Carbon Trading Explained.

thanks to obama thats where the states is heading

Scientists, politicians and tree hugging hippies claiming conclusively that man has caused global warming makes me angry. Carbon Credits make me even more angry.

Ryeland said:

Scientists, politicians and tree hugging hippies claiming conclusively that man has caused global warming makes me angry. Carbon Credits make me even more angry.

Click to expand...

we were discussing this a few days ago..

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthre...cy-despite-global-cooling-evidence-42753.html

It's bullshit! I Try not to think about this kind of crap, cause me too much aggrevation.

pegasus said:

we were discussing this a few days ago..

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthre...cy-despite-global-cooling-evidence-42753.html

Click to expand...

good thread. Good to see that people are taking "evidence" with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Ryeland said:

good thread. Good to see that people are taking "evidence" with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Click to expand...

You know I'm sick of the skeptics. From now on the skeptics actually have to present evidence for their argument.:bball:


That'll shut them up. They don't have any.

tim290280 said:

You know I'm sick of the skeptics. From now on the skeptics actually have to present evidence for their argument.:bball:


That'll shut them up. They don't have any.

Click to expand...

We still can't even explain why the ice ages have happened. We can't explain why the earth goes through the climatic cycles it does.

Global warming is undeniable, that is a fact. The cause of global warming is something I am not yet convinced about. We simply do not have all the facts. You mentioned in other threads the amount of research money going into global warming, it is insane. Researching global warming and blaming it on CO2 and emissions makes some people a very large sum of money.

I absolutely love the fact that people are focused on being more efficient. If global warming is the reason for that, then great, the end result is still good.

But until someone can explain to me with conclusive proof why at one point most of the northern hemisphere was covered with a sheet of ice over a kilometer thick and now its not (earth warmed up immensely without human presence) I am not making my vote conclusive.

^^ Conclusive proof??? Without on site measurements as the event happened?????

Have a read of some of the research that looks at historical geological changes. The climate stuff involved in that is actually a lot more "conclusive" than people think. Start with the review papers and books. Granted they are tieing a lot of stuff together but the cycles that occur have pretty likely drivers as far as I can remember.

tim290280 said:

^^ Conclusive proof??? Without on site measurements as the event happened?????

Have a read of some of the research that looks at historical geological changes. The climate stuff involved in that is actually a lot more "conclusive" than people think. Start with the review papers and books. Granted they are tieing a lot of stuff together but the cycles that occur have pretty likely drivers as far as I can remember.

Click to expand...

Precisely we don't have the measurements to indicate how or why that happened.

I am not at all disputing that climate change is occurring. I am not at all disputing the cyclic nature of earths climate. I am not at all disputing that making things more efficient is a good thing. I am aware that the current cycles of sun spot activity are not enough to vary the temperature of the earth on the scale we are seeing. I am also aware that the Milankovitch cycles of earths axis moving around give some insight into how the ice age happened, but there is some contradictory evidence here.

I am not disputing that CO2 emissions and other man made pollutants are exacerbating the problem of global warming but the bottom line is that earth somehow went from being covered in ice to being a temperate climate. Earth went from being a molten ball of rock 4.5 billion years ago to a lush oasis by comparison today. There is alot of the geological history of the earth that we simply do not understand.

To restate I am not refuting global warming, I am not refuting that pumping millions of tonnes of crap into the air every year is terrible for the environment. What I am saying is that no one can conclusively prove that man made CO2 is the cause of global warming.

The other part of this, the sad side is all the public policies that are made with this information can do a lot more harm than good. The US pumping so much cash into Ethanol, and screwing over the corn economy. Hybrids getting a big push (the batteries in these things are one of the worst products ever developed when it comes to environmentally disposing of them).

Ryeland said:

What I am saying is that no one can conclusively prove that man made CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Click to expand...

Well you have two options.
1) Wait 50-100yrs and take measurements all that time. Over this time you should be able to prove and measure exactly what is happening. On the downside life as we know it will change, and not for the better.

