hot enough for ya?

[DrDonkeyLove]

Get a hat, global cooling is coming

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1krdPDUEa

[dead man walking]

doctor,

there's this:

. . . global warming hasn't stopped, despite a recent lull in global surface temperatures. The oceans, which are the main heat sink for global warming, have scarcely skipped a beat in soaking up heat. The hiatus in global surface temperatures appears to simply be a reflection of natural variability, principally the exchange of heat between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. But we shouldn't expect this to last much longer. Eventually that ocean heat buried in deeper layers will come back to the surface, and we'll experience the warm phase of this natural cool/warm (La Niña/El Niño-based) cycle.

As if to reinforce this very point, a group of scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), have released an analysis of global temperatures in 2011, and near-future prospects. They find that 2011 was the 9th-hottest year on record (9 out of the 10 hottest years on record since 1880, have occurred in the 21st century), and that this cool-ish year (by 21st century standards, but hot by 20th century standards) was largely due to the cooling influence of a quiet phase of the 11 year-long solar cycle (small changes in the intensity of sunlight reaching Earth), and La Niña which has been dominant over the last 3 years (See figure 1). They conclude that the lull is an illusion, and that rapid warming of global surface temperatures is likely to resume in the next few years.

and you might want to have a look at this, which elaborates further on the lull in surface temps:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-pic ... rming.html

if you're chilly, i have several sweaters i'd be happy to sell you at bargain prices.

[Gene]

Even if human caused Global Warming is real, and is ongoing, why the need for Government Regulation and "enforced poverty" (raising the costs of energy)?

The "Science" does not logically lead to the "required" political solution.

[Turdacious]

The source for all things climate change:

[dead man walking]

Even if human caused Global Warming is real, and is ongoing, why the need for Government Regulation and "enforced poverty" (raising the costs of energy)?

if climate change is real, then that means some will be harmed--increase in diseases (epstein at harvard has been pointing this our for more than a decade), decline in agricultural production, loss of property value along coasts--to mention a few. in addition, it means market distortion. some energy sources--coal and oil--are subsidized. and the distortion benefits those causing the harm. that's irrational. it's hardly a "free" market.

so if you're okay with an economic structure that picks winners who are working against the common interest, then sure, do nothing. rail against regulation. have a middle-east policy that has us giving billions to people who work against us. pretend that's what the proper choice for sons of liberty.

as for you turd, the shoot-the-messenger bullshit is tired. you're embarrassing yourself.

[Herv100]

Once again, people who actually want and hope global warming to be real, so much so that they ignore evidence it is not and is in fact a political a scam, are fucked up individuals.

[Turdacious]

Even if human caused Global Warming is real, and is ongoing, why the need for Government Regulation and "enforced poverty" (raising the costs of energy)?

some incoherent, illogical bullshit.

[Pinky]

Even if human caused Global Warming is real, and is ongoing, why the need for Government Regulation and "enforced poverty" (raising the costs of energy)?

some incoherent, illogical bullshit.

No. It's Gene's quoted sentence that that was moronic, especially the "enforced poverty" bit. Energy is inefficiently cheap. Sometimes due to government interventions (much of the world consumes subsidized energy), but more often due to externalities that the market cannot price. The idea of either creating a market that allows the price of energy to include all of its costs or imposing a tax that does the same thing was not dreamed up by pro-government, liberal planners. It came straight out of the University of Chicago economics department.

And you don't even need to believe in global warming to conclude the costs of some energy in the US (e.g., Gasoline) are too low. Any tax reform aimed at making our tax code more efficient would raise those taxes as it lower (and flattened) rates on income and ditched deductions.

[DrDonkeyLove]

And you don't even need to believe in global warming to conclude the costs of some energy in the US (e.g., Gasoline) are too low. Any tax reform aimed at making our tax code more efficient would raise those taxes as it lower (and flattened) rates on income and ditched deductions.

I've heard that a lot from assorted libs/greens and the comparison is always to Europe where they pay huge taxes on fuel. I think it's too high but I can afford it. It's a big percentage of the budgets of the local rural poor and many of them can't afford it. Plus, higher fuel costs will raise the prices of everything which hammers people on the margins.

