somehow, take your comments about getting all the nations to agree (or to be strong armed into agreeing) and CALL IT SOMETHING. The fact that I chose to use the phrase NWO is irrelevant, I'm okay with whatever you'd like to call it.

We could agree on Crazy Green World Government, for example. Take your pick. Expect to be laughed at if you want to make it warm and fuzzy happy sounding.

lets call it then " Members of reality and sanity"

 

[Trakar]

OH MY GOSH NO, the US Government creating money and handing it out in amounts equal to or in excess of total 1040 tax revenue isn't a problem. Or a great worrisome problem. Because...TRAKAR SAID SO!...

If you really want to give me credit for promoting this basic economic reality, I must admit to being flattered but I prefer to give credit to those who have dedicated their lives to economics learning and research, for the fruits of their labors. Economists recommend deficit spending to moderate or reverse recessions. This is especially true when the national economy is experiencing high unemployment. In fact, running a government surplus or reducing existing deficit rates is demonstrated to reduce consumer and business spending and raise unemployment rates. In times of high employment and a growing economy, using surplus tax revenue to pay off and retire debt is worth the unemployment bump created to bring the economy into balance and to provide a credit larder for the recessionary half of any normal market cycle. Of course, this tends to get out of kilter when people who either don’t understand economics or have an purpose that is furthered by a disrupted economy, begin “kicking the levers,” through massive revenue (tax) cuts and massive wasteful government spending (spending that does not enhance domestic economic opportunity and growth – such as a large growth in government work force and payroll, unnecessary foreign adventurism, etc.) in a time of growth and surplus. The results are not only completely predictable, they are apparent.

What you seem to desire as a solution to a non-problem, would actually exasperate and worsen the only real and immediate economic problems our nation faces today which are stagnant and sluggish growth and high unemployment. With a combination of the Carbon Tax/Bond and a national Carbon Bank to administer revenue distribution according to charter, we might be able to establish a temporary* “cruise control” that would automatically limit the slips into recession and accelerate growth out of recession while capping inflation.

Of course, the primary role of the Bank is to address keeping the revenue from the Tax/Bond neutral and progressive in structure. The “cruise control” function could be served through the focus of where and how annual distribution revenues are channeled. For instance, when the national economy is recessionary, more funding would go toward individual issues (grants and disbursements to encourage education and training in new technologies – temporary offsets to help afford movement into more energy efficient housing, or to improve energy efficiency of current housing – grants to help individuals afford more energy efficient transportation, mass and pov etc.,). Likewise, as a spur to encourage recovery more funding would be channeled toward new technology and service industry startups, and in boom times when inflation becomes a concern they might retire some outstanding bonds and focus on carbon sequestration funding which is a financially negative return activity.

I would think that an essential element of the Carbon Bank and Tax/Bond should be that the system must be reviewed and the charter for the institution and revenue measure must be renewed every decade. The structural design of the Federal Reserve might serve as a good model to look at in setting up such a Carbon Bank, not to mirror it, but merely as a guide when designing this type of quasi-governmental institution.

* I say temporary, because the Carbon Bank’s existence should be short-term and designed to terminate at the end of 50 years, regardless of success or failure (of the goal of eliminating fossil fuel emissions from the US economy).

 

[Furcifer]

Who is? And what have they discovered in the years they have had to investigate?

The Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Nothing so far, it was blocked by a district judge and is currently before the Supreme Court. There are limits to the scope of the investigation, obviously it's limited to state funding and not federal.

eta: For the record, I don't think anything criminal happened. I think it's a case of "Boys will be boys", but it should give everyone pause to consider that maybe people are getting caught up in the media attention, and maybe that's creating some bias.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A greenhouse gas is a gas with an absorption band in a significant part of the blackbody spectrum for the¹ planet. Hotter planets emit more energy in higher frequencies so they could potentially run into different absorption bands, but in practice the key gasses don’t change much.

How long lived a greenhouse gas is also extremely important. H2O is a strong greenhouse gas but it has a very short lifespan in the atmosphere, so even if you release a lot of it it’s all gone within a couple days and temperatures are back to normal².