2) Do something now and maybe avert major changes in the climate such that we may never conclusively measure CC.

As an example of something that we take for granted, have no real understanding of, yet is happening anyway - quantum mechanics. Want proof, pick up your phone. Want to measure it..... can't be done. Want to understand it...... good luck. Does it mean that we should wait awhile before diving into having phones (and other quantum mechanics devices), you tell me.

The other part of this, the sad side is all the public policies that are made with this information can do a lot more harm than good. The US pumping so much cash into Ethanol, and screwing over the corn economy. Hybrids getting a big push (the batteries in these things are one of the worst products ever developed when it comes to environmentally disposing of them).

Click to expand...

I agree that there is going to be bad decisions made by government. But that isn't because of a lack of information, it is because of a overpreponderance to believe lobby groups.

Ethanol isn't bad, but the way it is being subsidised and the methods of manufacture are plain stupid. People knew this before they started, they just had $$ in their eyes. Oh and US corn is one of the most overinflated agricultural products in the world. Thankyou lobby groups for creating yet another market for a product no-one actually wants.

Hybrids aren't a bad idea, but they have limited application in road transport (which should be moved to more public means). I agree the batteries aren't good. The problem with hybrids is that they should have been inovating and developing the technology for decades. Instead we now get a flurry of excitement about them and roll outs that should have been further along in development. These are the leather sandle when we should have the cushioned running shoe.

tim290280 said:

Well you have two options.
1) Wait 50-100yrs and take measurements all that time. Over this time you should be able to prove and measure exactly what is happening. On the downside life as we know it will change, and not for the better.

Click to expand...

My point is, that life on earth has always been changing. It has never remained static. Here is the question, do we wish to preserve the environment as it is now or do we wish to let nature take its course? As mentioned in my other posts, at no time in earth's history has it been static. Things as simple as north and south aren't even consistently in the same place.

tim290280 said:

2) Do something now and maybe avert major changes in the climate such that we may never conclusively measure CC.

As an example of something that we take for granted, have no real understanding of, yet is happening anyway - quantum mechanics. Want proof, pick up your phone. Want to measure it..... can't be done. Want to understand it...... good luck. Does it mean that we should wait awhile before diving into having phones (and other quantum mechanics devices), you tell me.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, and a valid point. I don't particularly like the idea of climate change, I don't like that our urban centers are clogged with smog. That for me is reason enough to watch our efforts. I just have a problem with the scientific community present things to the public as conclusive fact when they are not.

I also agree that there are many things we do not understand. Hell, we don't even understand the nature of gravity yet. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a lovely piece of science, as is the Schrodinger equation, as is the theory of relativity. Does the fact that we do not fully know what the consequences will be mean we shouldn't experiment with the stuff? Hell no, if that were the case we would still be in the stone age. Experimenting with man made emissions and environmental conditions is certainly a valid experiment. But that's what they are.

tim290280 said:

I agree that there is going to be bad decisions made by government. But that isn't because of a lack of information, it is because of a overpreponderance to believe lobby groups.

Ethanol isn't bad, but the way it is being subsidised and the methods of manufacture are plain stupid. People knew this before they started, they just had $$ in their eyes. Oh and US corn is one of the most overinflated agricultural products in the world. Thankyou lobby groups for creating yet another market for a product no-one actually wants.

Hybrids aren't a bad idea, but they have limited application in road transport (which should be moved to more public means). I agree the batteries aren't good. The problem with hybrids is that they should have been inovating and developing the technology for decades. Instead we now get a flurry of excitement about them and roll outs that should have been further along in development. These are the leather sandle when we should have the cushioned running shoe.

Click to expand...

Ethanol (in present times) as a fuel is bad. It takes more energy to make than it gives off. This net negative energy balance makes it completely impractical. Until we have more efficient and advanced methods of making it we are just screwing ourselves. The energy to make it has to come from somewhere, and if its the US then that energy likely comes from burning fossil fuels. Exploring alternate fuels is an excellent proposition and have great hopes for it (as an automotive engineer).

Anyways, this has been a great discussion Tim. You have made some strong arguments. Just don't mistake me for one of the head in sand deniers. I am just not convinced of the source of global warming yet. There have been some interesting studies done on the effect of atmospheric water vapor and global warming done recently, have you read any of that? Those are very good reads. Can you recommend any favorite journals or papers of yours related to carbon emissions? I have read a lot of the north american literature, but not much from elsewhere.

Ryeland said:

My point is, that life on earth has always been changing. It has never remained static. Here is the question, do we wish to preserve the environment as it is now or do we wish to let nature take its course? As mentioned in my other posts, at no time in earth's history has it been static. Things as simple as north and south aren't even consistently in the same place.

Click to expand...

Yes this is true. But the ability to sustain human life as we know it under CC would be nigh on impossible. Take for example grain production. I think most cereal plants require <550ppm (I can't remember the exacts of this figure) of atmospheric CO2 to grow without inhibition. So by the end of this century one of the largest staples in the world diet will no longer be able to grow!!!!!

I think the point I'm driving at with the "lets wait and see if it is man-made" is a flawed argument. Regardless we have to address CC from methane, CO2, etc or cease to be (as we know it). Now there is a point that if it is natural then our abilities to control it would be limited, but that is an issue of front end versus response end control methods. We will need response methods of combat regardless, so at some stage the effectiveness of both will highlight which we are dealing with.

Fair enough, and a valid point. I don't particularly like the idea of climate change, I don't like that our urban centers are clogged with smog. That for me is reason enough to watch our efforts. I just have a problem with the scientific community present things to the public as conclusive fact when they are not.

I also agree that there are many things we do not understand. Hell, we don't even understand the nature of gravity yet. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a lovely piece of science, as is the Schrodinger equation, as is the theory of relativity. Does the fact that we do not fully know what the consequences will be mean we shouldn't experiment with the stuff? Hell no, if that were the case we would still be in the stone age. Experimenting with man made emissions and environmental conditions is certainly a valid experiment. But that's what they are.

Click to expand...

Ethanol (in present times) as a fuel is bad. It takes more energy to make than it gives off. This net negative energy balance makes it completely impractical. Until we have more efficient and advanced methods of making it we are just screwing ourselves. The energy to make it has to come from somewhere, and if its the US then that energy likely comes from burning fossil fuels. Exploring alternate fuels is an excellent proposition and have great hopes for it (as an automotive engineer).

Click to expand...

There are other ways of making ethanol and biodiesel, other sources, that are really quite good. Unfortuneately the lobbyists have pushed in all sorts of junk. My friend is doing research on canola as a biofuel, he did some back of the envelope calcs when he started and realised it was stupid. But our dept has been investigating a biofuel from tree pods that yields 30x that of canola.

Although two points we've both made that are really important:
1) Efficiency is really important. We waste a lot of resources.
2) Replacing fossil fuels with "renewable" fuels that we still burn isn't any better.
People rave about hydrogen fueled cars and their only emission is water....... Water is a greenhouse gas I heard of one power plant that will be "green energy" fueled by tree biomass. You grow the trees and then burn them. It is meant to be a closed system. An idiot can explain that it isn't a closed system.

Anyways, this has been a great discussion Tim. You have made some strong arguments. Just don't mistake me for one of the head in sand deniers. I am just not convinced of the source of global warming yet. There have been some interesting studies done on the effect of atmospheric water vapor and global warming done recently, have you read any of that? Those are very good reads. Can you recommend any favorite journals or papers of yours related to carbon emissions? I have read a lot of the north american literature, but not much from elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I've enjoyed this chat too. I'm glad your not a denier. I really get sick of having to defend science. Just the other day someone said that CC hadn't impacted on yield in our area of the world (West Australia). Well the reality is that 30yrs x 5% = 200-300 kg/ha of yield decrease in that time period. We would barely notice that as it has only been the last 10yrs that our equipment would be accurate enough to measure that change. Plus yield variability is of the order of 500kg/ha in any given field, let alone farm or district or state.

