Gas prices

[PassedOut]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

[hrothgar]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

 

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

 

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

[PassedOut]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

 

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

 

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

I did read the whole thread and observed that myself.

[jdonn]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

 

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

 

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

That's a far more kind way to put it than I would have...

[luke warm]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

 

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

 

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

I did read the whole thread and observed that myself.

what simplistic talking points did you observe? was it that one side sees nothing wrong with lying if it furthers its agenda? if so, i guess i plead guilty... the link i gave was to the 1st page of the thread (i think) with the expectation that the whole thing would be read... why do you think they feel the need to use those tactics?

[PassedOut]

what simplistic talking points did you observe? was it that one side sees nothing wrong with lying if it furthers its agenda?

For example, it is quite simplistic to accuse Stephen Schneider of condoning "lying."

 

And it's quite simplistic to say that "one side [the environmentalist side] sees nothing wrong with lying," as if the oil companies on the other side wouldn't dream of lying to advance their agendas (just as the tobacco companies before them wouldn't dream of paying for "research" to obfuscate the truth).

 

One of the very first management lessons I learned when I moved from a technical career was to be sure to trumpet (aggressively and repeatedly) the main points and the actions required by those points. Often that required some conscious over-simplification on my part, but it was imperative to do that to obtain other management support for what needed to be done, and to move large groups in concert.

 

It's important to understand the underlying complexities in a situation, and to be ready to discuss them in detail - to buttress the main points. But, in most situations (particularly in meetings), it's wrong to bring up any exceptions and complexities at all, because so much time gets wasted.

 

That doesn't mean you should deny that complexities exist (and are more fun to talk about too), but you often ignore them when pushing your goals. It's most simplistic, in my opinion, to classify effective communication as "lying."

[hrothgar]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

Wikipedia has a useful discussion about water vapor and global warming. (I took the liberty of underlining certain sections)

 

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%.[25] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).

 

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that warmer air can hold more water vapor per unit volume. Current state-of-the-art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by greenhouse gases such as CO2.

[han]

Wikipedia ..

Duh, liberal media!

[luke warm]

what simplistic talking points did you observe? was it that one side sees nothing wrong with lying if it furthers its agenda?

For example, it is quite simplistic to accuse Stephen Schneider of condoning "lying."

 

And it's quite simplistic to say that "one side [the environmentalist side] sees nothing wrong with lying," as if the oil companies on the other side wouldn't dream of lying to advance their agendas (just as the tobacco companies before them wouldn't dream of paying for "research" to obfuscate the truth).

maybe you're right... but show me where the "other side" has not only done so but has condoned the action

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

Wikipedia has a useful discussion about water vapor and global warming. (I took the liberty of underlining certain sections)

the figure i see most is that water vapor comprises 95% of the greenhouse gases... in any case, when the concentrations are computed, water vapor is often left out - in this way co2 and others have artificially high concentrations

[PassedOut]

Jimmy, I'm trying hard to understand your position, but you are making it difficult for me.

 

it "does not matter" in the sense that the earth will go through record cold or record heat, advancing or receding icecaps, regardless of what we do... let's say for the sake of argument that thru our actions we cause co2 in the atmosphere to drop by 5%... do you personally think that would mean that global warming wouldn't occur?

Surely you are not contending that the billions of tons of heat-trapping gases that man releases into the atmosphere do not affect the earth's climate. Is it your point that we are doomed anyway, so we might as well accelerate the process by continuing as we are?

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Assuming that you do accept that human activities pour billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere each year, I'm curious as to what mechanism you believe counteracts that to the point where "we don't affect the process" at all.

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

Assuming that you do accept that human activities pour billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere each year (and you haven't challenged that), you can contend that "we don't affect the process" only if you rely upon some other mechanism to cancel out the effects of those activities.

 

You could be relying upon a smaller amount of sunshine reaching the earth (perhaps because of other polutants) to be trapped as heat. That might counterbalance the effect of the heat-trapping gasses.

 

Or you could be relying upon some mechanism that releases heat that would otherwise be trapped. If you believe that water vapor does this, how does your proposed mechanism work?

 

In any case, if the mechanism you rely upon actually does the job, it does so regardless of what I believe about water vapor, or who lies, or anything else. So why not just tell me what it is?

