Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Here's an interesting graph and attending commentary...

Quote:

Regulation Breeds Innovation

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, do you know how to access that which correctly lists the alleged pro and alleged con human-caused-GW scientists?" Until you do, I'll base my opinion on these facts:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
(1) From 1909 to 1998 average global temperature increased less than 8%.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
(2) Solar activity increased 57% from 1900 to 2000.
(3) Solar sunspots have increased by a factor of 2.29 over the same time period.
(4) "The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago."

Just a question here about the 8%, ican, if that is based on temperature above freezing? ----I think it would be more accurate to calculate it as a percentage increase from the temperature above absolute zero.
Also, the solar activity, how does that calculate in terms of total solar output, I think it is more like a small fraction of 1% increase, but as has been posted here before, there are questions in regard to how different wavelengths affect cloud cover, etc. It has already been recognized that the sun by itself probably accounts for close to 0.3 degrees C, and it could easily be more depending on other unknown factors in play, as part of the solar cycle.

So, I agree with your conclusion, but just wondering about the numbers used.

blatham wrote:

Here's an interesting graph and attending commentary...

Quote:

Regulation Breeds Innovation

Your point here is undoubtedly correct. However, not all regulation is actualy beneficial in achieving its intended purpose, and not all of the innovation it excites actually contributes to the intended purpose or the public welfare.

For example the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in this country in the early years of the 20th century stimulated a great deal of innovation in areas ranging from the local production of "bathtub gin" to the illicit import of Canadian booze and its distribution through a criminal network that in effect enjoyed a government-sponsored monopoly. Hardly an example of regulation for the public good. Moreover very little of the innovation so excited contributed in any way to a reduction in alcohol abuse by the drinking public.

The fact is that until the clean air act there was no reason to wish for or desire a reduction in the sulfur dioxide content of industrial stack gas. The SO2 had (and has) little economic value. Thus the regulation in this case created an appetite for innovation that did not previously exist. Interestingly, and ironically, our success in limiting SO2 emissions significantly exacerbated the greenhouse gas problem in that SO2 has a powerful counter effect in the atmosphere. This illustrates the potential for unforseen adverse side effects in regulation.

In addition, among the several unanticipated features of the Clean Air Act is that it created disincentives for the incremental modernization and improvement of existing powerplants -- including improvements that would reduce the very emissions the Clean Air Act was intended to limit.

The law and government regulation are blunt instruments that don't easily change and evolve with changing circumstances. Regulations, once established, tend to remain long after their intended purpose has been met or become irrelevant with the passage of time. In general the regulated world quickly acclimates itself to the regulations - including even the subversion of its intended purpose - and usually does so with more creativity and agility than is shown by the bureaucratic types who craft the regulations.

Thus the bland statement that "Regulation breeds innovation" is about as usefully meaningless as (say) the assertion that coercion breeds compliance.

*

The German government estimates that 1960s homes use four times the energy for heating than a modern, energy-efficient home.

The bill is estimated to have an annual cost across the economy of 31 billion euros per year. But, the 36 billion euros per year in lower bills for coal, oil, and gas will offset this without considering other benefits (such as reduced pollution, reduced requirements to move that coal, oil, gas, etc).

Quote:

*

The German government estimates that 1960s homes use four times the energy for heating than a modern, energy-efficient home.

The bill is estimated to have an annual cost across the economy of 31 billion euros per year. But, the 36 billion euros per year in lower bills for coal, oil, and gas will offset this without considering other benefits (such as reduced pollution, reduced requirements to move that coal, oil, gas, etc).

Regulations in Germany, breeding innovation and new techniques. The end result will be a large net savings in power usage.

Doesn't make oil companies more money, however, so I don't expect anyone here (on the right at least) to give a damn.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

*

The German government estimates that 1960s homes use four times the energy for heating than a modern, energy-efficient home.

The bill is estimated to have an annual cost across the economy of 31 billion euros per year. But, the 36 billion euros per year in lower bills for coal, oil, and gas will offset this without considering other benefits (such as reduced pollution, reduced requirements to move that coal, oil, gas, etc).

Regulations in Germany, breeding innovation and new techniques. The end result will be a large net savings in power usage.

Doesn't make oil companies more money, however, so I don't expect anyone here (on the right at least) to give a damn.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. Even people "on the right respond sensibly to evolving economnic realities. There is no shortage of evidence showing that people will on average seek lower cost alternatives, even in the absense of compulsory regulation.

If I were as inclined as you to make sweeping accusatory generalities, I suppose I could assert that people on the left are inclined to favor coercive regulation of the behavior of others, and the attendant limitations on the freedom of people who think differently from themselves.

The bill is estimated to have an annual cost across the economy of 31 billion euros per year.