I've mainly been focussed on the Australian work that has been done. Our Aussie science organisation CSIRO has several reports that you can get from the website that references a lot of the leading research. My dept DAFWA has a climate group that has also done some work (mainly sea surface temps and frontal systems) that is good. There are climate journals and the agricultural journals that cover a lot of the key aspects. One key thing is to look for actual data usage rather than modelled data from other models. A model is only as good as the data going in, and at some point that really needs to be raw data. CSIRO's data models have tended to be using actual data to predict forward.

edit: tried repping you but apparently have been repping you too much of late.

No need to worry about the missed repping.

I am not advocating us waiting until its potentially too late to try something to reduce or reverse the changes to our atmosphere. However, I would just like people to be a little more cautious in promoting "Man made CO2" as the sole cause of this, and if we eliminate that we will be alright.

You are correct the bottom line we have both reached is that we are far too wasteful. I am very glad that global warming has got everything thinking efficiency.

You don't ever have to defend science to me. I fucking love science. Yeah that statement will label me as a nerd but I don't care. My passion for science and learning gives me great joy. So don't ever think that I am refuting the value of science. I am just of the school of mind that in order to have truly robust conclusions and theories we need to expose them to all sorts of very robust tests.

Biodiesel is a good technology, but the real problem is the lack of efficiency. I mean the only real means of supplying human energy requirements for the future that I can see are Solar and Geothermal. Making windmills is great, but it takes a lot of materials to make not enough energy. Not to mention the effect that expansive windmill fields have on local wind patterns.

I want a solar panel on my house, a electric car, and possibly, everything in house run by renewable energy, im serious. me and my pep pep , aren't tree hugging hippies, but we love saving money, and seeing our banks increase with $$$, rather than go V = downhill

Hypocrisy86 said:

I want a solar panel on my house, a electric car, and possibly, everything in house run by renewable energy, im serious. me and my pep pep , aren't tree hugging hippies, but we love saving money, and seeing our banks increase with $$$, rather than go V = downhill

Click to expand...

If you consider the cost of these things, it will be years before you are able to break even, so you'll be seeing your $$$ going off to pay for the debt incurred to buy or install these things.

Yeh Solar panels take several years to pay for themselves (dependant on sunshine hours).

Electric cars are not as good as fuel efficient cars in terms of cost and pollution (well, from what I've read in lay media, no research to back this one up).

I had a buddy talking to me about the carbon credits saying how he thinks its gonna be huge because from my understanding, people will be trading them just like stocks, bonds, and commodities?

tim290280 said:

Yeh Solar panels take several years to pay for themselves (dependant on sunshine hours).

Electric cars are not as good as fuel efficient cars in terms of cost and pollution (well, from what I've read in lay media, no research to back this one up).

Click to expand...

You are quite right. To power your electric car you need to plug it in at your house. If you live in the US there is a high chance that power is supplied by a coal fired plant. The electricity is then sent over miles and miles of power lines, there is approximately a 15%-20% loss of electricity by the time it reaches your walls. And the more electricity everyone uses the worse it gets. As the power lines heat up their resistivity increases so losses increase with them.

A very efficient car is better than electric.

Oloz said:

I had a buddy talking to me about the carbon credits saying how he thinks its gonna be huge because from my understanding, people will be trading them just like stocks, bonds, and commodities?

Click to expand...

From my understanding they'll be traded in the futures market like, gold, corn and oil etc, so anyone who has some carbon credits can go in the markets and sell them just like a farmer would. This would also mean that the prices won't be stable and will fluctuate which forces companies to have to go and hedge their future needs, and if they don't they risk going bankrupt if the prices rocket like oil did last year. This along with the rises in taxes is going to drive a huge number of companies out of the US.