PDA

View Full Version : Carbon Tax and all that ........


modtinbasher
16th Aug 2006, 12:34
I was watching a Sky programme this AM of a UK Parliament Committee discussing Carbon Tax. The programme was originally recorded in May.

Fully expecting to hear that increasing the taxes and fuel surcharge as the complete panacea for global warming now that everybody is noticing aircraft in the sky for once, I was quite amused to observe that a couple of MP's were pontificating about 'alternative or bio-type fuels' for aircraft and the feasibility of 'fuel cells' to save engine power. Yes I thought, maybe the aircraft could have its own human excrement power generator on board and the captain could announce "V2 - everybody ready - all pax fa*rt hard NOW! Maybe the aircraft could tow a Toyota Prius linked with a suitable umbilical........I'm being silly now aren't I?

One MP actually said that 'they were aware that some aircraft are deliberately 'overfilled' in the UK so that they can save money by not buying fuel in other countries where it was more costly'. She continued to state that 'surely this was counter-productive in the long run, because being "overfilled" the planes were heavier to fly about and would therefore use more fuel than was necessary if they only had sufficient for the one trip'.

Another member of the panel stated 'they were aware that airline operators re-circulated the air in the aircraft cabins to save fuel and this made some passengers ill'.

Doesn't it really give you confidence that we have such gifted people in our democratically elected system making sure we stay on the path to righteousness and all do our bit to help save the planet.

Dave Gittins
16th Aug 2006, 12:42
There are a fleet of yellow tipper wagons based near Gatwick that I see every day and they have such slogans as "Guy Fawkes where are you now ?" and "Professional Liars wanted - apply to Labour Party".

Perhaps "Ill informed idiots wanted - apply to any political party" might be equally appropraite.

aviate1138
16th Aug 2006, 13:22
Aviate1138 wearily ponders that.......
Politicians will Always seek publicity, were we even to reside in Shangri-La!
The whole Carbon Parity thing is a Political Sop to concentrate the Plebs minds away from reality and into the latest iteration of "Fools Gold", The South Sea Bubble", 18th Century Tulip production, "Witches" and Ley Lines.
Aviation is not the producer of excess Carbon Dioxide because there is no set level, as there is no Climate Stability, or even Global Warming through human activity. What there is, is perfectly natural Climate Instability. Always was, always will be. Sacrificing Humans was the Old World's way of avoiding too many droughts, swarms of locusts etc. Do we honestly think that thousands of virgins were sacrificed so that our climate changed or that Climate Change is a reality and whatever we do does diddley squat to alter the changes that occur?
One day the majority of people with brains that work will be heard above the cacophany of Media led 24 Hour News Hype that headlines natural events as disasters and 'Green' charities that are desperate to fund their Executives lifestyles. Suggesting that we are guilty of desecrating our Planet any more than out distant Forefathers did in chopping down our forests - which are more numerous now than they were 75 years ago!
Carry on flying, mes amis....... :)
Aviate 1138

aviate1138
16th Aug 2006, 13:42
As an Adenda, Aviate1138 found this....
Swedes trash myth of refuse recycling
By David Harrison, Environment Correspondent
Daily Telegraph. UK
Throw away the green and blue bags and forget those trips to the bottle bank: recycling household waste is a load of, well, rubbish, according to leading environmentalists and waste campaigners.
In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling.
They dismiss the time-consuming practice - urged on householders by the Government and "green" councils - of separating rubbish for the refuse collectors as a waste of time and money.
The claims, which will horrify many British environmentalists, are made by five campaigners from Sweden, a country renowned for its concern for the environment and advanced approach to waste.
They include Valfrid Paulsson, a former director-general of the government's environmental protection agency, Soren Norrby, the former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy, and the former managing directors of three waste-collection companies.
The Swedes' views are shared by many British local authorities, which have drawn up plans to build up to 50 incinerators in an attempt to tackle a growing waste mountain and cut the amount of rubbish going to landfill.
One deputy council leader in the south of England said: "For years recycling has been held up as the best way to deal with waste. It's time that myth was exploded."
Before we throw billions away on 'Green' hype projects let's vote in a Goverment that will not 'Spin' every problem and get back to reality and leave us to take our own decisions via the Ballot Box, not some brain dead politician like John 'Three Jags' Prescott! And Tony B. Liar. How come the increase in temperature was greater before Contrails ever appeared in the sky in any numbers? 1900 - 1940 had a greater temperature rise year on year than from 1940 to the present day - Carbon Dioxide the cause? Or not?
Aviate 1138

Dr Dave
16th Aug 2006, 14:02
aviate1138,

Your selective use of data would be a "credit" to any politician! As you are surely aware, the Earth surface temperature warmed rapidly in the period 1910-1940, then stabilised for the period 1940-1980, and then has risen since then. See:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

These are University of East Anglia data, and are carefully validated (and accepted by, for example, the recent report accepting by anthropogenic climate change by the US Congress). So if you compare 1900-1940 with 1940-2006 of course you get a more rapid rise in the earlier period. However, if you compare the two periods of warming you see that 1980-2006 is faster than 1910-1940.

Your arguments would have more strength if they were based on real facts, or at least real science.

Dr Dave

befree
16th Aug 2006, 14:19
Waste produces lots of heat but is very poor as a fuel for other uses. In sweden it makes some sence to have combined heat and power stations as most of the year it is cold. When tried in the UK the comunual heating systems were expensive to run as the uses only wanted the heat for half of the year.

You have to use the right kind of fuel for the job. Old plastic is best recycled and the 8% of the crude oil used to make plastic diverted to fuel.

brakedwell
16th Aug 2006, 14:24
Dr Dave
Here we go again! Bleriot, Santos Dumont, Sopwith and the fiendish Red Baron must have caused the global warming in the first half of the twentieth century. THey should have banned aviation then. BTW, do you have any graphs showing sunspot activity over the same period?