I realize everyone has been wondering "Why hasn't McG chimed in yet?" so I will keep you waiting no longer...

Are people destroying the Earth? Yep.
Are we doing enough to help curb the destruction? Nope.
Will the Earth go on long after man has left? Yep.

There is no doubt at all that man is helping to destroy the environment. Polluted water, destruction of nature resources, wasteing what we have, etc...

But, man has the intelligence (well, some men) to use the resources provided and to make a more comfortable life for himself. Goes with being the top level predator, but with great power, comes great responsibility. Man has the responsibility to use the resources wisely, which we aren't doing.

I fully support the advancement of renewable power generation and more efficient transportation, etc. We should, and we owe it to our children, be doing more to conserve what we have.

Now, the GW alarmists out there take this to an extreme and any extremist, no matter the cause, is just asking for trouble. Global warming is not a bad thing. I think that's something most people don't understand. What exactly is so bad about global warming? Some ice melts and people have to move from their current beach homes? C'est la vie.

Plants are more efficient at higher CO2 levels. More plants means more food for animals. More plants make more O2. It's a good cycle. Life on Earth has been through much worse and we will survive this warming phase as we go through the normal terrestrial cycles. Someday, we will have another ice age. Alarmists will be talking about that then just as they do know.

So, in conclusion... Is global warming real? Sure is. Is a part of it man made? Yep. Can we do something about it? To an extent. Everything we do has an effect on it, but ruining our lives over something that has a global effect is not a good idea. All things in moderation.

"Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies which our economy and technology is perfectly capable of, then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world. But suppose they're [the skeptics] wrong, suppose they're wrong and climate change is real and we've done nothing? What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans?"

Oh, but you do make sweeping generalities from time to time, George. Just pointed the other way.

Without these regulations, there's little doubt that the environmentally friendly buildings would be built in Germany at a much slower rate then they currently will be, as they very rarely are the lower cost alternative up front.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo quoted-

Quote:

The bill is estimated to have an annual cost across the economy of 31 billion euros per year.

As you don't say how the figure is estimated or who by and you don't say where the money goes when it has been "saved" how can you expect anybody to give a damn--left, centre or right?

One local authority here, the only one so far investigated, had all the housewives separating their waste and washing all the jars and tins and keeping the paper apart and putting each designated item in separate containers, supplied on contracts, for the garbage collections and they were shoving the lot into a landfill to keep costs down. And fining people who put a tin in the glass bin or plastic in the organic.

All the residents have five bins apiece. And five different trucks come round to collect it manned by crews of lads with shaved heads and tattoos.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, but you do make sweeping generalities from time to time, George. Just pointed the other way.

Without these regulations, there's little doubt that the environmentally friendly buildings would be built in Germany at a much slower rate then they currently will be, as they very rarely are the lower cost alternative up front.

Cycloptichorn

I suppose I do. However I am RIGHT! :wink:

Not entirely true about the up front cost. My company does a good business consulting for architects and large owners of property and buildings. The cost of an energy efficient structure is usually about 2% greater than an ordinary one, and the payback period in terms of utility costs is about 2-3 years, depending on location. Even on a present value basis the energy efficient option is much cheaper. No regulation is really required - the market will do the job quite well. However those of an authoritarian bent who instinctively love regulation will no doubt impose some rules and claim credit for what is happening anyway.

Besides Germans like rules. I don't.

The 2% - 3% number I cited is for large commercial and government buildings. I don't know specifically what might be the comparable figure for residences, but I would doubt that it would be much different.

In general I value freedom over some bureaucrat's concepts of efficiency. I believe that economic history amply supports the relative superiority of free, competitive societies over regulated ant hills.

I really couldn't care less if you give a damn or not, Spendi. It's plainly obvious you aren't interested in substantive discussion of this topic.

Cyclo wrote-

Quote:

I really couldn't care less if you give a damn or not, Spendi. It's plainly obvious you aren't interested in substantive discussion of this topic.

I was looking for some substantive discussion with my peply. And answers to the questions I asked.

And I did say "anybody" not just me. The post I replied to meant very little.

And you should care what I think. What's the point of campaigning if you don't give a damn about the unconverted not giving a damn. And there's a few billion of us. What's the point of campaigning at the converted?

To sound off I suppose. And then you go all precious when the unconverted, who are a serious campaigner's target, shows a little resistance.

You're not serious man. You're a poseur.

The 2% - 3% number I cited is for large commercial and government buildings. I don't know specifically what might be the comparable figure for residences, but I would doubt that it would be much different.

In general I value freedom over some bureaucrat's concepts of efficiency. I believe that economic history amply supports the relative superiority of free, competitive societies over regulated ant hills.

I believe that economic history amply supports the relative superiority of free, competitive societies over regulated ant hills.