No, planets do not lose heat by conduction³; they lose heat via blackbody radiation. For bodies with no atmosphere surface temperature is going to be the point where blackbody radiation equals incoming absorbed solar energy. Change the albedo and you change this temperature⁴ because you change the amount of energy that needs to be emitted⁵ as IR via blackbody radiation. (This is an approximation because planets only approximate a blackbody).

1. How general is "the" in "the planet"? Would the gasses you label "greenhouse gasses" differ from planet to planet? Or are the same gasses "greenhouse gasses" everywhere?
2. Would this be an instance of negative feeedback?
3. Where did I suggest that they do? Why "no"?
4. Now we get to something that puzzles me about this discussion. What is the relation between "temperature" of a planet and IR radiation? Do we take "temperature" measurements with instruments called "thermometers" that respond only to specific wavelengths of radiation? I thought the point of properly sited thermometers was to shield them from radiative heating and to respond only to conductive heating (direct contact with heated air).

Going back to my 100 bodies in orbit: suppose we create cavities in these bodies and fill these cavities with various gasses and put thermometers in these cavities. Seems to me, all these thermometers in a body at equilibrium must report the same temperature, regardless of the composition of the gas in the cavity, right?
5. "...you change the amount of energy that needs to be emitted" I don't see. Why is this not completely determined by radiant energy from the source and the "equilibrium" condition?

 

[mhaze]

....
What you seem to desire as a solution to a non-problem, would actually exasperate and worsen the only real and immediate economic problems our nation faces today which are stagnant and sluggish growth and high unemployment. With a combination of the Carbon Tax/Bond and a national Carbon Bank to administer revenue distribution according to charter, we might be able to establish a temporary* “cruise control” that would automatically limit the slips into recession and accelerate growth out of recession while capping inflation. ....

I chopped your first paragraph, because frankly it seemed to me that you weren't in an area you knew much about. Feel free to redo it with more precise concepts and references. Statements like "economists feel..." don't impress me.

The second pp you argue that my plan would hurt the US economically, and yours would help economically. That's interesting. I'm sure you FEEL that, but my plan - factually - creates jobs in large numbers and has stated effects on balance of payments. So what you FEEL or would like to be true doesn't particularly interest me.

The third pp you have sort of a new Carbon Czar agency/bank thing. Obviously a fantasy, but something that could be debated on it's merits and/or lack of.

 

[Trakar]

The debt is only a problem when those who helped run it up (Republicans) decide they don't want to pay for it.

Not that this is a surprise; Republicans are all about FREE STUFF;

- They want service of government without taxation - They will LIE to you and claim that they want small government, but just try to take away something they actually use and listen to the reality.

- They want to be able to extract minerals and lumber from public lands without just compensation.

- They want to be able to freely use externalities to pump up the profits of their business that at the same time are gorging on federal contracts and price supports.

- They want hospitals to have to provide free care for the indigent as a condition of doing business rather than honestly paying for the services with a national health plan.

- They want to be able to destroy tens of thousands of human lives in needless wars and then tell the ruined, crippled wounded who come home that they are a suck on the system.

Nice guys these Republicans. And they have the nerve to call others "looters".

ETA: I know a very few Republicans who do not fit the above, and I wonder what they are thinking staying with that Party?

((Psst! I'm Republican! just because most of my party has abandoned and rejected the Progressive roots it established in this nation does not mean I have to follow their lead. Take a look lately at what Democratic representatives have done with their attempt to don the progressive mantle?))

 

[Trakar]

Given that lives could be saved TODAY, in Africa, at estimated costs of $200 each, that's 5M people per billion dollars...

irrelevent to this discussion, but I'd be interesting in reading what you are proposing to address this issue in a thread where it is relevent.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm sure you FEEL that, but my plan - factually - creates jobs in large numbers and has stated effects on balance of payments.

What a joke. Of course your "plan" creates jobs. That's because it requires government intervention and funding.