Dr Dave
16th Aug 2006, 14:46
Re sunspots, the best I can come up with at the moment is the following (I am 8000 miles from my office and library):

http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/images/solar_system/sunspot_cycle.gif

Contrary to popular mythology, the link between sunspots and climate is far less convincing than the link between CO2 and climate. This is the long term climate record, with atmospheric CO2. Sobering, huh?

http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/images/charts/vostok-ice-core.jpg

Dr Dave

Chimbu chuckles
16th Aug 2006, 14:53
Sobering?

It proves to me that cyclic warming and cooling of the planet is a natural phenomenon and has feckall to do with anthropogenic warming.

It shows that nothing mankind could realistically achieve will have any effect...so why bankrupt society trying?

Dr Dave
16th Aug 2006, 15:01
Nice try, and indeed climate does change constantly. But there are two key things that come out of these data:
1. In this period the climate appears not to have changed as fast as it is now (which seems like a bizarre coincidence, surely?);
2. Changes in carbon dioxide precede changes in temperature (and are therefore probably the driver). Note that in the top right the current level of atmospheric CO2 is indicated - it is way off the scale.

The natural driver for changes in CO2 is the cyclicity in the Earths orbit around the sun (so called Milankovitch cycles - there are three different cycles), but as the graph shows we are far more effective at doing this than is nature.

Dr Dave

James 1077
16th Aug 2006, 15:37
Regarding the temperature change over time graph. How does this take into account the fact that cities have grown rapidly around the world over this period and will therefore cause localised temperature rises.

Did all of the data come from areas where there is no possibility of this having an impact? Or was this factored in with a mathematical estimate? In which case where are the error bars?

Also how does this factor in global dimming? The period from 1980 - present day has warmed significantly due to the lack of cloud and dust producing pollutants in the air; yes this is man-made warming but only as a result of originally artificial cooling and so should be excluded. Was this also factored in with a mathematical estimate? In which case, again, where are the error bars?

In fact where are the error bars anyway? Every good scientist (ie not an environmental pseudo-scientist) knows that you can not produce a graph such as the one posted without showing error bars - otherwise you could be finding a trend where none exists.

James 1077
16th Aug 2006, 15:59
I have had a look at your graph of temperature change and CO2 levels and I have one rather major observation.

In the past temperature change has lagged behind CO2 emissions by a few thousand years (it is hard to pinpoint exactly how much from the graph on the screen but I would say at least two thousand on average).

Mankind started pumping out CO2 a couple of hundred years ago.

Therefore any climate change currently felt is entirely natural as the CO2 increase causing it predates anything that we have pumped out.

If climate change is caused by CO2 (which I don't agree with but believe that Milankovich cycles simply effect CO2 levels first) then yes we need to worry about manmade CO2 emissions; but not for another couple of thousand years. In that time we can research it more thoroughly and if we discover the link can work out ways to reduce the effect of manmade emissions. At the moment though we are simply standing here like King Canute trying to stop the natural and inevitable!

cwatters
16th Aug 2006, 19:26
Regarding the temperature change over time graph. How does this take into account the fact that cities have grown rapidly around the world over this period and will therefore cause localised temperature rises.
Did all of the data come from areas where there is no possibility of this having an impact?
The data comes from lots of very different sources. One trick is to look at the ratio of isotopes in ice cores from the poles (not many cities there to cause a local effect)...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records.
it goes on to say that the effect on deuterium is around 9% per degree C change - which is quite large so the temperature records should be quite accurate.

cwatters
16th Aug 2006, 19:35
In the past temperature change has lagged behind CO2 emissions by a few thousand years (it is hard to pinpoint exactly how much from the graph on the screen but I would say at least two thousand on average).
It's not that simple. Some studies show the lag is the other way around...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
...In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming

In effect mankind caught the ball on the rise and kicked it higher than it normally would go.

modtinbasher
16th Aug 2006, 19:54
I have had a look at your graph of temperature change and CO2 levels and I have one rather major observation.

In the past temperature change has lagged behind CO2 emissions by a few thousand years (it is hard to pinpoint exactly how much from the graph on the screen but I would say at least two thousand on average).

Mankind started pumping out CO2 a couple of hundred years ago.

Therefore any climate change currently felt is entirely natural as the CO2 increase causing it predates anything that we have pumped out.

If climate change is caused by CO2 (which I don't agree with but believe that Milankovich cycles simply effect CO2 levels first) then yes we need to worry about manmade CO2 emissions; but not for another couple of thousand years. In that time we can research it more thoroughly and if we discover the link can work out ways to reduce the effect of manmade emissions. At the moment though we are simply standing here like King Canute trying to stop the natural and inevitable!

And everyone with any brain knows, excepting a few (sorry, many) polititions and indeed anybody who is making mega bucks out of the green theory (such as our local councils who now even plan to charge for the weight of our own collected, sorted, washed, bagged and otherwise disposed of, or indeed re-cycled waste on top of the iniquitous local council charge), then our small voices are on a hiding to nothing! Suggesting that we should, "wash out containers with the water" that we already pay for by metered supplies and then pay a sewerage on the top of that, I should coco!
Perhaps the best way would be that we all become "travellers". At least we have spent a lot of money to get off our bums and actually go further than the (residents) of places like Cottenham in Cambridge UK and others that our leaders like to include in the "multiculturism" sop to the many (dis) advantaged and (dis) affected in the community.

cwatters
16th Aug 2006, 19:57
Does this make the position in 2005 any clearer compared to past cycles...
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9931/vostokicecoresd5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)