[luke warm]

i apologize for any confusion, and what i say concerns only co2 (since that seems to be the basis for everyone's acceptance of a proposed carbon tax)... i'm simply saying that the % of co2 in the atmosphere, attributed to man, is far less than has been reported, because most computations i've seen leave off water vapor... that means, to my way of thinking, that the amount of co2 humans add to the atmosphere has no effect on whatever atmospheric warming has occurred...

 

check the computations using and not using water vapor

[hrothgar]

i apologize for any confusion, and what i say concerns only co2 (since that seems to be the basis for everyone's acceptance of a proposed carbon tax)... i'm simply saying that the % of co2 in the atmosphere, attributed to man, is far less than has been reported, because most computations i've seen leave off water vapor... that means, to my way of thinking, that the amount of co2 humans add to the atmosphere has no effect on whatever atmospheric warming has occurred...

 

check the computations using and not using water vapor

I am trying SO hard to hold my tongue right now...

 

In any case, can you point us at any of these "computations" of which you speak?

[awm]

We have a situation where the overwhelming majority of accredited experts in an area agree that there is a pressing crisis that needs to be addressed. When such a situation occurs, there are several ways to react:

 

(1) Point out that there are cases where, in the past, some accredited experts in this area have been wrong. Use this as justification to ignore the situation.

 

(2) Point out that people often have their own agenda, and then invent some sort of conspiracy which would explain why virtually all the accredited experts might have the same agenda. Use this as justification to ignore the situation.

 

(3) Deride the qualifications of the accredited experts. Find some other source (typically not a highly qualified source, you can even be the source yourself if necessary) and quote an explanation from that source which indicates that there is not in fact a pressing crisis. Then ignore the situation.

 

(4) Ask a bunch of random ordinary people whether they have seen evidence of this pressing crisis in their everyday lives. When they have not, deride the accredited experts as "ivory tower elitists" and "out of touch with the common man." Ignore their advice.

 

(5) Insist that while the crisis situation may exist and would be unfortunate, it would simply take too much time and money to deal with it. Remind everyone that "we have managed in difficult times in the past." Find an economic or accounting expert (preferably one who is wholly ignorant of the crisis situation mentioned) to support your analysis that dealing with it is too expensive. Do nothing to address the crisis.

 

(6) Listen to the warning from the experts in the area. Accept that people who have spent their entire career studying a phenomenon probably know what they are talking about when they discuss a possible crisis in their area of expertise, especially when they are in almost unanimous agreement. Follow their advice and do everything possible to deal with or prevent the crisis situation.

 

I think we've seen all of these approaches from our government, and we have also seen most of them suggested in this forum. Only one of them really qualifies as a logical, pro-science position to me (guess which). The others strike me as attempts to ignore reality and replace it with some belief system about how things ought to be.

[han]

I think you are really overdoing the boldfaces Adam. Too bad because for the rest you wrote a really nice post imo.

[luke warm]

i apologize for any confusion, and what i say concerns only co2 (since that seems to be the basis for everyone's acceptance of a proposed carbon tax)... i'm simply saying that the % of co2 in the atmosphere, attributed to man, is far less than has been reported, because most computations i've seen leave off water vapor... that means, to my way of thinking, that the amount of co2 humans add to the atmosphere has no effect on whatever atmospheric warming has occurred...

 

check the computations using and not using water vapor

I am trying SO hard to hold my tongue right now...

 

In any case, can you point us at any of these "computations" of which you speak?

look at the pie chart here ... water vapor is a greenhouse gas but to arrive at the 76% figure for co2, it is ignored completely... the same happens when man's portion of co2 is computed

We have a situation where the overwhelming majority of accredited experts in an area agree that there is a pressing crisis that needs to be addressed. When such a situation occurs, there are several ways to react:~~

which ones have you seen me do, adam?

[PassedOut]

look at the pie chart here ... water vapor is a greenhouse gas but to arrive at the 76% figure for co2, it is ignored completely... the same happens when man's portion of co2 is computed

Do you have references to computations and charts that you consider accurate?

[awm]

which ones have you seen me do adam?

 

Okay, here we go... no boldface, just to make Han happy.

 

1. Point out that there are cases where, in the past, some accredited experts in this area have been wrong.

 

This applies to all the discussion of "global cooling" from the 70s. I didn't find any Luke Warm posts in the current thread about this, but it has certainly been discussed.

 

2. Point out that people often have their own agenda, and then invent some sort of conspiracy which would explain why virtually all the accredited experts might have the same agenda.

 

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

 

what simplistic talking points did you observe? was it that one side sees nothing wrong with lying if it furthers its agenda?

 

3. Find some other source (typically not a highly qualified source, you can be the source yourself if necessary) and quote an explanation from that source which indicates that there is not in fact a pressing crisis.

 

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

 

the figure i see most is that water vapor comprises 95% of the greenhouse gases... in any case, when the concentrations are computed, water vapor is often left out - in this way co2 and others have artificially high concentrations

 

4. Ask a bunch of ordinary people whether they have seen any evidence of this pressing crisis in their everyday lives. When they have not.... conclude that there is no crisis.

 

assume for a moment that we do absolutely nothing.. what grave situation do you foresee?

 

do you think that during this long drop there were periods of drought, killer hurricanes, etc? i'm just asking

 

5. Insist that while the crisis situation may exist, it would simply take too much time and money to deal with it.

 

do those of you who support raising taxes (or implementing new taxes) think it would be even slightly idiotic right now?

 

As far as I know, no one on this forum is really qualified in this area. Do we have any climate scientists in the house? In such a scientific matter (do human actions contribute to global warming) most of us are not really qualified to comment. The question is whether we believe the opinions of those who are qualified.

[hrothgar]

i apologize for any confusion, and what i say concerns only co2 (since that seems to be the basis for everyone's acceptance of a proposed carbon tax)... i'm simply saying that the % of co2 in the atmosphere, attributed to man, is far less than has been reported, because most computations i've seen leave off water vapor... that means, to my way of thinking, that the amount of co2 humans add to the atmosphere has no effect on whatever atmospheric warming has occurred...

 

check the computations using and not using water vapor

I am trying SO hard to hold my tongue right now...

 

In any case, can you point us at any of these "computations" of which you speak?

look at the pie chart here ... water vapor is a greenhouse gas but to arrive at the 76% figure for co2, it is ignored completely... the same happens when man's portion of co2 is computed

It took me all of one minute worth of Google searching to determine that you are quoting a report produced by a couple sophmores from the University of Michigan...

 

Don't get me wrong: Michigan's a damn fine school.

But you're sourcing a sophmore class project

[jdonn]

It took me all of one minute worth of Google searching to determine that you are quoting a report produced by a couple sophmores from the University of Michigan...

 

Don't get me wrong: Michigan's a damn fine school.

But you're sourcing a sophmore class project

Aw come on. It starts off with a really neat drawing of the sun beaming its solar radiation onto earth, after that I was sold!

[kenberg]

Just to return for a moment to part of my original motivation for posting: I heard today on NPR that prices at the pump are at a five year low. Perhaps more importantly, oil price per barrel is down to around $50 or less from a high of maybe $130 plus. I am not so sure of all the causes, but I assume most would agree that it would be very good for the country if we didn't send monstrous amounts of cash out of the country to feed our addiction.

 

If we assume that the high cost at the pump was at least a contributing factor to the drop in usage and the drop in prices, is it not in our self interest to in some manner keep the pump price up? If we do nothing, the consumption will again rise and the price will again rise, and the beneficiaries will not be us.

 

One of my gripes against John Kerry in 2004 is that when he was accused of supporting a gas tax he dodged around with a "what, who, me?" approach. Seems to me the idea had merit. I realize there are problems, there always are, but it is done in many (most?) other countries, is it not?

 

Many conservation ideas suffer because they appear to require an ability to think a generation or two ahead. This oil problem seems more like an eating disorder to me. The effects of not dealing with it will arrive sooner rather than later.

[Gerben42]

People will only limit their energy use when it gets more expensive. One person may have a conscience and think about the environment. The herd doesn't. The voters are not interesting in a gas tax, since it affects them and why should it be them rather than the evil (fill in some group they think should save first). And what the voter doesn't want, the politician dares not propose.

 

In a way, this is sound thinking. Let's say we do everything to save oil. Then the countries that don't will use up the oil and all that we have done is to make them richer at the point where there is no more oil rather than us. Saving the environment is a noble cause, but if you do so while others don't, you're hurting yourself compared to them.

 

It's only now that people start discovering that sometimes saving energy is actually also cheaper. But this requires investments (for example by changing all your lightbulbs, buying a new more energy-efficient car, renovating your home) and most prefer to live on the way they did.

 

This will continue until the incentive is larger: High energy prices make people more willing to make these investments, and to put their airconditioning / heating on low power and rather adapt the way they dress to the actual conditions.

