Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

If you mean, putting something unnatural into a place that can't handle it effectively through natural processes, I'm going to laugh. Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time, but we don't know what effect that has on a system as complex as the earth's, and we don't know that the climate is even changing permanently or if this is simply nature's RNG throwing some wild years, or if there's solar activity which is causing changes... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.

Oh I see, you're a climate change sceptic. Well that explains that.

[Ghills]

For a lot of the world, the sunniest places are also the most agriculturally productive. Once you do get a desert installation, how would you get power from the desolate deserts to the places where power is used? There aren't a lot of people there, for obvious reasons. It's harder to send electrons in sufficient quantity than oil or coal in a lot of places. It's not an insurmountable problem, but it is an intimidating and expensive one. There have been some good strides forward made in the deserts near California, Arizona, etc, which is a perfect place for this kind of thing, but if you don't have a desert nearby...We really do need better energy storage.  One problem is that things do live in the desert, so there are still environmental impacts that people aren't really sure how to measure. Wind farms have bird-killing and noise issues, I know, but I haven't been following desert solar installations enough to track how reliably they've managed to get environmental indicators pinned down.

Solar thermal is more reliable than wind, but solar panels are not, and neither as much as coal because of transportation difficulties, as far as I understand. Thermal energy in general is much more reliable and understood than other forms, but consumer understanding is a little limited on the physics behind it which is limiting adoption.  Last I head hi-tech solar installations were fairly finicky in terms of how stable their conditions needed to be, although the low-tech plastic-sheet ones are of course fairly sturdy.

A few years ago I know some places were trying to use kinetic wave energy to provide power. Does anyone know how that's turned out? It would be interesting to see if that has the same problems as hydro-based energy storage.

One theme that pops up a lot with the carbon tax is the idea that we can live a life completely free of impact. We can't, and in some ways we really shouldn't try for it. The issue as I see it isn't one of eliminating the use of certain resources, but of using all our resources in a an efficient and effective manner. I don't think that a carbon tax will accomplish that. I do think it will encourage a lot of politicking, lobbying and fraud. I think it tries to simplify a complex subject based on unproven assumptions, which is always a bad way to make policy decisions.

If you mean, putting something unnatural into a place that can't handle it effectively through natural processes, I'm going to laugh. Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time, but we don't know what effect that has on a system as complex as the earth's, and we don't know that the climate is even changing permanently or if this is simply nature's RNG throwing some wild years, or if there's solar activity which is causing changes... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.

Oh I see, you're a climate change sceptic. Well that explains that.

As I've said several time in this thread, the earth's climate is changing, just like it has for the past billion years.  We do not know enough about the earth's climate to say which change will have which effect. I strongly dislike reasoning in advance of the data.   I've worked with complex systems enough to know that rushing in with untested changes is almost always a bad idea. 

Geological time is measured in centuries and millennia, not a decade or even 5 decades. A few decades ago, scientists thought we were heading for another ice age. Now they think something different. In a few decades they will think something different yet again. We should stop focusing on changing things outside of our control, like the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and start really thinking about lifestyle changes and a focus on moderation. Carbon taxes are a lazy stopgap measure that doesn't address the underlying problems.

EDIT: Edited for spelling. One day, I will train my pet to not sleep on the keyboard.

[Max White]

I've worked with complex systems enough to know that rushing in with untested changes is almost always a bad idea. 

So you have worked as a geologist or meteorologist or some other field that relates to climate change? Cool! Now all we need is an economist and a few industry experts and we can start to have an educated opinion on the subject.

[breadbocks]

If you mean, putting something unnatural into a place that can't handle it effectively through natural processes, I'm going to laugh. Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time, but we don't know what effect that has on a system as complex as the earth's, and we don't know that the climate is even changing permanently or if this is simply nature's RNG throwing some wild years, or if there's solar activity which is causing changes... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.

Oh I see, you're a climate change sceptic. Well that explains that.

Nobody is a complete climate change sceptic. People just believe the impact WE have to differing degrees. You obviously think human activity is the cause of any change in temperature, which is utter bullshit (Which oddly enough, releases more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, IIRC), and Ghills obviously thinks the change in temperature is going to reverse itself in a few years, which is also complete and utter bullshit.

6th grade science, people. Archeologists have found proof that the earth's temperature has fluctuated massively in between cold and hot. Is it true that the trend is much steeper than it has been in previous warm ups? Yes. Is it true that it only got so steep around the industrial revolution? Yes. Is it true that eventually the earth will begin a decent into another ice age soon enough in geological time? Yes. All of these things are true, and they will remain true. Human industry has had impact on natural climate change, but is not the cause.

[Ghills]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I think you probably are. That's the operating assumption for this post, at any rate. Sorry if that wasn't your intention.

You keep reading what you want instead of what I've said. I've worked on complex systems in IT, where we understand the factors because we made the factors, and making untested changes was still a stupid decision. I made a general statement about the nature of complex systems and the proper scientific method of making reliable and functional changes to them.

Given that at least one major activist climate change organization has been faking its data and refusing to release its models (and that organizations on the other side are just as bad, it's scary the kind of crazy stuff that people get up to) I'm saying we need to stop worrying about vague and uncontrollable goals and start worrying about things like city planning (bicycles, ftw), more distributed food production, less waste and more re-use.  These actions would reduce our consumption of just about all resources, improve our collective health, integrate communities into a more cohesive whole and hopefully provide some of the mental and emotional benefits of being tied into a local community, which can be significant.

So much has changed in the past century that we can't make a determination about which change is causing which effect. That's basic scientific method.

Carbon taxes are still bad for all of the reasons outlined in my first post, which haven't been addressed except in a brief and dismissive way by mainiac. You've skipped my objections completely and jumped onto the idea that I'm against your ideological position. I don't know what your ideological position is, and I very certain you don't know mine.

If you mean, putting something unnatural into a place that can't handle it effectively through natural processes, I'm going to laugh. Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time, but we don't know what effect that has on a system as complex as the earth's, and we don't know that the climate is even changing permanently or if this is simply nature's RNG throwing some wild years, or if there's solar activity which is causing changes... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.

Oh I see, you're a climate change sceptic. Well that explains that.

Nobody is a complete climate change sceptic. People just believe the impact WE have to differing degrees. You obviously think human activity is the cause of any change in temperature, which is utter bullshit (Which oddly enough, releases more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, IIRC), and Ghills obviously thinks the change in temperature is going to reverse itself in a few years, which is also complete and utter bullshit.

6th grade science, people. Archeologists have found proof that the earth's temperature has fluctuated massively in between cold and hot. Is it true that the trend is much steeper than it has been in previous warm ups? Yes. Is it true that it only got so steep around the industrial revolution? Yes. Is it true that eventually the earth will begin a decent into another ice age soon enough in geological time? Yes. All of these things are true, and they will remain true. Human industry has had impact on natural climate change, but is not the cause.

I don't think anything of the kind. Like I've said several times, I think we don't know enough to make any predictions about the earth's climate. I think we don't have reliable data, and I think we are focusing on the wrong things if we actually want to make real changes.

[Angel Of Death]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I think you probably are. That's the operating assumption for this post, at any rate. Sorry if that wasn't your intention.

You keep reading what you want instead of what I've said. I've worked on complex systems in IT, where we understand the factors because we made the factors, and making untested changes was still a stupid decision. I made a general statement about the nature of complex systems and the proper scientific method of making reliable and functional changes to them.

Given that at least one major activist climate change organization has been faking its data and refusing to release its models (and that organizations on the other side are just as bad, it's scary the kind of crazy stuff that people get up to) I'm saying we need to stop worrying about vague and uncontrollable goals and start worrying about things like city planning (bicycles, ftw), more distributed food production, less waste and more re-use.  These actions would reduce our consumption of just about all resources, improve our collective health, integrate communities into a more cohesive whole and hopefully provide some of the mental and emotional benefits of being tied into a local community, which can be significant.

So much has changed in the past century that we can't make a determination about which change is causing which effect. That's basic scientific method.

Carbon taxes are still bad for all of the reasons outlined in my first post, which haven't been addressed except in a brief and dismissive way by mainiac. You've skipped my objections completely and jumped onto the idea that I'm against your ideological position. I don't know what your ideological position is, and I very certain you don't know mine.

If you mean, putting something unnatural into a place that can't handle it effectively through natural processes, I'm going to laugh. Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time, but we don't know what effect that has on a system as complex as the earth's, and we don't know that the climate is even changing permanently or if this is simply nature's RNG throwing some wild years, or if there's solar activity which is causing changes... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.

Oh I see, you're a climate change sceptic. Well that explains that.

Nobody is a complete climate change sceptic. People just believe the impact WE have to differing degrees. You obviously think human activity is the cause of any change in temperature, which is utter bullshit (Which oddly enough, releases more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, IIRC), and Ghills obviously thinks the change in temperature is going to reverse itself in a few years, which is also complete and utter bullshit.

6th grade science, people. Archeologists have found proof that the earth's temperature has fluctuated massively in between cold and hot. Is it true that the trend is much steeper than it has been in previous warm ups? Yes. Is it true that it only got so steep around the industrial revolution? Yes. Is it true that eventually the earth will begin a decent into another ice age soon enough in geological time? Yes. All of these things are true, and they will remain true. Human industry has had impact on natural climate change, but is not the cause.

I don't think anything of the kind. Like I've said several times, I think we don't know enough to make any predictions about the earth's climate. I think we don't have reliable data, and I think we are focusing on the wrong things if we actually want to make real changes.

Hold on a minute, are you claiming that Climate Change is crap?

[breadbocks]

Except we DO have enough data to predict with reasonable accuracy what climate will do going forwards. It's been going up and down and up and down and up and down since it was formed. I don't think ANY amount of human intervention can change that. And the very earth itself has show us this data consistently.

As for focusing on the wrong things, what do you think are the right things then? Should we make cows extinct since they release horrendous amounts of methane?

[Duuvian]

Solar power is roughly equal to coal (and ahead of nuclear) including the cost of finance.  I can tell you this as a certified solar panel installer and my best friend can confirm this as someone who has worked for one of the largest energy trading firms on the east coast and has seen their cost evaluations over time.  Five years ago, solar wasn't competitive with coal outside of niche roles.  At this very moment, right now, solar is reaching the point where it is competitive with coal in major markets.

But there's a catch, there are large, powerful utilities that control the energy market and they have no interest in having their existing capacity shut down.  They want to keep their plants going and they have scales of efficiency on their side.  So we need a kick to raise the price of coal power by 30% or so.  That means that the big utilities can't fight it anymore, or they will lose their market share to new utilities.

That argument is utter bullshit. First, "About even" != coal needing a 30% price increase to be the same price. And it is nowhere near as cost effective. Think space man. The same land that we need crops to grow on and live on have to be taken up in huge swaths at a time to equal the same output as a coal plant.

That's why you put it on existing roofs and barns, first. They already create shade and I'd say they aren't taking away too much sunlight from crops. There are all kinds of places that could be coated with some kind of energy absorbing substance. Pretty much anything manmade that creates shade could have something hooked up to it, theoretically. In the next few years our farm is planning on investing in solar panels and a system that involves batteries while still connected to the main line as a backup. In addition, the energy company will actually pay us for any additional electric output that we contribute to the network.

Wouldn't you say this is fair?

EDIT: It will be mostly used to run irrigation systems that we plan to dig in the next few years.

[Max White]

Carbon taxes are still bad for all of the reasons outlined in my first post, which haven't been addressed except in a brief and dismissive way by mainiac. You've skipped my objections completely and jumped onto the idea that I'm against your ideological position. I don't know what your ideological position is, and I very certain you don't know mine.

Well I personally have no intention of trying to dispute your claims, because I don't think I know enough on the subject to try and argue. I don't have any formal education in science beyond taking chemistry and physics in high school, so while I can understand the basic principles involved in the concept of global warming, it would be incredibly foolish to think that high school level education on the subject can begin to hold weight against scientists who have studied in there chosen subject for many years, before continuing to work in the field for even longer. I also lack any formal economic certification, so for the economic and cultural impacts that any tax has on an industry, I am even more in the dark then the chemistry of this all.

Of course the theory of human induced climate change and it's accuracy is secondary to the main focus of this thread, that being the impact of this specific tax. Hopefully with some more peoples opinion in order to gain some depth, even if we don't all come to a common agreement, we will have bought the possible effects of this tax into light, rather how it is being treated right now by the media, as a playing piece between two parties.

Sarcastic? Always, without question, even this statement that you are reading now.

