We're freezing! Isn't it great? The carbon tax must be working!

Recommended Posts

(edited)

On 1/21/2020 at 1:11 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

There is no way you can look at the climate change issue, blame it on human interference and NOT take into account the astronomical growth in human population since 1800. To do so is to ignore a root cause of the problem.

While aging populations in many developed countries will force the populations in those countries to find an equilibrium (and force a dependence on technology to replace the lost workforce), the populations of Asia, Latin America and Africa will continue to increase rapidly.

At some point it will get interesting as the developing world will eventually run out of developed nations to blame for their ills.

Nice that you mentioned population as the source of the additional CO2 emissions.

I attached the graph from economic geography from my freshman year.

All developed nations are at stage 5 (low birth and death rate and population stable).

Every nation goes through the stages 1 to 5.

Unfortunately for all of us many, too many countries stay too long at Stage 2, do not move to Stage 3.

The primary factor that impacts the natural increase of population is number of children per woman.

The primary factor that impacts the number of children per woman is the age at birth of the first child and education level of woman (education level is also correlated with age of birth of the first child).

So to stop population growth and go to Stage 3 and 4,  you need educated women. Apart from this a good administrative way in early years of stage 3 is to increase the age when marriage is legally allowed from 18 years to 21 years old for both sexes.

Also in modern times with relatively very low prices of food and foreign aid in the form of food and vaccinations/helath care for poor countries it is possible for a very low level of economic development country with illiterate women to go to Stage 2.

Many countries stay in Stage 2 due to political and societal reasons like Middle Eastern countries (apart from Israel and Iran) that have money for health care and food, but keep women not educated and depraved off human rights, and mandate them to have a lot of children.

image.png

Demographic-Transition-Schematic.png

Edited by Marcin2
typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

In the past not developed African countries would stay in Stage 1, women would have 4-6 children, 3 of them would die before the age of 5, another 1 before the age of 18, and life expectancy at birth would stay at about 25-30 years, 45-50 years if we do not count children that die at birth or before reaching age of 18.

But because we have civilization we bring vaccination, some elements of modern healthcare and food is dirt cheap so some could be donated or purchased by even the poorest nations.

So life expectancy rises to 55-60 years (unless you have AIDS epidemic like in sub-saharan Africa, then subtract 5 years) but illiterate women still have 4-6 children.

The best way to limit population growth is to bring primary education to developing countries, it is the best thing developed countries can do. For Persian Gulf barbarians there are unfortunately no solutions, their population growth will stay at 3%, but on the other hand they are less than 2% of humanity.

So the best way to be green in modern world is to bring universal primary education, even 4-6 years of schooling to women.

And change cultural habits by prohibition of marriages at low age. Contraception some would say, yes it is important but woman has to be educated, has to be full member of society, to start teaching about contraception.

 

 

Edited by Marcin2
typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

China is the most evil country, the main culprit in the world as far as additional CO2 emissions are concerned.

They build a lot of infrastructure in over 100 countries as part of Belt and Road Initiative.

The direct effect of this infrastructure acting as enabler is high economic growth of these countries, industralization and change of living habits. People get electricity, heavy industry, cars, sewage etc.

The direct effect of these actions is the geometric increase of CO2 emissions.

Not developed Africa (1.2 billion people) has 0.25 tons of CO2 per capita.

India has 1.9 tons of CO2 per capita.

And it only gets worse later:

Vietnam 2.5

China 6.7

Japan, Germany 9

United States 15

Qatar 40.

Global average per BP statistical report in 2018 was 34 gigatons /7.5 billion people = 4.8 tons per capita

but in OECD it was about 9.5 tons per capita  (for 1.3 billion people)

rest of the world about: 3.5 tons per capita (for 6.2 billion people)

China 9.5 billion tons, 6.7 tons of CO2 per capita (for 1.4 billion people)

rest of the world (without OECD and China) = 2.5 tons per capita (4.8 billion people)

When China will go to 10 and the rest of these poor countries to 7 we will have real problem of additional 31 gigatons of CO2 emission,  nearly doubling the current level.

So as I just proved China by accelerating global growth through infrastructure investment is bringing us closer to the climate change doom.

 

 

Edited by Marcin2
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

That is well known.

Food for thought, if you accept that cities emit and hold heat, and there are a lot of cities, wouldn't that mean the world is warming? 

Or are you suggesting the countryside magically cools itself down such that the average temperature is not increasing?  Or are cities not part of the earth? 

"The earth isn't warming, just the cities." 

Anthony Watts, of wattsupwiththat fame began his "skeptic" career by taking photographs of "weather stations" at airports. Invariably they were improperly sited, oftentimes standing on poles above the tarmac, with all the inherent heat gain that entails.  His website was setup to allow other people to upload pictures of their local weather stations. Then the federal government stepped in, claiming National Security and demanding cease and desist. Think about that for a minute. There is no way in hell National Security is impacted by pictures of weather equipment. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed, thousands of weather stations were taken offline never to be replaced. Some of the coldest places in the world PERMANENTLY DISAPPEARED from the dataset. Not that those countries couldn't operate a weather station, but because the IPCC created a "rule" that any gap in the record meant expulsion for that location. Today we have less and less stations and more and more "interpolation" which is totally BS.  

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

25 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Anthony Watts, of wattsupwiththat fame began his "skeptic" career by taking photographs of "weather stations" at airports. Invariably they were improperly sited, oftentimes standing on poles above the tarmac, with all the inherent heat gain that entails.  His website was setup to allow other people to upload pictures of their local weather stations. Then the federal government stepped in, claiming National Security and demanding cease and desist. Think about that for a minute. There is no way in hell National Security is impacted by pictures of weather equipment. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed, thousands of weather stations were taken offline never to be replaced. Some of the coldest places in the world PERMANENTLY DISAPPEARED from the dataset. Not that those countries couldn't operate a weather station, but because the IPCC created a "rule" that any gap in the record meant expulsion for that location. Today we have less and less stations and more and more "interpolation" which is totally BS.  

I don't doubt many weather stations are at airports.

Still.. if all these thermometers are measuring warmer, is it wrong to conclude the world is warming?  Perhaps they can't be used to measure a "true" world temperature average, but they are still recording warming. Thermodynamics says heat doesn't flow from cold to hot areas so the surroundings must be at least the same or warmer than before.

Thus, if you accept widespread local warming you accept global warming.

P.S. National security risks are often silly.  Why can't I play on my cellphone while waiting in line at customs?

Interpolation isn't all bad, much better than extrapolation. Heck, the limit of interpolation as the interpolation range approaches zero is the true value. The limit of extrapolation as it approaches infinity is garbage.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I don't doubt many weather stations are at airports.

Still.. if all these thermometers are measuring warmer, is it wrong to conclude the world is warming?  Perhaps they can't be used to measure a "true" world temperature average, but they are still recording warming. Thermodynamics says heat doesn't flow from cold to hot areas so the surroundings must be at least the same or warmer than before.

Thus, if you accept widespread local warming you accept global warming.

P.S. National security risks are often silly.  Why can't I play on my cellphone while waiting in line at customs?

Interpolation isn't all bad, much better than extrapolation. Heck, the limit of interpolation as the interpolation range approaches zero is the true value. The limit of extrapolation as it approaches infinity is garbage.

0.01% of the earths surface... man made and then the religious nuts homogenize AKA distribute this heat island effect to surrounding territory and input that into their "models".   which means all the models are automatically biased to reality.  That is not science.  That is fraud BS.  Earth warms, earth cools all by itself.  There is this odd thing called the sun, clouds, and space to irradiate to/from

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I don't doubt many weather stations are at airports.

Still.. if all these thermometers are measuring warmer, is it wrong to conclude the world is warming?  Perhaps they can't be used to measure a "true" world temperature average, but they are still recording warming. Thermodynamics says heat doesn't flow from cold to hot areas so the surroundings must be at least the same or warmer than before.

Thus, if you accept widespread local warming you accept global warming.

P.S. National security risks are often silly.  Why can't I play on my cellphone while waiting in line at customs?

Interpolation isn't all bad, much better than extrapolation. Heck, the limit of interpolation as the interpolation range approaches zero is the true value. The limit of extrapolation as it approaches infinity is garbage.

The Published science backs me up. You should quit while you're behind

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

0.01% of the earths surface... man made and then the religious nuts homogenize AKA distribute this heat island effect to surrounding territory and input that into their "models".   which means all the models are automatically biased to reality.  That is not science.  That is fraud BS.  Earth warms, earth cools all by itself.  There is this odd thing called the sun, clouds, and space to irradiate to/from

It's like you understand climate change while simultaneously disputing it.  You can't have places that are hotter than normal without it increasing the average. #Math

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The Published science backs me up. You should quit while you're behind

LOL You mock real published science all the time and now promote a website. Joke.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget CO2... let start from the basics for you guys.

Is fire hot? 

If you light oil on fire does it get  warmer?

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

LOL You mock real published science all the time and now promote a website. Joke.