A gallon of gas/diesel already has substantial extra taxes that other products don't, so why should it require even more?

[Turdacious]

Even if human caused Global Warming is real, and is ongoing, why the need for Government Regulation and "enforced poverty" (raising the costs of energy)?

some incoherent, illogical bullshit.

No. It's Gene's quoted sentence that that was moronic, especially the "enforced poverty" bit. Energy is inefficiently cheap. Sometimes due to government interventions (much of the world consumes subsidized energy), but more often due to externalities that the market cannot price. The idea of either creating a market that allows the price of energy to include all of its costs or imposing a tax that does the same thing was not dreamed up by pro-government, liberal planners. It came straight out of the University of Chicago economics department.

And you don't even need to believe in global warming to conclude the costs of some energy in the US (e.g., Gasoline) are too low. Any tax reform aimed at making our tax code more efficient would raise those taxes as it lower (and flattened) rates on income and ditched deductions.

I didn't even read @'s moronic post until you quoted it. It does have a point though, the effects of rising energy prices disproportionately effect those on low or fixed incomes-- partly because it's more difficult for them to change to different (either cheaper or more efficient) energy sources (especially important during price and temperature shocks); partly because they tend to be less energy efficient (tending to have less energy efficient homes and vehicles); and partly because essential energy costs tends to be a more significant part of income.

Whether or not to price negative externalities into the market is, as you point out, largely a settled question among economists. How to do it, how to price them, and which ones to price in-- are not settled questions either politically or economically. And you know as well as I do that politicians don't (want or know how to) listen to economists.

[Turdacious]

Worst energy subsidy: ethanol.

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

Worst energy subsidy: ethanol.

What's wrong with spending 100 BTU of fossil fuels to get 85 BTU of ethanol?

[Pinky]

How to do it, how to price them, and which ones to price in-- are not settled questions either politically or economically. And you know as well as I do that politicians don't (want or know how to) listen to economists.

The last sentence is the most important. While you'll certainly find bickering over details, I don't think it would be hard to come up with a gasoline or carbon tax that nearly everyone working in environmental econ would agree is an improvement over what we currently have.

You'll also find widespread agreement over the ethanol subsidy, or any other government attempt to pick some winning technology of the future. Dealing with externalities is a better way to encourage investment in alternatives than anything the Dalai Bama his energy experts straight out of Iowa can dream up.

[Turdacious]

You're leaving out the important externalities. The latest clean energy failure is in Harry Reid's district. Solyndra is in the district of Pete Stark-- Chair of the House Ways & Means Health Subcommittee (at the time). Political payoffs > your economics mumbo jumbo.

[dead man walking]

turd,

be careful what you say. pinky is going to show up and make you look foolish.

generalizing from a single example. like solyndra, can be misleading. you know that. having said that, i have no interest in defending the solyndra loan. i would like us to manufacture solar panels here, not in china, but i don't how we do that today.

the wind industry has grown through reliance, in part, on a production tax credit. the subsidy is based on verified performance (at the meter). so we don't pay for dry holes, so to speak. the solar investment tax credit is similar: the investment has to be made and the generating facility built. i don't know whether pinky views these incentives as "picking winners." i'd be interested to know.

the ethanol subsidy is a farm state give-away, not a true clean energy program. one can only roll his eyes at farmer conservatives, sucking on the govt tit while complaining the govt should get out of their lives.

[Pinky]

Political payoffs > your economics mumbo jumbo.

Politicians can and will corrupt anything. This is why they went with cap and trade instead of a carbon tax. The two can be equivalent on a theoretical level, but a carbon tax is thought to usually be more efficient. Cap and trade, however, allows politicians to hand out favors by giving out free carbon credits. Some one once wrote something to the effect of "cap and trade = carbon tax + graft".

[Pinky]

turd,

be careful what you say. pinky is going to show up and make you look foolish.

generalizing from a single example. like solyndra, can be misleading. you know that. having said that, i have no interest in defending the solyndra loan. i would like us to manufacture solar panels here, not in china, but i don't how we do that today.

No, now I think he's right. Solyndra is an example of the government's incompetence at picking winners. This is why I think we should just price fossil fuels, etc. in a way that forces consumers to pay more of the costs involved and let that encourage people to look into alternatives. Whether solar panels are made here or in China does not matter. The CEA chair should kick Obama in the nuts every time he says "green jobs".

the wind industry has grown through reliance, in part, on a production tax credit. the subsidy is based on verified performance (at the meter). so we don't pay for dry holes, so to speak. the solar investment tax credit is similar: the investment has to be made and the generating facility built. i don't know whether pinky views these incentives as "picking winners." i'd be interested to know.

I don't think there are any business tax credits that I support. Ditch the credits and deductions, and encourage business by lowering the corporate tax rate for all of them. "Encourage" solar, wind, etc. by allowing coal and dirtier alternatives to bear the full cost of their use.

the ethanol subsidy is a farm state give-away, not a true clean energy program. one can only roll his eyes at farmer conservatives, sucking on the govt tit while complaining the govt should get out of their lives.

Tell that to the Obama administration. He actually selected ethanol lobbyists as energy advisers. He was, after all, a farm state Senator. McCain, in contrast, not only opposed the ethanol boondoggle, but had a long history of voting against agricultural bills.

[DrDonkeyLove]

Reference here.

Gasoline prices have never been higher this time of the year.
At $3.53 a gallon, prices are already up 25 cents since Jan. 1. And experts say they could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April. ... Higher gas prices could hurt consumer spending and curtail the recent improvement in the U.S. economy.
A 25-cent jump in gasoline prices, if sustained over a year, would cost the economy about $35 billion. That's only 0.2 percent of the total U.S. economy, but economists say it's a meaningful amount, especially at a time when growth is only so-so. The economy grew 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter, a rate considered modest following a recession.
High oil and gas prices now set the stage for even sharper increases at the pump because gas typically rises in March and April.
Every spring, refiners suspend operations to switch the type of gasoline they make. Supplies of wintertime gas are sold off before March, when refineries need to start making a new formula of gasoline that's required in the summer.
That can mean less supply for service stations, resulting in higher gas prices. And summertime gasoline is more expensive to make. The government mandates that it contain less butane and other cheap organic compounds because they contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, a primary constituent in smog. That means more oil, a costlier component, is needed to produce each gallon.
The Oil Price Information Service predicts that gasoline could peak at $4.25 a gallon by the end of April. That would top the record of $4.11 in July 2008.

High priced fossil fuels are what Obama wants right? Hey poor people, go fuck yourselves - especially the rural poor.

[Gene]

No. It's Gene's quoted sentence that that was moronic, especially the "enforced poverty" bit.

I agree that the sentence is moronic. I'm quoting Maurice Strong. He is a moron.

Energy is inefficiently cheap.

Inefficient with respect to what? Money, time, "environmental damage", threatening/harming someone's Sacred Cows?

How about breaking it down for the more simple amongst us, who are not amongst the Illuminati of Academia or at least aren't hip to the latest intellectual fads?

Sometimes due to government interventions (much of the world consumes subsidized energy), but more often due to externalities that the market cannot price. The idea of either creating a market that allows the price of energy to include all of its costs or imposing a tax that does the same thing was not dreamed up by pro-government, liberal planners. It came straight out of the University of Chicago economics department.

Pinochet's advisers were educated at the University of Chicago. Milton Friedman created Income Tax withholding during the Roosevelt Administration. If your point is that shitty stuff can come from the University of Chicago then I agree.

And you don't even need to believe in global warming to conclude the costs of some energy in the US (e.g., Gasoline) are too low.

Let's not confuse your opinions with facts.... not all of us are University Employees who have tenure, sinecures and are free of the necessities and compromises that constrain mundane people. Some of us have to compete in the marketplace, keep customers happy and prices down. Cheap energy is a great help in achieving those goals.

Some of us gotta work for a living, Pinky. Which means that we commute, ship stuff around and all of that.. We gotta eat and cake ain't on the diet.

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

Let's not confuse your opinions with facts.... not all of us are University Employees who have tenure, sinecures and are free of the necessities and compromises that constrain mundane people. Some of us have to compete in the marketplace, keep customers happy and prices down. Cheap energy is a great help in achieving those goals.

Some of us gotta work for a living, Pinky. Which means that we commute, ship stuff around and all of that.. We gotta eat and cake ain't on the diet.

There's no doubt that cheap energy is good for the economy. The problem is that we've kept fossil fuel energy artificially cheap for so long. Through subsidies, tax breaks, and not pricing in at least the worst externalities (putting the bill of health, environmental damage, and securing FF supply back on the consumer in the form of income taxes rather than cost at the pump), we've effectively killed any development on alternatives to gasoline and diesel for the last 30 years. This leaves us vulnerable to the price hikes that the oil market is known for.

If we had put all FF related superfund costs, all smog remediation costs, and all military security for FF supply straight onto the consumer at the pump we'd be paying north of $7/gallon. That would have spurred consumer demand for a better way. And what the consumer wants in this economy, the consumer gets. Just look at the development in smart phone technology over the last decade. In less than 10 years we've been developing shit that Start Trek hasn't dreamed of. If we had put that much effort into efficiency,battery technology, biofuels, etc. over the last 30 years we'd have at least removed the strategic importance of oil to our economy.

And that should be the major job of our transportation system right now - remove oil's strategic stranglehold on our nation. Make gas and diesel just another transportation option.

[Thatcher II]

Let's not confuse your opinions with facts.... not all of us are University Employees who have tenure, sinecures and are free of the necessities and compromises that constrain mundane people. Some of us have to compete in the marketplace, keep customers happy and prices down. Cheap energy is a great help in achieving those goals.

Some of us gotta work for a living, Pinky. Which means that we commute, ship stuff around and all of that.. We gotta eat and cake ain't on the diet.

There's no doubt that cheap energy is good for the economy. The problem is that we've kept fossil fuel energy artificially cheap for so long. Through subsidies, tax breaks, and not pricing in at least the worst externalities (putting the bill of health, environmental damage, and securing FF supply back on the consumer in the form of income taxes rather than cost at the pump), we've effectively killed any development on alternatives to gasoline and diesel for the last 30 years. This leaves us vulnerable to the price hikes that the oil market is known for.

If we had put all FF related superfund costs, all smog remediation costs, and all military security for FF supply straight onto the consumer at the pump we'd be paying north of $7/gallon. That would have spurred consumer demand for a better way. And what the consumer wants in this economy, the consumer gets. Just look at the development in smart phone technology over the last decade. In less than 10 years we've been developing shit that Start Trek hasn't dreamed of. If we had put that much effort into efficiency,battery technology, biofuels, etc. over the last 30 years we'd have at least removed the strategic importance of oil to our economy.

And that should be the major job of our transportation system right now - remove oil's strategic stranglehold on our nation. Make gas and diesel just another transportation option.

Spot on, Alfred. This is a security issue and a fairness issue. The success of the oil lobby has been to obscure the true cost and hide the subsidies.

I'd come at this from a much more radical environmental perspective than most here. But even disregarding all of that, for the right wing and libertarian amongst you, there's a compelling argument for doing things in a radically different way.

[DARTH]

Does it really matter what the science says? I have a feeling even if there was certainty we were redlining toward the precipice people woulds still refuse to give up their SUVs, air-conditioners, McMansions, etc.

We're a spineless generation. We deserve an ignominious fate.

Pity for the kids though.

If the intent is what's on the cartoosn's board then fine I am for it. Whther climate change is man made or natural it is pretty evident that clean air and water are good.

It's when this shit is used to back up the Enron hatched idea of carbon trading and allowing the Chinks to belch as much shit as they want into the air while fucking us in the US it's not good.

I personally think we have had an effect on climate but not as much as many of these so called expert, some of whom have been caught discussing how to jin up the data.

BTW as someone who is essentially Conservative, lot's of us understand biology and freely admit humans are apes. What many cons. reject is the "Case closed, we have ruled now let us ruin your way of life while we let the Chinks do what they want." aspect of all this. Shit my man Newt thinks their is something to man made climate change.