It doesn't take an economic genius to "create jobs" by having someone else pay for your infrastructure and using force to silence any opposition.

Let's see you come up with a plan that doesn't call for totalitarianism and suckling at the teat of Big Government, and then maybe we'll be impressed with how many jobs you create.

 

[mhaze]

irrelevent to this discussion, but I'd be interesting in reading what you are proposing to address this issue in a thread where it is relevent.

When someone argues give-me-money-now-to-maybe-sometime-somehow-somewhere-save-lives, and someone else says.

"Oh. This is simple. We can save lives now with $X per person"...

don't argue irrelevance...

What a joke. Of course your "plan" creates jobs. That's because it requires government intervention and funding.

It doesn't take an economic genius to "create jobs" by having someone else pay for your infrastructure and using force to silence any opposition.

Let's see you come up with a plan that doesn't call for totalitarianism and suckling at the teat of Big Government, and then maybe we'll be impressed with how many jobs you create.

Since no part of the plan I proposed required new government funding, I'm not sure how you get to your above stated conclusions.

But, somehow in your world, independant companies drilling and processing shale oil, making methanol and selling it for automotive use, and nuclear plants built through private bond issues, somhow that's totalitarian and sucking at big gove.

well, whatever...

 

[BenBurch]

((Psst! I'm Republican! just because most of my party has abandoned and rejected the Progressive roots it established in this nation does not mean I have to follow their lead. Take a look lately at what Democratic representatives have done with their attempt to don the progressive mantle?))

We need a new party. One that isn't Republican or Democrat and which is founded in the principle that reality is the essential benchmark against which all policy is drafted. Obviously it would be a party of Moderates. Which I think describes both of us.

 

[Trakar]

Thanks again for the demonstration of the AGW theory proponent's style. Keep it up. When you're ready to discuss issues, instead of personalities, we can continue the exchange.

Act like a conspiracy theorist and consistently present conspiracy theories to support and argue for your perspective of subject material, and it is both rational and legitimate to properly characterize the nature of your arguments and behavior. I am talking policy, you are the one attempting to refute fact and policy discussion with tales of unsubstantiated and unsupported conspiracy.

BTW - surely you recognize the hypocrisy of attacking my "style" in the same three sentence span where you are trying to take the high ground of keeping a discussion off "personalities," and in a thread where you have spent the last 19 pages impugning and personally attacking Science, climatologists, climate advocates, and most individual participants in this thread --- or do you really believe you should not be held to the same standards you wish others to adhere to?

 

[AlBell]

Oh, there are 50 years of blame to spread around.

No doubts here.

I was addressing the implication that somehow Republicans (who gave us a trillion dollar war debt) are paragons of virtue, or that this is somehow an economic matter.

Yup, and I'd never claim that Reps are fiscally responsible, although war costs are something inherent in Constitutional responsibilities. Imo the wars were justified.

Medicare part D and Obamacare: bah.

 

[BenBurch]

Yup, and I'd never claim that Reps are fiscally responsible, although war costs are something inherent in Constitutional responsibilities. Imo the wars were justified.

Medicare part D and Obamacare: bah.

Had the Iraq war been done competently, it would have been done by being patient and waiting for the sort of chance we got with OBL. Many of us were saying that very thing at the time.

So, yeah, Saddam was a monster and his sons were too, but we surely could have gotten out of this for a few billion.

 

[Trakar]

We need a new party. One that isn't Republican or Democrat and which is founded in the principle that reality is the essential benchmark against which all policy is drafted. Obviously it would be a party of Moderates. Which I think describes both of us.

I would personally reject the label "moderate." Paraphrase Franklin, with the addendum of "..., even moderation," however I might well agree.



I do agree, however, with the strict application of rationality (evidence based decision making) to issues of fiscal policy (politics). If there were such a party dedicated to that concept, and if there was room for a strongly progressive discussion and persuasion within such a party, I would definitely give it consideration. I don't mind disagreements or compromises on issues of conservatism v. progressivism, so long as rationalism and critical objectivity are the cornerstones defining the realities addressed.