Now Lausten, take the next step. With the AGW “Global Warming", who is the captain of the ship? If something goes wrong or does not prove to be true and trillions of taxpayer dollars are wasted. Give me the names of the people to blame.
Let me see if I can explain the process. If you need a steelworker tomorrow to be on a project you are building. And you personally know ten steelworkers that need work and that you like to hire. You cannot use them because you are under contract with the union. Union powers are controlled by federal laws. All you can do is tell the union you need a worker and they will send a worker to the job site tomorrow.That's not how it works. People are not under contract with the union, they are members. I was hired as a computer programmer at a county government, then I joined the union. People do the same work right next to me but are not members. They still pay a reduced dues but they can't vote. That's how a union shop works.
Now is it feasible for you to hire a company supervisor to watch the union steelworker to see that he can perform his tasks. In the government, maybe, in the real world, no. Your only choice is to fire the worker. And then the union will send out another worker. But look at the timetable from the time the captain walks onto the ship until the ship parts.In what world does a company not have supervisors? The only one I know of is the dirt farmers who run as a cooperative in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. A captain wouldn't have someone above him on the ship, but there is still a personnel dept, he still had a boss somewhere.
Walk the steps that happen that day. The only saving thing would have been for another employee to call Exxon corporate and tell them the captain was on drugs. But this was Alaska and half the crew was most likely on drugs.Childish, stupid, not true, and not the government's fault.
In the old system the captain controlled the ship and all personnel, and it was considered his ship. This happened years ago and I followed the case closely back then. Today, I only want to refer to the case to back up a thought or idea. And that idea is who put the captain on the ship? Point being, it was not Exxon. You are right about the damages, they were terrible.You still have not addressed anything I asked you to. See pages 11 and 12] The problems with the Captain are just a red herring anyway. How do you blame the government for the problems listed in this link? Arguing with you is as easy as shooting an oil soaked seagull.
Let me see if I can explain the process. If you need a steelworker tomorrow to be on a project you are building. And you personally know ten steelworkers that need work and that you like to hire. You cannot use them because you are under contract with the union. Union powers are controlled by federal laws. All you can do is tell the union you need a worker and they will send a worker to the job site tomorrow.That's not how it works. People are not under contract with the union, they are members. I was hired as a computer programmer at a county government, then I joined the union. People do the same work right next to me but are not members. They still pay a reduced dues but they can't vote. That's how a union shop works. Lausten not all union work by the same set of rules or methods. That’s why I picked the steelworkers, because they send the next guy in line out to the next opening. I have been a member of several big unions myself that did not work that way and worked like your union in the computer programming field. But, that is not how the shipping union works, or the longshoremen either.
Now is it feasible for you to hire a company supervisor to watch the union steelworker to see that he can perform his tasks. In the government, maybe, in the real world, no. Your only choice is to fire the worker. And then the union will send out another worker. But look at the timetable from the time the captain walks onto the ship until the ship parts.In what world does a company not have supervisors? The only one I know of is the dirt farmers who run as a cooperative in Monty Python and The Holy Grail. A captain wouldn't have someone above him on the ship, but there is still a personnel dept, he still had a boss somewhere. I would have to say a lot of companies. The trucking industry is an obvious one. The airlines is another. And yes there are personnel departments, but that system does not work when the next worker in line at the union hall is sent to the next job opening.
Walk the steps that happen that day. The only saving thing would have been for another employee to call Exxon corporate and tell them the captain was on drugs. But this was Alaska and half the crew was most likely on drugs.Childish, stupid, not true, and not the government's fault. Really, the question you refuse to answer is. Who put the captain Hazelwood on that ship? Did he get a call from Exxon? Or did his call come from the union?
In the old system the captain controlled the ship and all personnel, and it was considered his ship. This happened years ago and I followed the case closely back then. Today, I only want to refer to the case to back up a thought or idea. And that idea is who put the captain on the ship? Point being, it was not Exxon. You are right about the damages, they were terrible.You still have not addressed anything I asked you to. You are right. We could get into the Exxon but that should be in another post. This post is about the AGW, and the point to be made is that new laws and taxes are happening. And you would think that you could name the people responsible for the new laws and taxes. And yes I know the people vote in the new laws and taxes. But they are doing that on information coming from who? People who are going to make billions on these new laws. Or scientists who do not have to account for their actions?
See pages 11 and 12] The problems with the Captain are just a red herring anyway. How do you blame the government for the problems listed in this link? Arguing with you is as easy as shooting an oil soaked seagull.That’s true, and you have millions of dollars of charts and data to back you up. Along with hundreds of thousands of hours of work done on this data. Same as Yellowstone. Are we going to have to wait until everything is ash before common sense forces you to look at all the points of reason and just not the people that are making money or are protected by government jobs?
That’s true, and you have millions of dollars of charts and data to back you up. Along with hundreds of thousands of hours of work done on this data. Same as Yellowstone. Are we going to have to wait until everything is ash before common sense forces you to look at all the points of reason and just not the people that are making money or are protected by government jobs?Yes, silly me with my charts and data and work. I could have avoided all that and just gone to the church of Yohe.
Good foot work, try using the other end of the body.
Carbon Lag, Carbon Credits. Taboo words for the Global Warming activists. The backers of the Nazi Party and the Communist Parties were also activists. Good people with only half an understanding of the consequent.
Not that there wasn’t some truth and good ideas in both the Nazi and Communist Parties. We have incorporated many of those ideas into our system of government that we use today. Because they are good ideas and help the people. Before WWII war we were told they were bad ideas and bad for the people. All the data and information given to the people confirmed these Communist ideas were bad ideas.
But over time the people starting seeing that the data was not based upon all the facts and there was a political pressure to twist the data. As the people changed their minds about the Communist ideas and started voting in Communist leaders the governments changed it view on what was bad and what was not bad.
The United States also forced a lot of governments to take on Communist ideas. The thinking was that if the countries enforced popular Communist ideas then the Communist would not have a strong political platform for change. For example, unions could now represent the workers and not be controlled by the company. Slavery was also outlawed. Overtime pay and forty hour workweeks were some other favored Communist ideas as well as land ownership and voting rights.
History has proven that political forces can and does have power over the general public. And popular movements’ often end up causing new taxes and regulations.
Just look at the War on Drugs here in the United States. And what the government has feed to the people about marijuana not having any medical properties. Yet the DEA holds the patent for the medical marijuana pill. Why does the government not allow research which is proven to deprive the American public from use of natural medicine? What was the response from the educational institutions in America? They backed the government’s policies for most of the last forty years.
So what has changed with the marijuana to make the government and people start changing their minds. Answer, nothing. The same facts that were put on the table forty years ago and crushed by the establishment and the backers of the establishments policies are still the same today.
Why do people become activists and create laws that are not good for the country? They did the same thing with another drug, alcohol that they are doing with the drug marijuana.
That’s why I think we should not wait forty years or after the new carbon tax system is in place to answer question like carbon lag. The right thing to do is answer those questions now.
And now Mike Yohe has gone Godwin on us. This thread has jumped the shark.
And now Mike Yohe has gone Godwin on us. This thread has jumped the shark.As the kids say, that was totally random. I have a Facebook "friend" that posts things like "marijuana cures cancer". Every few months I interrupt his endless stream of pseudo-science and ask for evidence. He tells me I am a materialist reductionist and that I should "do my own research". I tell him I have done research and have come to a different conclusion, to which he concludes that there must be something lacking in my amount or quality of research or my basic premises. People like him and Mike are exactly why the scientific method was created.
You can pat yourself on the back, and hide under the skirts of misdirection. But until you try using what you claim to know as “scientific method". Then Al’s charts, which really got the whole Global Warming program up and going on the world stage. Should be understood in the very best of the “scientific methods" available to mankind. Yet, trying to get a straight answers about Al’s charts and the “Carbon Lag" question is like watching the caged monkeys at the zoo. They move around a lot but really don’t accomplish anything.
Timeline, 2006, Al Gore, Global Warming.
2007, question come out about the CO2 increase tend to lag behind the temperature increases.
2007, it is agreed that the CO2 cannot disprove the warming effect. But there is a major lack of understanding of the process. And trying to figure out the process keeps pointing to the Milankovitch Cycles.
2007. Al gets the Nobel Peace Prize for Global Warming.
2007. Carbon offsets purchases gain ground.
2007-2009. it seemed that if any questions were ask about “Carbon Lag". The inquirer was accused of claiming that CO2 did not cause Global Warming. There just did not seem to be any middle ground for discussion on the subject.