[breadbocks]

Max, don't be surprised if threads with heated debates have the topic completely changed. The feminism topic a while back shifted to the circumcision topic quickly. Trying to shift the topic away is interrupting a debate some people need to have, seeing as how the debate was started. Just play your part in it,  and let it ride.

[Max White]

Oh that's fine, I don't mind letting to slip away over time. It is always interesting to watch a thread grow and change, as if it were alive.

[Derekristow]

If you mean, putting something unnatural into a place that can't handle it effectively through natural processes, I'm going to laugh. Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time, but we don't know what effect that has on a system as complex as the earth's, and we don't know that the climate is even changing permanently or if this is simply nature's RNG throwing some wild years, or if there's solar activity which is causing changes... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.

Oh I see, you're a climate change sceptic. Well that explains that.

Nobody is a complete climate change sceptic. People just believe the impact WE have to differing degrees. You obviously think human activity is the cause of any change in temperature, which is utter bullshit (Which oddly enough, releases more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, IIRC), and Ghills obviously thinks the change in temperature is going to reverse itself in a few years, which is also complete and utter bullshit.

6th grade science, people. Archeologists have found proof that the earth's temperature has fluctuated massively in between cold and hot. Is it true that the trend is much steeper than it has been in previous warm ups? Yes. Is it true that it only got so steep around the industrial revolution? Yes. Is it true that eventually the earth will begin a decent into another ice age soon enough in geological time? Yes. All of these things are true, and they will remain true. Human industry has had impact on natural climate change, but is not the cause.

I don't think anything of the kind. Like I've said several times, I think we don't know enough to make any predictions about the earth's climate. I think we don't have reliable data, and I think we are focusing on the wrong things if we actually want to make real changes.

We know that this cycle of warming and cooling has occurred throughout the Earth's history due to ice cores, which have different compositions at different points due to varying temperatures and times of year.  This is pretty much just fact.  We also can tell that this cycle in particular seems to be worse than others, and while there may not be enough evidence to convince everyone, the intensity of this being our fault is still a very real possibility and should not be discounted.

Nobody is a complete climate change sceptic. People just believe the impact WE have to differing degrees. You obviously think human activity is the cause of any change in temperature, which is utter bullshit (Which oddly enough, releases more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, IIRC)

I'd like to note that it's our fault there are so many cows to begin with, if that claim is true.

Given that at least one major activist climate change organization has been faking its data and refusing to release its models (and that organizations on the other side are just as bad, it's scary the kind of crazy stuff that people get up to)

Which organization did this?  I want to know who to ignore.

Fake edit:  Stop replying!  5 posts, seriously 

[Duuvian]

Oh that's fine, I don't mind letting to slip away over time. It is always interesting to watch a thread grow and change, as if it were alive.

Don't feel bad about talking about what you wanted to in the first place. That's what the thread was for. You could probably use what your original thoughts were, in the current discussion and see how it compares to what other people said. If what they said doesn't make sense to you from what you know, then that's when you know you should tell them something, right?

[Duuvian]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If you mean, putting something unnatural into a place that can't handle it effectively through natural processes, I'm going to laugh. Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time, but we don't know what effect that has on a system as complex as the earth's, and we don't know that the climate is even changing permanently or if this is simply nature's RNG throwing some wild years, or if there's solar activity which is causing changes... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.

Oh I see, you're a climate change sceptic. Well that explains that.

Nobody is a complete climate change sceptic. People just believe the impact WE have to differing degrees. You obviously think human activity is the cause of any change in temperature, which is utter bullshit (Which oddly enough, releases more greenhouse gas than all of humanity combined, IIRC), and Ghills obviously thinks the change in temperature is going to reverse itself in a few years, which is also complete and utter bullshit.

6th grade science, people. Archeologists have found proof that the earth's temperature has fluctuated massively in between cold and hot. Is it true that the trend is much steeper than it has been in previous warm ups? Yes. Is it true that it only got so steep around the industrial revolution? Yes. Is it true that eventually the earth will begin a decent into another ice age soon enough in geological time? Yes. All of these things are true, and they will remain true. Human industry has had impact on natural climate change, but is not the cause.

Hehe, maybe we should make it the cause, but it a positive way. That way we could have snow on the ski slopes but no where else except on school days, and women in bikini's year round! I'll call that wizard from the future that I know and tell him to start working on a weather control machine immediately.

EDIT: Wow, that killed that thread. I was just joking. Yeesh. I gave my two bits with applying solar power to existing buildings and giving people the incentive to put them up. It seems like a good idea. In other countries, I've heard that energy can be used as a tool to control people, and it would be nice if the people controlled the energy here.

[Ghills]

Except we DO have enough data to predict with reasonable accuracy what climate will do going forwards. It's been going up and down and up and down and up and down since it was formed. I don't think ANY amount of human intervention can change that. And the very earth itself has show us this data consistently.

As for focusing on the wrong things, what do you think are the right things then? Should we make cows extinct since they release horrendous amounts of methane?

We don't have that kind of detailed knowledge about the how and why. We especially don't have a way to relate the fine-grained details we can capture now with the long-term scale we get from archeology, etc. That's what we really need.

I'm all for encouraging people to live more sustainably, because I think modern Western standards of consumption are ridiculous and irresponsible. We are treating the earth like a dwarven atomsmasher; it isn't, and that's already coming back to haunt us.  But I object to the very, very specific predictions based on vague and only somewhat-replicable data and to the doomsday pronouncements that frequently. Science doesn't trumpet something until it's proven; we haven't got any proof. We've got hypotheses, but I think they're being improperly tested. I would like greater openness with the actual data and with the models that are being used to derive this conclusions.

About the organization - I forget which one it was specifically (I've been up for 24 hours at this point), it was part of that hacked email scandal. One of the things that came out of that was that some scientists are clearly doing good science on this data and some aren't. I do statistical analysis professionally, and I don't do some of the things that were described in those emails. It's dishonest.  Generally, I try to ignore anyone who makes an absolute statement, because they're almost always guaranteed to be wrong.

I've mentioned specific things I think we should be focusing on in several posts in this thread.
To repeat:

Carbon taxes are terrible, terrible things for a variety of social, psychological, political and economic reasons.
...
...
(ex: efficient transportation, better use of distributed farming. tons of stuff).
...

...
 Geothermal has completely different issues, and I think is something worth looking into because it can be a very stable source of power (although capital costs can be higher)...
... millions of people go hungry every day (it also takes more energy to produce a gallon of corn ethanol than the gallon contains, and I object to giving more power to an already incredibly powerful lobby that has done very selfish things, but those aren't sustainability related).  Solar is only cost-effective if it's the same cost, not if it's the same cost in 10 years after all of the capital investments have been fully earned out. Capital projects cost money. Most people and businesses still can't afford it, or don't live in situations and places where it's a technologically and financially feasible option.
...
Powerful companies will throw their power behind something as soon as it makes financial sense. The fact that some companies don't throw their power behind a certain initiative suggests that some things about it don't make financial sense, and that's worth more of an exploration than "Evil company! Regulate!"
...
...One factor for lack of traditional investment is uncertainty, which raises whenever the government intervenes. More government intervention will raise uncertainty and lower investment, because government doesn't intervene based on economically rational motives and thus isn't predictable like businesses and consumers. This isn't a new phenomenon; it's something that's fairly well known.
...
Carbon, methane and similar chemicals are natural substances, which can be dealt with by natural processes. They're supposed to be in the atmosphere to keep the earth livable. We may be dumping too much at one time... We don't understand the earth's climate and we're trying to control it. That's short-sighted and childish.
...
 if it's considered a scarce resource someone will start trying to charge people for it...

...making untested changes was still a stupid decision. I made a general statement about the nature of complex systems and the proper scientific method of making reliable and functional changes to them.

Given that at least one major activist climate change organization has been faking its data and refusing to release its models (and that organizations on the other side are just as bad, it's scary the kind of crazy stuff that people get up to) I'm saying we need to stop worrying about vague and uncontrollable goals and start worrying about things like city planning (bicycles, ftw), more distributed food production, less waste and more re-use.  These actions would reduce our consumption of just about all resources, improve our collective health, integrate communities into a more cohesive whole and hopefully provide some of the mental and emotional benefits of being tied into a local community, which can be significant.

So much has changed in the past century that we can't make a determination about which change is causing which effect. That's basic scientific method.
...
Like I've said several times, I think we don't know enough to make any predictions about the earth's climate. I think we don't have reliable data...