Funny though because the biggest climate Chiken Littles tend to be oppossed to nuclear power, the fucking cleanist way to generate massive power around, Nuclear.

So let's get it to where 60-70% of our electricity come from Nuke plants, 20% comes from Hydro and let wind and solar do the rest and stop burning coal. Coal we should be turning into gas like the Nazi's managed to do. We are the Saudi of coal but I think it's burning that shit all these years along with industrial emissions that aare our largest contribution to climate change and you don't need to know shit about any of this to get how bad it is for air quality just by standing near a coal burning plant. The answer aint solar and electric cars at least for the next 10-20 years so let's do what I was talking about and see what happens because the cartoon has it somewhat right.

Shit it be nice to be able to drink from any body of water in the US and only have to worry about Giardia and fish shit.

[Turdacious]

Let's not confuse your opinions with facts.... not all of us are University Employees who have tenure, sinecures and are free of the necessities and compromises that constrain mundane people. Some of us have to compete in the marketplace, keep customers happy and prices down. Cheap energy is a great help in achieving those goals.

Some of us gotta work for a living, Pinky. Which means that we commute, ship stuff around and all of that.. We gotta eat and cake ain't on the diet.

There's no doubt that cheap energy is good for the economy. The problem is that we've kept fossil fuel energy artificially cheap for so long. Through subsidies, tax breaks, and not pricing in at least the worst externalities (putting the bill of health, environmental damage, and securing FF supply back on the consumer in the form of income taxes rather than cost at the pump), we've effectively killed any development on alternatives to gasoline and diesel for the last 30 years. This leaves us vulnerable to the price hikes that the oil market is known for.

If we had put all FF related superfund costs, all smog remediation costs, and all military security for FF supply straight onto the consumer at the pump we'd be paying north of $7/gallon. That would have spurred consumer demand for a better way. And what the consumer wants in this economy, the consumer gets. Just look at the development in smart phone technology over the last decade. In less than 10 years we've been developing shit that Start Trek hasn't dreamed of. If we had put that much effort into efficiency,battery technology, biofuels, etc. over the last 30 years we'd have at least removed the strategic importance of oil to our economy.

And that should be the major job of our transportation system right now - remove oil's strategic stranglehold on our nation. Make gas and diesel just another transportation option.

1. $7 a gallon? The market adapts, and our ability to calculate costs more effectively has increased substantially in recent years.
2. Comparing smart phones to alternative fuels is a bit of a stretch. More emphasis on this kind of tech doesn't necessarily mean we would have gotten it any faster.
3. Remove oil's stranglehold? How? Part of the reason we're in the situation we're in is because the environmental policy in the 60's and 70's used mechanisms (like price control) that economists now mock as ineffective.

[Gene]

here's no doubt that cheap energy is good for the economy. The problem is that we've kept fossil fuel energy artificially cheap for so long.

If we had put all FF related superfund costs, all smog remediation costs, and all military security for FF supply straight onto the consumer at the pump we'd be paying north of $7/gallon.

We all pay for smog remediation through operating costs of power plants. Those of us who get inspected for smog devices are paying. A car with working smog devices is often less efficient than one that has been "tuned" for performance so we pay there by buying more gasoline.

Some of your 1990s vintage cars got fantastic mileage but aren't legal to make today. Talk to a Green about Detroit making cars to 1990s standards - they go apeshit. "Not one step back!!".

Superfund sites? I agree. Plus Companies who build at "Brownfield" sites who have to "remediate" and then pass the costs of it to consumers.

Military security, at least in my opinion, is more because Oil has been priced in Dollars than because of us needing to "secure" anything. Which Nations get hammered by the US Government? Any nation that tries to price oil in Euros, Gold or other currencies besides the Dollar.

Largest problem I see is a risk of supply disruption. The Expected Costs of oil supply disruption are huge in the US.

That would have spurred consumer demand for a better way. And what the consumer wants in this economy, the consumer gets. Just look at the development in smart phone technology over the last decade. In less than 10 years we've been developing shit that Start Trek hasn't dreamed of. If we had put that much effort into efficiency,battery technology, biofuels, etc. over the last 30 years we'd have at least removed the strategic importance of oil to our economy.

The biggest problem as I see it is an American culture that equates big cars with success. I catch shit driving an econobox. I get cut off by assholes. I get wise cracks from friends and coworkers. Fuck 'em - I'm cheap.

People who drive 3/4 ton pickups that haul something big a couple of times a year or folks who drive sports cars that can go well over 100 miles an hour are "successful".

Diesel cars are more popular in Europe than in the US is because the EU has lax NOx regs compared to us. Check out all of the Diesel cars made in Europe that get over here. They're all "modified" to pass US regs. Makes them run like dogs.

There are Diesel Mini Coopers, Toyota Yarises and many other small diesel cars that gets upwards of fifty to sixty miles per gallon. You could run them on diesel or bio fuel. They won't pass EPA standards and detuned to US NOx specs they won't sell in the US.

Biofuels at this point in history are scams. Corn sourced ethanol is a scam. Sugar sourced ethanol is a scam. Brazil is crushing their Sugar Cane cutters. In Central America sugar cane cutters are dying by the dozens from weird kidney diseases. Only a indifferent fuck would want sugar based ethanol.

There is a way, but not the way we're doing it now.

Electric cars are nice.... but at least half of the electricity in the US is generate by burning coal.

Where is the advantage of an electric car when the alternatives to coal are expensive natural gas, jerk off windmills and so on? Thorium cycle nuke tech is a wonderful alternative source for energy... but for some perverse reason it's been shunned. Maybe because of technical issues? I'm not sure, I don't play in the field. Lots of Thorium out there that can be bred into U-233.

Nuclear Fusion? The money spent on the Iraq invasion alone would have bought many ITER research reactors at Ten Billion US Dollars a piece. People talk about fusion. It works but nobody can make money at it yet. A few more test reactors using different methods and paying some researchers might speed things up for nuclear fusion.

Natural gas powered cars are nice. So is Producer gas from any partially burning anything. How many are sold in the US?

Hydrogen? Most of the hydrogen gas in the US is made by reforming Natural Gas. Electrolysis derived hydrogen is very expensive. Hydrogen gas leaks easy and will find the highest point in a building, where the electric lights are.

Alcohols would be better than Hydrogen. Butanol is supposed to replace gasoline on a straight basis. It's tough to make but work is being done on it.

And that should be the major job of our transportation system right now - remove oil's strategic stranglehold on our nation. Make gas and diesel just another transportation option.

My concern is supply reliability. The US is one political stunt away from a major crisis. That happens and we're all fucked.

The rub as I see it in the US are Sunk Costs (trillions of Dollars spent on cars and trucks that don't have electric motors and won't take them), American consumers who need an SUV to haul their fat asses around (in some cases literally), fucked up Environmentalists who think that they're always right and too much Corporate Rent Seeking.

I think neglect of the US Railroad system isn't helping either. Be nice to replace some of the diesel trucks with train transport. At worst we could bring back steam locomotives and burn whatever.

[Gene]

Even if human caused Global Warming is real, and is ongoing, why the need for Government Regulation and "enforced poverty" (raising the costs of energy)?

if climate change is real, then that means some will be harmed--increase in diseases (epstein at harvard has been pointing this our for more than a decade), decline in agricultural production, loss of property value along coasts--to mention a few. in addition, it means market distortion. some energy sources--coal and oil--are subsidized. and the distortion benefits those causing the harm. that's irrational. it's hardly a "free" market.

so if you're okay with an economic structure that picks winners who are working against the common interest, then sure, do nothing. rail against regulation. have a middle-east policy that has us giving billions to people who work against us. pretend that's what the proper choice for sons of liberty.

If it were about the Science you'd have at least discussed how to reach out to people who believe in Liberty and Free Markets.

Thanks for the Reality Check, DMW.

Some time you'll have to define what "common interest" means.... maybe you'd like to be a spokesperson for all seven billion of us.... or it is easier to be a spokesperson for "the planet"? As if you or others like you know what's best for everyone else.