[helene_t]

As far as I know, no one on this forum is really qualified in this area. Do we have any climate scientists in the house?

No but we have a few who have qualifications in related fields (physics, astronomy, chemistry) as well as fields related to other aspects of this thread (economics), and they sometimes help by explaining some elementary misconceptions that come up in this forum and in the popular press. This can be interesting. What is not interesting (IMHO) is non-specialists (or even non-scientists) dismissing the scientific consensus based on his/her own attempts to practice arm-chair philosophy.

 

(Btw, I wonder how the climate can be as stable as it is if this water vapor thing really is a positive feedback loop. What I say isn't an argument for or against anything, I just mention it to show why I don't bother to participate in climate change discussions here or elsewhere: I have zip understanding of the issue myself but it seems that some of the most vocal participants have even less understanding).

 

Of course we are all (since we live in democracies) qualified to participate in political discussions, such as what should be done assuming that scientific consensus can basically be trusted.

[hrothgar]

As far as I know, no one on this forum is really qualified in this area. Do we have any climate scientists in the house? In such a scientific matter (do human actions contribute to global warming) most of us are not really qualified to comment. The question is whether we believe the opinions of those who are qualified.

You're right, but only in part...

 

We don't have any climate scientists who frequent the forums. (If we do, they certainly keep their mouth's shut) So what?

 

Do you really believe that we should (or would) take the word of a single, isolated subject matter expert as gospel truth? Look at the bridge section of the forums. That's an area where we do have world class individuals participating in discussions. I think that their opinions get given more weight. However, I don't think anyone takes the Fred's, Ulfs, Justin's, Frances, Roland's (yada, yada, yada) pronouncements as revealed truth.

 

The skill set that actually matters is the ability to read and synthesize information.

 

I suspect that most anyone on these forums who has the time and inclination should be able to figure out what's what...

[kenberg]

People will only limit their energy use when it gets more expensive. One person may have a conscience and think about the environment. The herd doesn't. The voters are not interesting in a gas tax, since it affects them and why should it be them rather than the evil (fill in some group they think should save first). And what the voter doesn't want, the politician dares not propose.

 

In a way, this is sound thinking. Let's say we do everything to save oil. Then the countries that don't will use up the oil and all that we have done is to make them richer at the point where there is no more oil rather than us. Saving the environment is a noble cause, but if you do so while others don't, you're hurting yourself compared to them.

 

It's only now that people start discovering that sometimes saving energy is actually also cheaper. But this requires investments (for example by changing all your lightbulbs, buying a new more energy-efficient car, renovating your home) and most prefer to live on the way they did.

 

This will continue until the incentive is larger: High energy prices make people more willing to make these investments, and to put their airconditioning / heating on low power and rather adapt the way they dress to the actual conditions.

Generally I agree, but perhaps this is a time when there is some suitable incentive, at least for a large enough part of the population to get something done. Consider:

 

A. Rising demand causes sharp increases in price. Proof: We have just seen it.

 

B. We cannot keep sending more money out of the country than we take into the country forever. Proof: This gets perhaps trickier, but there must be at least some people who can see the point of this. People tend to think in analogies, and at least some people still understand that they cannot forever spend more money than they make.

 

C. Conclusion: We have to draw down on the use of energy in general and oil in particular.

 

 

People at large have noticed that things are a bit *****ed up, to use a technical economic phrase. They may be ready for some sensible suggestions.

 

You are in a better position than I to say how Europeans have come to accept significant taxes on oil usage. Much more so than here, they have done so, am I right?

 

Helping the environment is always a hard sell, but if used as a supplemental argument to a primarily economic one, it should play a positive supporting role.

[helene_t]

You are in a better position than I to say how Europeans have come to accept significant taxes on oil usage. Much more so than here, they have done so, am I right?

Why Europeans accept higher taxes in general than do Americans:

- Europeans generally demand more government services than do Americans.

 

Why Europeans accept higher gasoline taxes in particular than do Americans:

 

- We don't have an oil lobby here (well some countries have north sea oil but the heavy taxes predate that).

 

- Cars are less of an icon of our culture than it is in the US.

 

But even here, gasoline taxes are probably too low, even without considering the CO2 issue. I see no reason to let the taxes be lower than the sum of externalities related to car usage. Then again, public transport (including airlines) are subsidized, too, and bicycle users don't pay for their toll on emergency rooms.

 

Looks like governments everywhere just don't want people to walk. Or to move closer to their work.