You failed the IQ test, no surprise. The peer reviewed papers were linked inside the webpage. 

As for your fire stupidity, are you now claiming Global Warming is caused by human fires and not the sun? Can you do math? If every drop of oil were to be combusted tomorrow, it would amount to a tiny fraction of the energy hitting the planet from the sun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 3:20 AM, Jan van Eck said:

You are henceforth a non-person.

Gandalf, my friend you keep abusing your magic wand with non personum spell you end up expelled from Hogwart soon !

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Which proves he is one of a very few real patriots in Canada.

Canada is actively destroying its environment, for the sake of oil hunger of its Big Brother from the South.

Canadian oil output 255 million tons, consumption 110 million tons, the rest exported to the United States.

Canada is losing a lot of money (if you take under consideration externalities) by extracting their heavy oil with huge ecological footprint and selling it at high 30s in USD at best. It is a pity Canadians are so st*pid, but on the other hand they have 10 millon km2 of land to destroy, for only 40 million citizens, so can be ecological barbarians for a looong time.

What is also important to notice the expensive light oil is imported to Canadian East Coast, about 70 million tons yearly, and nearly all very cheap heavy oil from dirty operations is exported to United States.

Restricting output to the level of domestic consumption would decrease Canadian GDP by maximum 15 billion USD that is 1% of GDP but keep land and oil for future generations  (or at least until it could be sold at fair global market prices, without 40% Big Brother discount).

US vs Canada relations are so similar to Soviet Union vs communist satellite states or European colonial empires vs African&Latin American colonies.

Russia is a sort of Chinese and European Canada, but at least Russia is paid in real dollars without steep discounts.

 

 

I suspect Trump wants more pipelines and oil from Canada because he is getting paid somehow. Or he wants to replace the hole in supply from his actions in Iran, Venezuela etc. But you must have missed the news. Because of fracking the US is net oil and gas energy independent. That oil from Canada is refined and shipped to countries like Mexico,Brazil, Columbia etc. Obama knew that and that’s why more pipelines were refused. The US simply doesn’t need the oil anymore. 
With all the infrastructure in place a grandfathered slow down would only be fair to the Canadians but certainly new infrastructure and more supply just threatenes our environment. The Canadians need a timeline with mile markers to export their own product over their own lands.

The big brother from the south will reject much of that oil when a Dem gets Congress.

Edited by Boat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Boat said:

I suspect Trump wants more pipelines and oil from Canada because he is getting paid somehow.

< sigh >

I'm not even ...     words fail me.

Carry on.

Don't mind me, I'll just be over here banging my head against the wall.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

< sigh >

I'm not even ...     words fail me.

Carry on.

Don't mind me, I'll just be over here banging my head against the wall.

As I do with many of your talking points posted deliberately to irritate. But that aside the prez has not tweeted the grand scheme of why he thinks we need over 4 mbpd of oil after his pipelines are built. Don’t you think the US citizens deserve some transparency and background on policy? Justification backed by needs or what are our gains? This seems like a fair expection.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

You failed the IQ test, no surprise. The peer reviewed papers were linked inside the webpage. 

As for your fire stupidity, are you now claiming Global Warming is caused by human fires and not the sun? Can you do math? If every drop of oil were to be combusted tomorrow, it would amount to a tiny fraction of the energy hitting the planet from the sun. 

Whatever, you hate peer reviewed papers.  You have said so numerous times when they don't agree with you. I'm not going through trash websites to find a link to a real paper.

Fire thing was a joke.

But for fun, if we burnt off all the oil would that cause global warming? Not from the heat of fire but by some other well published mechanism? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Whatever, you hate peer reviewed papers.  You have said so numerous times when they don't agree with you. I'm not going through trash websites to find a link to a real paper.

Fire thing was a joke.

But for fun, if we burnt off all the oil would that cause global warming? Not from the heat of fire but by some other well published mechanism? :)

I've said the peer review process was flawed and corrupted in regards to climate science specifically. I've even posted the links and quoted from "the team" who were complaining vigorously that "skeptics" views were being published. Then they went on to say they would not let any more skeptic papers get published "even if we have to redefine what peer review means!" They've largely succeeded in that endeavor, because cabal. 

Since your puny mind is terrified you'll have cognitive dissonance if you expanded it by reading the link, I'll summarize for you. Watts managed to get published in a peer reviewed Journal. The cabal couldn't have that so they (because it was too late to unpublish) did a study to disprove the Watts paper. Unfortunately they only succeeded in proving his point. Score one for REAL science. Because that's how peer review happens in every other field. 

You're welcome to not click on the link to the scientific study and continue to pretend you're some kind of scientist because you've chosen a scientific term as a user name. Real scientists aren't fooled. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2020 at 4:41 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Some amusement on a snowy winter day.  Got around 6 inches of snow last night.  The residual effects of Canada's Carbon (Dioxide) Tax must have drifted down here South of Canada's border.  Well done Canucks on taxing Global Warming into submission!

Rex Murphy: We're freezing! Isn't it great? The carbon tax must be working!

 

On 1/21/2020 at 5:32 AM, Jan van Eck said:

PS:  If I had the coin, I would build a big bitumen upgrader in Alberta or Saskatchewan and a set of product refineries next door.  Lots and lots of money to be made given the depressed price of the feedstock, the oilsands oil.

The party is here....... where are we going??O.o:$

uber n party.jpg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 5:54 AM, Rob Plant said:

The problem with reducing a country's population ultimately leads to an ageing population. This puts far more strain on the declining population of working age to maintain economic parity or better.

It is a major problem that will face China in years to come.

This of course doesn't help climate change if you believe population has a direct link to it.

IMO only technological breakthroughs can solve the problem.

What kind of technological breakthroughs? We already have numerous forms of birth control. We also have several ways to produce clean energy. Yet, we still see coal use increasing. I would say it is more of a values vs. greed problem. That is why there is increasing coal use and worldwide flaring of methane. It seems to me that we need increases in wisdom and education. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 10:48 PM, PE Scott said:

Username "Boat" and your anti-navy? Surely there's been a mistake.

In all seriousness though, I'd argue the Navy is the most effective deterrent the U.S. has.

 

I can get behind some of what you're saying though.

The only main thing the navy has that makes a lot of sense to me is submarines, but that depends on not being targeted by all the new and emerging technology that we already have to destroy subs. Knowing submarines are cruising near your own shores should be very good for Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 11:31 PM, Keith boyd said:

a radio station in town started talking about "cold tourists" who come here to experience the coldest weather on earth

Sheesh.  Now it is "cold tourism."   And I thought sex tourism was bad enough.   What is it all coming to? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2020 at 11:56 AM, Boat said:

But you must have missed the news. Because of fracking the US is net oil and gas energy independent. That oil from Canada is refined and shipped to countries like Mexico,Brazil, Columbia etc. Obama knew that and that’s why more pipelines were refused. The US simply doesn’t need the oil anymore. 
With all the infrastructure in place a grandfathered slow down would only be fair to the Canadians but certainly new infrastructure and more supply just threatenes our environment. The Canadians need a timeline with mile markers to export their own product over their own lands.

The big brother from the south will reject much of that oil when a Dem gets Congress.

This forum becomes really too difficult to comment, it goes so much down the drain. You repeat again as many persons here also do , the lie that US is crude oil independent. You should also show some data that it was true for 13 days in October 2019. And people upvote this bullsh*t.

And there is more personal attacks at this forum than Real stuff. I am really tired, should be off for some time, maybe will find some better place for Real exchange of ideas.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

What kind of technological breakthroughs? We already have numerous forms of birth control. We also have several ways to produce clean energy. Yet, we still see coal use increasing. I would say it is more of a values vs. greed problem. That is why there is increasing coal use and worldwide flaring of methane. It seems to me that we need increases in wisdom and education. 

Yeah I agree Ron however renewables are more expensive currently and for developing (poorer) nations therefore less attractive. I believe the cost of these will come down with technical advancements/efficiencies which are ongoing. Electricity storage improvements are vital and the race for battery storage is underway with many different technologies in their infancy.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/10/22/which-new-energy-storage-technologies-might-outcompete-lithiumion-in-the-2020s/#gref

Your last sentence is spot on however.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

This forum becomes really too difficult to comment, it goes so much down the drain. You repeat again as many persons here also do , the lie that US is crude oil independent. You should also show some data that it was true for 13 days in October 2019. And people upvote this bullsh*t.

And there is more personal attacks at this forum than Real stuff. I am really tired, should be off for some time, maybe will find some better place for Real exchange of ideas.

Show me a source more credible than the EIA.  There was no personal attack on you but a rebuttal of disinformation supplied by you. I was following the US dependence years before fracking turned an over 12 mbpd dependence to the US now being a net exporter. 
A lot of factors went into independence of FF. Efficiency, biofuels but overwhelmingly fracking. 
I don’t know how you have missed the information of this dramatic well publicized transition.

BTW, crude oil means nothing. Petroleum liquids is what’s counted. 

Edited by Boat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor