billvon 2,467
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
But "the most toxic subsytance synthesized by humans?"
A dropperful of vitamin A would have messed him up as much or more. I'm sure that an equivalent amount of ricin would have taken him out. Cyanide? Botulin? A drop sized bolus of air in a vein would kill him quickly and painfully. The equivalent amount of caffeine - fatal.
But scienctists said dioxin is terrible horrible no-good very bad. This despite an incident in Italy in about 76 that showed, "not pleasant but not the stuff of chemical warfare."
In an abundance of caution, panic and displacement that in hindsight was overkill.
History is littered with such examples.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
A dropperful of vitamin A would have messed him up as much or more. I'm sure that an equivalent amount of ricin would have taken him out. Cyanide? Botulin? A drop sized bolus of air in a vein would kill him quickly and painfully. The equivalent amount of caffeine - fatal.
But scienctists said dioxin is terrible horrible no-good very bad. This despite an incident in Italy in about 76 that showed, "not pleasant but not the stuff of chemical warfare."
In an abundance of caution, panic and displacement that in hindsight was overkill.
History is littered with such examples.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,467
>A dropperful of vitamin A would have messed him up as much or more. I'm sure
>that an equivalent amount of ricin would have taken him out. Cyanide? Botulin?
Yep. And Sarin and Strontium-90, although the Strontium-90 would have taken a lot longer to kill him. Comparing any of those to chocolate is absurd.
>But scienctists said dioxin is terrible horrible no-good very bad.
It is. It makes people sick, causes developmental problems in children and causes cancer. And since it bioaccumulates, it takes a long time to get rid of it.
If your argument is "people shouldn't overreact to things like dioxins, because they're no more dangerous than chocolate" you're going to weaken any other argument you make, because people will assume that your judgment of relative risk is very badly out of whack.
>that an equivalent amount of ricin would have taken him out. Cyanide? Botulin?
Yep. And Sarin and Strontium-90, although the Strontium-90 would have taken a lot longer to kill him. Comparing any of those to chocolate is absurd.
>But scienctists said dioxin is terrible horrible no-good very bad.
It is. It makes people sick, causes developmental problems in children and causes cancer. And since it bioaccumulates, it takes a long time to get rid of it.
If your argument is "people shouldn't overreact to things like dioxins, because they're no more dangerous than chocolate" you're going to weaken any other argument you make, because people will assume that your judgment of relative risk is very badly out of whack.
Agreed.
But, recall, I said keep the dog away from the chocolate.
I don't compare it to chocolate. Comparing it to chocolate is like comparing it to sarin.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
But, recall, I said keep the dog away from the chocolate.
I don't compare it to chocolate. Comparing it to chocolate is like comparing it to sarin.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
You mean, how does it work? Greenhouse gases absorb photons that correspond closely to the electron orbital energies in the various components of their compounds. When they absorb those photons they become warmer.
But, they only absorb so many photons, before they stop absorbing any more. Thus, the saturation argument. I haven't seen where the IPCC radiant forcing model takes this into account.
Quote
1) We're increasing CO2 concentrations.
We includes China and India. Our contributions to that total will be insignificant going forward.
Quote
3) More trapped energy = increased temperature.
And more water vapor, and probably more clouds. We're only talking about 2% of the total energy absorbed and/or reflected from the sun. And, that 2% is NOT coming from our country.
I have yet to see how our federal government taxing us will have any benefit in regards to the big picture. It's just going to end up being a huge money flow to the federal government, without having any impact to the stated goal.
We are all engines of karma
billvon 2,467
>But, they only absorb so many photons, before they stop absorbing
>any more. Thus, the saturation argument.
No, that's a different issue.
When a compound absorbs a photon, it re-emits it and it goes on its merry way in a new (basically random) direction. Compounds can't store energy very long that way (with a few exceptions, as in phosphors and pumped laser designs.) The "saturation" issue they are referring to is the fact that the infrared bands that are absorbed by CO2 are already pretty opaque; almost no photons get through at the primary absorption bandwidths. That's why a 50% change in CO2 does not cause a 50% change in retained heat (which is fortunate.)
The only real effect is that the sidebands get a little bit wider. This slight widening is why the atmosphere is now allowing less infrared radiation to escape. The effect is small, which is why the amount of retained heat has only increased by a few fractions of a percent.
So it's not like "the atmosphere is full of photons and can't take any more."
> I haven't seen where the IPCC radiant forcing model takes this into
>account.
You're kidding, right? It's sort of the BASIS of the radiant forcing model. I can think of half a dozen papers that discuss the issue.
>We includes China and India. Our contributions to that total will be
>insignificant going forward.
Agreed. We should do the best we can and encourage them to do the same.
>And more water vapor, and probably more clouds. We're only talking
>about 2% of the total energy absorbed and/or reflected from the sun.
Correct! Now you're into secondary negative feedback effects. "AGW will warm the ocean, more clouds will form and more heat will be reflected." The two problems with that are 1) it requires the planet to warm significantly before it kicks in and 2) clouds INCREASE trapped heat when they form at night. That's why cloudy nights are warmer than clear ones.
>I have yet to see how our federal government taxing us will have any
>benefit in regards to the big picture.
It won't. But cap and trade likely will. It worked for acid rain, and was much more cost-effective than taxation or regulation would have been.
>any more. Thus, the saturation argument.
No, that's a different issue.
When a compound absorbs a photon, it re-emits it and it goes on its merry way in a new (basically random) direction. Compounds can't store energy very long that way (with a few exceptions, as in phosphors and pumped laser designs.) The "saturation" issue they are referring to is the fact that the infrared bands that are absorbed by CO2 are already pretty opaque; almost no photons get through at the primary absorption bandwidths. That's why a 50% change in CO2 does not cause a 50% change in retained heat (which is fortunate.)
The only real effect is that the sidebands get a little bit wider. This slight widening is why the atmosphere is now allowing less infrared radiation to escape. The effect is small, which is why the amount of retained heat has only increased by a few fractions of a percent.
So it's not like "the atmosphere is full of photons and can't take any more."
> I haven't seen where the IPCC radiant forcing model takes this into
>account.
You're kidding, right? It's sort of the BASIS of the radiant forcing model. I can think of half a dozen papers that discuss the issue.
>We includes China and India. Our contributions to that total will be
>insignificant going forward.
Agreed. We should do the best we can and encourage them to do the same.
>And more water vapor, and probably more clouds. We're only talking
>about 2% of the total energy absorbed and/or reflected from the sun.
Correct! Now you're into secondary negative feedback effects. "AGW will warm the ocean, more clouds will form and more heat will be reflected." The two problems with that are 1) it requires the planet to warm significantly before it kicks in and 2) clouds INCREASE trapped heat when they form at night. That's why cloudy nights are warmer than clear ones.
>I have yet to see how our federal government taxing us will have any
>benefit in regards to the big picture.
It won't. But cap and trade likely will. It worked for acid rain, and was much more cost-effective than taxation or regulation would have been.
Quote
When a compound absorbs a photon, it re-emits it and it goes on its merry way in a new (basically random) direction.
Compounds can't store energy very long that way...
Understood.
Quote
The "saturation" issue they are referring to is the fact that the infrared bands that are absorbed by CO2 are already pretty opaque; almost no photons get through at the primary absorption bandwidths. That's why a 50% change in CO2 does not cause a 50% change in retained heat (which is fortunate.)
So, CO2 really isn't that dominant after all, then?
Quote
The only real effect is that the sidebands get a little bit wider. This slight widening is why the atmosphere is now allowing less infrared radiation to escape. The effect is small, which is why the amount of retained heat has only increased by a few fractions of a percent.
So, I think we're in agreement that the CO2 effect isn't as much as some are heralding. It's not going to be catastrophic.
Quote
> I haven't seen where the IPCC radiant forcing model takes this into
>account.
You're kidding, right? It's sort of the BASIS of the radiant forcing model. I can think of half a dozen papers that discuss the issue.
Yep, my bad. I didn't clearly communicate that one. You can't take the IPCC model and extrapolate it to infinity.
Quote
>I have yet to see how our federal government taxing us will have any
>benefit in regards to the big picture.
It won't. But cap and trade likely will. It worked for acid rain, and was much more cost-effective than taxation or regulation would have been.
So, Waxman's cap and trade will have benefits for whom?
We are all engines of karma
billvon 2,467
>So, CO2 really isn't that dominant after all, then?
CO2 is definitely not the dominant greenhouse gas. In terms of percentages, water vapor does far more to retain heat.
>So, I think we're in agreement that the CO2 effect isn't as much as some
>are heralding. It's not going to be catastrophic.
The CO2 effect (plus the other GHG increases, like methane) is what the IPCC is talking about. Whether or not it's "catastrophic" depends on your point of view. If you live on the Ganges near the delta, it might be catastrophic to lose your home. If you're a farmer in Canada, it might even be a good thing to get a longer growing season.
But I do agree it's not going to be like "The Day after Tomorrow."
>So, Waxman's cap and trade will have benefits for whom?
Companies who have efficient, low carbon emission power plants.
CO2 is definitely not the dominant greenhouse gas. In terms of percentages, water vapor does far more to retain heat.
>So, I think we're in agreement that the CO2 effect isn't as much as some
>are heralding. It's not going to be catastrophic.
The CO2 effect (plus the other GHG increases, like methane) is what the IPCC is talking about. Whether or not it's "catastrophic" depends on your point of view. If you live on the Ganges near the delta, it might be catastrophic to lose your home. If you're a farmer in Canada, it might even be a good thing to get a longer growing season.
But I do agree it's not going to be like "The Day after Tomorrow."
>So, Waxman's cap and trade will have benefits for whom?
Companies who have efficient, low carbon emission power plants.
speedy 0
brenthutch 388
>So, Waxman's cap and trade will have benefits for whom?
Companies who have efficient, low carbon emission power plants.
And who will it hurt?
Companies who have efficient, low carbon emission power plants.
And who will it hurt?
billvon 2,467
>And who will it hurt?
The companies who generate a lot of CO2 through more wasteful power generation methods.
The companies who generate a lot of CO2 through more wasteful power generation methods.
billvon 2,467
Excellent! Looks like a ~7 kilowatt system. Germany has done a really good job of late providing incentives for small alternative-energy installations.
Quote>And who will it hurt?
The companies who generate a lot of CO2 through more wasteful power generation methods.
I look at it this way.
Let's say the program required all residences and commercial real estate to use 50% less energy or face fines of $500.00 per percent of decrease that they fail to achieve. Or, they may install solar generation equivalent to 1kw per thousand feet of floor space.
Basically, let's say that the government requires every homeowner to come up with $30k to put up a solar system, plus insulation retrofits, new windows and roofing, etc.
The people would generally have a problem with it. "Where the hell am I gonna come up with the money for that?"
It's similar to a new retrofit that California is looking at requiring for gas stations install on all pumps. The system costs about $10k per pump. Per pump. PER PUMP!
What do you think it will do to gas station owners? What about consumer prices? There are a couple of companies that are donating quite a bit to some campaigns.
And of course, this is the primary method of providing direct corporate welfare. Pass laws that will benefit certain companies and people and groups.
Also note that "cap and trade" is pretty similar to creating a new form of currency.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,467
>Let's say the program required all residences and commercial real estate to
>use 50% less energy or face fines of $500.00 per percent of decrease that they
>fail to achieve. Or, they may install solar generation equivalent to 1kw per
>thousand feet of floor space.
That would be a bad way to do it, but OK.
>The people would generally have a problem with it. "Where the hell am I
>gonna come up with the money for that?"
Right.
>It's similar to a new retrofit that California is looking at requiring for
>gas stations install on all pumps. The system costs about $10k per pump. Per
>pump. PER PUMP!
That's also a bad way to do it. They should require a FUNCTION (like a gas pump that won't explode if you drive away with the hose in the tank, or a gas pump that will recover the lost vapor instead of venting it.) That way manufacturer X can make that function for $10K, manufacturer Y can make it for $5K, and manufacturer Z can make it for $1k - and then the gas station can decide which one he wants to buy.
Simply requiring them to spend $10K on a pump would be a really stupid way to do it.
But this is all getting pretty far away from a cap and trade system.
>Also note that "cap and trade" is pretty similar to creating a new form of
>currency.
True - it creates a "market" for CO2 emissions.
Tom Aiello explained it pretty well a while back. The most basic (and fairest) way to deal with CO2 is to require everyone to not emit any more than they would normally, by breathing, farting, burping etc. If you want to generate it by driving a big SUV, you have to bottle it and return it to a recycling center, where they will charge you to dispose of it.
That would be very, very annoying.
So the next level is to allow people to emit whatever they want - PROVIDED they clean up after themselves and take their own trash back out of the atmosphere. Basically you're saying that it's OK to _temporarily_ pollute the atmosphere, the same way it's OK to temporarily make a mess of a campsite in a national park as long as you clean it up before you leave. To do this you could create some complex system of taxes, tax credits, rules and restrictions to try to administer it.
Or you could just do it with a market system. Want to emit lots of CO2? Pay a company to absorb that much CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Want to make some money? Plant biofuel crops and sell those 'credits' to the people who want to pollute. Don't want to spend as much? Find a company that does it cheaper. Want to make more money if you are a credit supplier? Undercut your competition. Use the forces that make companies successful in the US to accomplish the goal, instead of adding another layer of bureaucracy.
It worked for SOx emissions.
>use 50% less energy or face fines of $500.00 per percent of decrease that they
>fail to achieve. Or, they may install solar generation equivalent to 1kw per
>thousand feet of floor space.
That would be a bad way to do it, but OK.
>The people would generally have a problem with it. "Where the hell am I
>gonna come up with the money for that?"
Right.
>It's similar to a new retrofit that California is looking at requiring for
>gas stations install on all pumps. The system costs about $10k per pump. Per
>pump. PER PUMP!
That's also a bad way to do it. They should require a FUNCTION (like a gas pump that won't explode if you drive away with the hose in the tank, or a gas pump that will recover the lost vapor instead of venting it.) That way manufacturer X can make that function for $10K, manufacturer Y can make it for $5K, and manufacturer Z can make it for $1k - and then the gas station can decide which one he wants to buy.
Simply requiring them to spend $10K on a pump would be a really stupid way to do it.
But this is all getting pretty far away from a cap and trade system.
>Also note that "cap and trade" is pretty similar to creating a new form of
>currency.
True - it creates a "market" for CO2 emissions.
Tom Aiello explained it pretty well a while back. The most basic (and fairest) way to deal with CO2 is to require everyone to not emit any more than they would normally, by breathing, farting, burping etc. If you want to generate it by driving a big SUV, you have to bottle it and return it to a recycling center, where they will charge you to dispose of it.
That would be very, very annoying.
So the next level is to allow people to emit whatever they want - PROVIDED they clean up after themselves and take their own trash back out of the atmosphere. Basically you're saying that it's OK to _temporarily_ pollute the atmosphere, the same way it's OK to temporarily make a mess of a campsite in a national park as long as you clean it up before you leave. To do this you could create some complex system of taxes, tax credits, rules and restrictions to try to administer it.
Or you could just do it with a market system. Want to emit lots of CO2? Pay a company to absorb that much CO2 back out of the atmosphere. Want to make some money? Plant biofuel crops and sell those 'credits' to the people who want to pollute. Don't want to spend as much? Find a company that does it cheaper. Want to make more money if you are a credit supplier? Undercut your competition. Use the forces that make companies successful in the US to accomplish the goal, instead of adding another layer of bureaucracy.
It worked for SOx emissions.
Basically you're saying that it's OK to _temporarily_ pollute the atmosphere, the same way it's OK to temporarily make a mess of a campsite in a national park as long as you clean it up before you leave. To do this you could create some complex system of taxes, tax credits, rules and restrictions to try to administer it.
And, of course, your system. I like it much. Using the air to transport it and be cleaned out by trees, etc.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
And, of course, your system. I like it much. Using the air to transport it and be cleaned out by trees, etc.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,675
That Great American Hero Ronald Reagan was a big advocate of cap & trade. I find it amusing that the right is now so adamantly against it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Reagan wasn't always right.
You are recently married. Thus, you know how it is never being right about anything. 
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 388
That is great! As long as customers of those plants dont have to have the costs passed on to them.
billvon 2,467
>As long as customers of those plants dont have to have the costs passed on to them.
They'll have about half the costs passed on to them. One might imagine they would then start choosing cheaper power. Which, of course, is how market-based systems work.
They'll have about half the costs passed on to them. One might imagine they would then start choosing cheaper power. Which, of course, is how market-based systems work.
speedy 0
QuoteExcellent! Looks like a ~7 kilowatt system. Germany has done a really good job of late providing incentives for small alternative-energy installations.
Excellent guesstimate, it is actually 6.84 kWp
Although germany is not at the ideal latitude for PV here is what I have managed this year.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Jul Total
PV-Anlage: (kWh) 253 174 419 841 887 810 868 4252
PV-Anlage:
(kWh pro kWpeak) 37 25 61 123 130 118 127 621
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
kallend 1,675
QuoteReagan wasn't always right.
True, but we're not discussing Iran Contra or school lunches in this thread.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteReagan wasn't always right.
True, but we're not discussing Iran Contra or school lunches in this thread.
Correct. You said Reagan liked it, inferring that ther right should love it. It doesn't work that way.
Don't bring up "Reagan liked it" and then say "We aren't talking about other things."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 1,675
QuoteQuoteQuoteReagan wasn't always right.
True, but we're not discussing Iran Contra or school lunches in this thread.
Correct. You said Reagan liked it, inferring that ther right should love it. It doesn't work that way.
Don't bring up "Reagan liked it" and then say "We aren't talking about other things."
Don't confuse "right" with "the right".
Iran Contra and "ketchup as a vegetable" were wrong even though supported by the right. Cap & Trade is right, and was supported by the right up until it became politically expedient to denigrate it.
Cap & trade has proven to work very well. SO2 emissions were reduced by 50 percent from 1980 levels by 2007. (Of course, Reagan didn't invent it).
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
>be disproved. A four prong proof is now three.
The fourth is an observation that supports the above three basic facts.
>The assassins used dioxin because they thought it was as deadly as
>could be.
Yes. They used a drop (about a gram.) The result was a pretty horrible disfigurement, ulcers in his stomach and intestines and severe liver and spleen dysfunction. He is fortunate they didn't use two drops.
Your assertion that "dioxin appears to be as harmful to people as chocolate" is pretty silly. If that was an example of how scientists can't evaluate risks, it's a very poor one. Indeed, the Yushenko case was a striking example that it is indeed dangerous in even small amounts.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites