[Drew]

Originally Posted by david85

I live in a province of canada where we have single government monopoly of:

Auto insurance,

Sea Ferry service,

and electricity. (all 'crown' corporations as they are called)

You probably will never believe me even though I've lived here for most of my life, but let me tell you these companies are no saints and most of us in BC wish for more private competition to be allowed by government so they could be squeezed out once and for all. If nothing else they would have to start treating us like human beings again.

We have already seen a night and day turn around with our internet and phone provider thanks to more competition. They can't take us for granted anymore and boom, the service gets better (overnight in one case).

On private firm controlling everything is not any better than one government controlling the same service. People are still people in either situation and if they can, they will take advantage of you. If my view that private and public companies deserve the chance to compete on equal terms side by side to slug it out while us consumers take the best of both worlds makes me ignorant, then I will wear that title with distinction.

FWIW, you don't need multiple power grids to allow multiple independent power producers to feed into the grid. Might want to look that one up because thats how people are able to buy carbon neutral electricity if they want to pay the higher cost.

Any chance we can get back on topic?

But if you've only got one electricity grid then who will compete with the people maintaining it?

I'm comming from the other direction, I live in Victoria in Australia and we, until recently had a state gas, electricity, public transport and (national) telecoms provider... Believe it or not, all of those have been privatised, the primary result of three of those four examples has been basically disaster.

Gas; When gas was privatised we ended up with the supplier cutting maintenance and quality of staff until we had the longford gas explosion which took out gas to half the state. That basically was because they had overworked, unskilled people doing a safety critical job as a direct initiative to cut costs.

Electricity; Has, actually, not been a disaster, it still seems about as responsive and constant as it was before the change.

Public transport; Melbourne has always had trouble with PT because we're very spread out, making it, basically, not cost effective to carry out. But when the state ran it we had fairly low quality of service and out of date trains. Now that we have it privately run the quality of service is abysmal, but they've changed the metrics so it looks better, we still have out of date trains and now, believe it or not, they've drastically cut the number of security staff, so crime on trains has skyrocketed. On top of all that, track maintenance has gone out the window so when we had a few hot days last year all the tracks buckled and walked out of position, making them impassable.

Telecoms; We had a good, functional and responsive national provider, who, upon going public raised all their prices and lowered their supply reliability and quality, as well as reducing customer service and support. We now have 4 carriers competing in the market and its still not as good as it was in the mid 90's. In fact the Government here still has had to pay someone to develop a fibre to the home network because nobody saw the cost benefit to doing that themselves (there isn't one).

[david85]

Private contracts can be allowed when maintenance or construction is required of the power grid. Much like the contract we recently completed for my town's city hall. Instead of city hall going out and building a wielding shop, and powder coating line then trying to train city workers to build railings, they put out a call for tenders. A call that we answered and completed on time and on budget. Same is done when ever paving is required for local roads. Funny thing is whenever something gets done right by a private company, you never hear about it. Did we pull a profit? you bet we did! but it was still cheaper in the end than if they had tried to build it on their own.

The situation you are describing is the result of what happens when one monopoly (private or public) is allowed to control so absolutely for so long. If microsoft were to somehow collapse tomorrow, what do you think the result would be? What if the global oil supply simply stopped next week? Of course there will be a painful re adjustment period until others are able fill the void again. Monopoly of any kind is not good.

What is wrong with allowing people like you or me to try and offer such services? Government would still have a role to fill in the way of regulating and keeping us honest to the people we serve. If they can compete with a company that does not soak up tax revenue to operate, then I would welcome the challenge to compete with such a worthy free market opponent. A price war between public and private would benefit all.

Suppose I decided I wanted to build an EV company all on my own with strictly private donors and never take the company public. Would you be opposed to that too?

Drew, PhantomPolly started a different thread that is more along the lines of the topic we are discussing right now. Would it be ok if we were to move over there?

[david85]

ok so just to try and get this back on topic,

Sea levels are not rising at an increasing rate (Leveling off it seems).

Sea ice is currently expanding rapidly in antarctica, and stabilizing in the arctic.

Global temperature peaked at ~0.73C a decade ago and is at 0.5C or closer to 0.3 depending on which record you use.

Some key questions I had as a skeptic was what sort of emission reductions would be required to stop the damage from being done, hypothetically. So far, the answer seems to be a CO2 emission cut somewhere between 60% amd 95%. So that one is answered for me (not gonna happen BTW).

One burning question I still have however, is what is normal for the earth?

What is the global temperature that alarmists will be satisfied with to accept that the crisis has passed?

[Drew]

^^^ Thats pretty much what I'm getting at, whats the end game? I've always just said that we should clear up some of the more glaringly wrong things we're doing like coal fired power and running cars on petrol then call it quits, but taking the whole global warming thing to its logical extreme if we wanted to undo what we may or may not have done then we could actually just build giant heat pumps and use them to power lasers to radiate heat into space...

[Jeff from KY]

ok so just to try and get this back on topic,

Sea levels are not rising at an increasing rate (Leveling off it seems).

This is factually inaccurate.

Church, J. A., and N. J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise", Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

Church and White’s data, plus a data update to 2007 at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database

Looking at the record since 1993 (when satellite measurements began) to the present graphically

Sea ice is currently expanding rapidly in antarctica, and stabilizing in the arctic.

Again, neither of those statements are factual.



This graph of sea ice extent does not show that Antarctica is “expanding rapidly”. In fact, according to the NSIDC, “The area covered by Antarctic sea ice has shown a small (not statistically significant) increasing trend.”

Snow and Ice Data Center, “Is wintertime Antarctic sea ice increasing or decreasing?”

Jinlun Zhang's paper “Increasing Antarctic sea ice under warming atmospheric and oceanic conditions”, J. Climate, 20, 2515–2529, 2007

As for the Arctic "stabilizing", Arctic Monthly Sea Ice Anomalies from the NSIDC:



According to your criteria (an uptick in the September extent in the last couple of years), it was also “stabilizing” in c. 1996 and c. 1990 (wow it was really “stabilizing” then). As I have pointed out before (regarding temperature anomaly data), when the signal (the anomaly) is significantly smaller than the noise (the natural, year-to-year variability) it is statistically impossible to get steadily decreasing anomalies.

Here’s what the NSIDC has to say on the issue: "Is arctic sea ice really declining?

Global temperature peaked at ~0.73C a decade ago and is at 0.5C or closer to 0.3 depending on which record you use.

You keep asserting this in slightly different ways, “a cooling trend”, “flattening”, and now “peaked”. No matter how you phrase it, your implication is that global warming stopped in 1998. I already addressed this here and here .

No matter how you phrase it, global warming has not stopped.

Here's all four of the major datasets (two surface measurements, two satellite estimates) all using the same baseline, with 20 year smoothing (statistically necessary to remove annual natural variability):

Some key questions I had as a skeptic was what sort of emission reductions would be required to stop the damage from being done, hypothetically. So far, the answer seems to be a CO2 emission cut somewhere between 60% amd 95%. So that one is answered for me (not gonna happen BTW).

First thing I agree with. I don’t think we are going to reduce CO2 enough to avoid reaching a 4-6 degree temperature increase over the next century.

One burning question I still have however, is what is normal for the earth?

What is the global temperature that alarmists will be satisfied with to accept that the crisis has passed?

Let’s turn the question around. What temperature increase (2 degrees, 4 degrees, 6 degrees?) do skeptics feel is acceptable? Oh, that’s right it’s not going to increase anymore because global warming stopped in 1998.

If the AGW deniers are wrong, they are betting that the costs to human civilization (economic, social, environmental, national security, etc.) to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of global warming will be less than the costs to reduce CO2 in the near term. I think that is a bad bet.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

<snip>
First thing I agree with. I don’t think we are going to reduce CO2 enough to avoid reaching a 4-6 degree temperature increase over the next century.



Let’s turn the question around. What temperature increase (2 degrees, 4 degrees, 6 degrees?) do skeptics feel is acceptable? Oh, that’s right it’s not going to increase anymore because global warming stopped in 1998.

If the AGW deniers are wrong, they are betting that the costs to human civilization (economic, social, environmental, national security, etc.) to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of global warming will be less than the costs to reduce CO2 in the near term. I think that is a bad bet.

Well, let's talk first about the next century. Is a 4-6 degree temperature rise "Catastrophic?" Some people may think so, but I am not one of them. Sea levels may (or may not) rise 20 cm or 20" or 20' or 20m (it's so confusing, since there are so many differing estimates) - but I would submit we will have a better estimate of the REAL rise long before the end of the century, and plenty of time to move folks. Even at 65', all we lose is some real estate. Perhaps "catastrophic" to the property owner, hardly noticeable to mankind.

Next, let's talk about your question about turning the question around. I personally don't feel THAT question is relevant until someone can answer the question, "what is the RIGHT temperature for the earth?" IMHO we have little to lose and a lot to gain with a 5 degree increase, because although some equatorial desert zones may become uninhabitable we will open up immense tracts of new land in Canada, northern Europe, and perhaps even points in Antarctica.

But your last statement is a perfect example of why us skeptics are skeptical. You draw a "Chicken Little" conclusion - yet we KNOW that if we DECIDE that temperature is really a problem, we already have the technology to reduce it QUICKLY in less than a year, and to do it for about the same cost as maintaining the Pentagon each year. Simply cover the existing desert regions with reflective Mylar, and some estimates suggest we could reduce the earth's temperature by up to a degree in only a month. A big job? Yes, but the material is cheap and manpower in most countries requiring coverage is even cheaper.

You see, when people scream "Disaster!" to a non-problem, and then offer a solution that will enrich a select group while impoverishing much of the rest of the world - call me silly, but I'm skeptical.



Standard disclaimer: I too wish to reduce pollution of every kind. However, I believe it will happen of it's own accord and a lot sooner than anyone expects.

Suggested reading: The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil.

[david85]

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

This is factually inaccurate.

Church, J. A., and N. J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise", Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

Church and White’s data, plus a data update to 2007 at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database

Looking at the record since 1993 (when satellite measurements began) to the present graphically






Again, neither of those statements are factual.

Don't hold back Jeff, if you want to call me a liar, then go ahead. I've been called worse. And yet the very graph that you post here (same one that I posted earlier) shows a tapering off of sea level rise in the last 3~4 years.

What I was trying to say is that claims of exponential sea level rise are not shown in recorded data. NASA now gets their data from some where else because they don't seem to like this graph.

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

This graph of sea ice extent does not show that Antarctica is “expanding rapidly”. In fact, according to the NSIDC, “The area covered by Antarctic sea ice has shown a small (not statistically significant) increasing trend.”

Snow and Ice Data Center, “Is wintertime Antarctic sea ice increasing or decreasing?”

Jinlun Zhang's paper “Increasing Antarctic sea ice under warming atmospheric and oceanic conditions”, J. Climate, 20, 2515–2529, 2007

As for the Arctic "stabilizing", Arctic Monthly Sea Ice Anomalies from the NSIDC:



According to your criteria (an uptick in the September extent in the last couple of years), it was also “stabilizing” in c. 1996 and c. 1990 (wow it was really “stabilizing” then). As I have pointed out before (regarding temperature anomaly data), when the signal (the anomaly) is significantly smaller than the noise (the natural, year-to-year variability) it is statistically impossible to get steadily decreasing anomalies.

Here’s what the NSIDC has to say on the issue: "Is arctic sea ice really declining?

You have to love how they feel the need to put disclaimers on their data. I'm more interested in numbers than their professional opinion.

Antarctic ice is still near an all time recorded high. Now bear in mind that much like our satelite data for global temperature, it doesn't even cover an entire century so we really are splitting hairs here. The north pole has been clear enough to sail in the past however so recent melting is not unusual weather we caused it or not. And again, your graph shows some ice growth in the north. Will it continue? I have no idea, but its happening right now.

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

You keep asserting this in slightly different ways, “a cooling trend”, “flattening”, and now “peaked”. No matter how you phrase it, your implication is that global warming stopped in 1998. I already addressed this here and here .

No matter how you phrase it, global warming has not stopped.

Here's all four of the major datasets (two surface measurements, two satellite estimates) all using the same baseline, with 20 year smoothing (statistically necessary to remove annual natural variability):

What you did here is average the graphs with a long enough smoothing as to eliminate the peak of 1998. Why not just post the trend for the period and forget about the anomolies all together? Here for the 3rd (or is it 4th?) time is the actualy satelite tracking data:

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

First thing I agree with. I don’t think we are going to reduce CO2 enough to avoid reaching a 4-6 degree temperature increase over the next century.

You agree with me? Now I know you're joking Even the IPCC has revised their predictions to 4C peak. 6C is not mentioned anymore.

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

Let’s turn the question around. What temperature increase (2 degrees, 4 degrees, 6 degrees?) do skeptics feel is acceptable? Oh, that’s right it’s not going to increase anymore because global warming stopped in 1998.

You are still avoiding the question here and the data does show a peak of ~0.73 in 1998. By your own words, you said it was now at 0.5C. Um.......0.73C > 0.5C....
Even some warmists like Mojib Latif are suggesting we could be in for a few decades of cooling. He tries to place caveats on his words in an effort to preserve the idea of AGW, but it is none the less and admission to the possibility of cooling. I'm not pulling this out of thin air.

However, you seem to have made up your mind and I see no point in arguing any more on the issue. I'm happy to wait and see. If you want to change the world you are welcome to try.

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

If the AGW deniers are wrong, they are betting that the costs to human civilization (economic, social, environmental, national security, etc.) to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of global warming will be less than the costs to reduce CO2 in the near term. I think that is a bad bet.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in grand standing. Our discussion here is not going to change the world anyway.

The reality is our observations do not go back far enough to conclude that what we are seeing is abnormal. 500 years isn't even a snapshot of the earths history, modern data doesn't even cover a reasonable fraction of that.

The world is not going to end.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by Jeff from KY

This is factually inaccurate.
Let’s turn the question around. What temperature increase (2 degrees, 4 degrees, 6 degrees?) do skeptics feel is acceptable? Oh, that’s right it’s not going to increase anymore because global warming stopped in 1998.

If the AGW deniers are wrong, they are betting that the costs to human civilization (economic, social, environmental, national security, etc.) to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of global warming will be less than the costs to reduce CO2 in the near term. I think that is a bad bet.

Jeff,

Heres a better question, what evidence do you have that it wouldn't have happened anyway...

The earth isn't exactly a static system without us around, human "prevention" can cause as much harm as good sometimes, with a great example being the "Black Saturday" bushfires we recently had in Victoria.

The basic problem with the Black Saturday fires was (as far as I understand it) that a bunch of bleeding heart greenies had decided that backburning was wrong because it destroyed the natural habitat of native animals etc etc. and totally failed to take into account that fire is a natural part of the ecosystem. The ground cover of what essentially became kindling built up and up and now a large number of people are dead and, because of the magnitude of the fires, a lot of the ecosystem IS damaged because animals didn't have the chance to refuge in the same way they would have in a fire that wasn't assisted by greenies.

Who's to say that you're not going to achieve the same thing by opposing any temperature rise?

Please note that I'm not saying that we should continue emitting carbon dioxide, I think that its a wasteful and inefficient process, but on the other hand I think that arguing that we've had the opportunity to irreparably damage the planet and that we have to act to "fix" it sounds a little like a god complex to me.

[david85]

Originally Posted by Drew

Please note that I'm not saying that we should continue emitting carbon dioxide, I think that its a wasteful and inefficient process, but on the other hand I think that arguing that we've had the opportunity to irreparably damage the planet and that we have to act to "fix" it sounds a little like a god complex to me.

Not sure I would have quite gone that far, but I agree there is some over confidence here, not necessarily from jeff, but the from the IPCC and company.

[david85]

This is not evidence for the topic, but I thought I would post this because Phantom would probably get a kick out of it and it is directly related to AGW.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...est-protection

Reminds me of the oil - for - food program only much larger.