It’s Dirl. Plain and simple. I know you’re an older gentlemen Whistler, so calling me “dirlie” is really below you. You, a respectable and surely knowledgable blogger, don’t need to come down to the level of calling me “dirlie”.
Already, I have tipped my hat to your knowledge and experience of the subject, but calling me “dirlie” is elementary (schoolish)
I can gaurantee I’m quite younger than you, if anyone should be name-calling, it should be me!
dirl126 - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
Robert108: You constantly maintain that there is a discrepancy in short term and long term goals in the free enterprise system, and that is simply
nonsense.
Really?
Mathematically it is possible to have an optimization system for which the long-term optimal solution for a nonlinear system with feedback that does not correspond to the short term solution. This is a rigorously true statement. All you have produced so far to refute what is a mathematical principle is hand waving rhetoric.
The fact is, this bugaboo of yours has caused only a one degree C rise in global temp in the last century, and 3/4 of that has vanished in one year
Well to be clear that 1°C also includes other contributions such as sulfate emissions. Until 1980, the two were more or less balanced, and most of the warming we’ve seen from human activity is from CO2 emissions since 1980. The point here is unless CO2, the sulfate effect saturated entirely (there is only so much you can store in the boundary layer of the Earth, where these types of aerosols live).
I don’t accept that the full effect we’ve seen then is from CO2 (approximately 0.6°C), but if that were the case, it would indicate a climate sensitivity of around 4.6°C (e.g., double the CO2 gives 4.6°C increase in temperature).
My position (based partly on recent climate history) is that roughly 1/3 of this is man-made, so the sensitivity is nearer 1-1.5°C. That’s not a big number, and is not dangerous at all if we left the CO2 concentration at its current level, but would cause problems if we eventually quadrupled our CO2 concentration (as some demographic models suggest).
Your “greenhouse effect” ain’t workin’, dude.
Well it’s a real effect. Deny it if that makes you feel better.
Whistler:
Actually that’s worst case, Since world CO2 emissions were pretty negligible prior to World War 2. Also we were coming out of the Little Ice Age.
Actually it’s not. About half of the CO2 emissions occurred before 1980, they were just masked by (now saturated) effects from other human activity.
Carrick - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
But the warm-up prior to WW2 could not have been caused by man. At least that’s the way I understand it.
The Whistler - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
But I think you read me wrong, since I stated prior to World War 2, you said half of all emissions were prior to 1980.
Those two statements aren’t in conflict.
The Whistler - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
Even if I were a true denialist, I would support free-market styled “solutions” to the CO2 emissions problem based on a number of reasons:
The first is the precautionary principle: We hedge against potentially catastrophic changes in our climate with minimal costs.
The second is denying the socialists their agenda. As I see it, they are pushing global warming as a means to exert greater central government on our lives.
So the simplest solution is to accept their concerns at face value while saying “well, we think that this is a better way to solve the problem”. The record of US versus European CO2 emissions very strongly supports the free market over the central government approach.
I don’t know the details of McCain’s proposal, but this is exactly the approach I would take. Especially since I know that the central government approach won’t work, that it was never intended to work (so we should undermine that approach every opportunity that we get), but that there may be something that we genuinely need to be concerned about.
Not that I’m an expert but I think this IS the European method you said was less good than the market.
Cap and Trade is NOT a market solution.
The Whistler - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
so calling me “dirlie” is really below you.
The kids at school must really pick on you a lot about that. However I fail to see that it’s derogatory. But I’ll respect your wishes for whatever reasons you have.
Meanwhile if you think I’m hostile to your questions I don’t know that’s really true. I do sometimes have an hard time figuring out if someone is coming across in an honest manner or is playing a game. Different people get different treatment.
The Whistler - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
By the way I love the Orwellian language in there. “Households” would be exempt. But where are you going to buy your electricity or petroleum since these two industries are the most heavily regulated industries in there?
Yes.
Dirlie, Google John McCain and ANWR.
It’s Dirl. Plain and simple. I know you’re an older gentlemen Whistler, so calling me “dirlie” is really below you. You, a respectable and surely knowledgable blogger, don’t need to come down to the level of calling me “dirlie”.
Already, I have tipped my hat to your knowledge and experience of the subject, but calling me “dirlie” is elementary (schoolish)
I can gaurantee I’m quite younger than you, if anyone should be name-calling, it should be me!
Robert108: You constantly maintain that there is a discrepancy in short term and long term goals in the free enterprise system, and that is simply
Carrick - 04:05pm on 05/11/2008
nonsense.
Really?
Mathematically it is possible to have an optimization system for which the long-term optimal solution for a nonlinear system with feedback that does not correspond to the short term solution. This is a rigorously true statement. All you have produced so far to refute what is a mathematical principle is hand waving rhetoric.
Well to be clear that 1°C also includes other contributions such as sulfate emissions. Until 1980, the two were more or less balanced, and most of the warming we’ve seen from human activity is from CO2 emissions since 1980. The point here is unless CO2, the sulfate effect saturated entirely (there is only so much you can store in the boundary layer of the Earth, where these types of aerosols live).
I don’t accept that the full effect we’ve seen then is from CO2 (approximately 0.6°C), but if that were the case, it would indicate a climate sensitivity of around 4.6°C (e.g., double the CO2 gives 4.6°C increase in temperature).
My position (based partly on recent climate history) is that roughly 1/3 of this is man-made, so the sensitivity is nearer 1-1.5°C. That’s not a big number, and is not dangerous at all if we left the CO2 concentration at its current level, but would cause problems if we eventually quadrupled our CO2 concentration (as some demographic models suggest).
Well it’s a real effect. Deny it if that makes you feel better.
Whistler:
Actually it’s not. About half of the CO2 emissions occurred before 1980, they were just masked by (now saturated) effects from other human activity.
But the warm-up prior to WW2 could not have been caused by man. At least that’s the way I understand it.
But I think you read me wrong, since I stated prior to World War 2, you said half of all emissions were prior to 1980.
Those two statements aren’t in conflict.
Even if I were a true denialist, I would support free-market styled “solutions” to the CO2 emissions problem based on a number of reasons:
The first is the precautionary principle: We hedge against potentially catastrophic changes in our climate with minimal costs.
The second is denying the socialists their agenda. As I see it, they are pushing global warming as a means to exert greater central government on our lives.
So the simplest solution is to accept their concerns at face value while saying “well, we think that this is a better way to solve the problem”. The record of US versus European CO2 emissions very strongly supports the free market over the central government approach.
I don’t know the details of McCain’s proposal, but this is exactly the approach I would take. Especially since I know that the central government approach won’t work, that it was never intended to work (so we should undermine that approach every opportunity that we get), but that there may be something that we genuinely need to be concerned about.
McCain’s solution for your study.
Not that I’m an expert but I think this IS the European method you said was less good than the market.
Cap and Trade is NOT a market solution.
The kids at school must really pick on you a lot about that. However I fail to see that it’s derogatory. But I’ll respect your wishes for whatever reasons you have.
Meanwhile if you think I’m hostile to your questions I don’t know that’s really true. I do sometimes have an hard time figuring out if someone is coming across in an honest manner or is playing a game. Different people get different treatment.
By the way I love the Orwellian language in there. “Households” would be exempt. But where are you going to buy your electricity or petroleum since these two industries are the most heavily regulated industries in there?