2008. In 1999, Hubertus Fischer et al. from Scripps Institution of oceanography compiled the records of the Vostok, TD, and Byrd ice cores and pointed out this lag between CO2 and temperature over the last 270,000 years. A glacial termination begins at a temporal minimum and ends at a temporal maximum. In termination III (from 270,000 years BP – 230,000 years BP) CO2 concentrations reached a maximum of over 300 p.p.m.v. 600 (+/-200) years after temperature had peaked at a change of ~2o C. Then again in termination II (160,000 years B.P. - 120,000 years B.P.), CO2 concentrations reach their maximum 400 (+/-200) years later than the recorded temperature peak. Other sources, such as Eric Monnin et al., Callion et al., and Petit et al., all estimate this CO2 lag to be ~800 (+/-200) years after temperature. However, they also give notice that the 800-year lag period is very short and insignificant compared to the 5,000-year period in which the lag occurs. This makes the lag insufficient evidence to rule out CO2 as a forcing factor on climate change.
2008. There are now three theories on the Carbon Lag.
First is that the CO2 is a forcing factor on the change in temperature. But there are a lot of problems with this theory.
Second is to eliminate the science on Carbon Lag as unsound.
The third claims the 800 year lag time does not match the 5,000 years in which the lag occurs, and this longer time period allows for the oceans effects to be brought into the theory. But there is major uncertainty in approximating the lag period due the science.
2008. Another hypothesis is being suggested as the temperature of the oceans increases, gaseous solubility of the ocean surfaces decreases, causing a net diffusion of CO2 into the atmosphere, or the reverse if temperatures decrease. This affects the observed atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Therefore, an increase in atmospheric temperatures causes the ocean surface temperatures to rise, giving a net increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
2008. At the end of 2008, several hypotheses are being work upon. A coming up with better data is being work on.
2009. Al Gore spoke at Copenhagen, telling the conference, “Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within 5 to 7 years.”
But Dr. Maslowski not trusting the data from his models said he thought it would be more like 20 to 30 years.
2009. The ocean was now in the center of the radar as the cause of Carbon Lag.
2010. The AGW got off the ground in the eyes of the general public.
2010. The U.S. Climate Threat Index put 2010 at the same level as 2002. The public felt the biggest threat was in 2007 and it has steadily declined since then.
2012. Some scientists want to redefine what “LAG" is by connecting it to the ocean’s conveyor belt circulation as a method to end the lag debate. Problem was that the theory did not work with all of the past ice core samples.
2013. Using new and improved techniques the carbon lag at the start of the Ice Age was less than 200 years and not 800 years. And maybe Al’s charts are wrong in that there is no Carbon Lag.
2013. The size and energy used at Al’s mansion indicates Al is not too worried about Carbon usage.
2013. Al says, “We have to put a price on carbon in the economy and we have to put a price on denial in the political system."
2013. Al’s income is hard to track. Just one of his group investments in Carbon Credits posted a profit of 218 M.
2014. Al headed Global Warming conferences. Does not include chart with Carbon Lag anymore. Al’s message is “Our way of life is at stake," and “Our grandchildren are at stake. The future of human civilization is at stake."
2014. Al and his group say 2 degC warming will take 33 years, the IPCC says 200 years.
2014. The Small Business Administration estimates regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.5 trillion Washington is currently spending.
2014. The U.S. Gov. can’t prove any benefits to the taxpayers for the billions spent on Global Warming. The government is now claiming a social cost on carbon. And they are putting the social cost at $40 per ton. The Chicago carbon exchange before it failed had the cost at $0.10 per ton. Social Carbon is intended for the EPA and other regulatory organizations to have political backing for their policies.
All of this, seven years and still no agreement for the Carbon Lag. The scientist have went from 5-800 years of lag time to 5,000 years of lag time. Then to 200 to zero years of lag time. Myself, I don’t know. I would like to know. I seem to favor the 2008 hypothesis the atmosphere temperature controls the CO2 levels in the natural cycle. Will the controls of the natural cycle start reducing the man-made carbon once it reaches a certain level? Again, we don’t know. The answer to that is in understand the history of Carbon Lag.
You can pat yourself on the back, and hide under the skirts of misdirection. But until you try using what you claim to know as “scientific method". Then Al’s charts, which really got the whole Global Warming program up and going on the world stage. Should be understood in the very best of the “scientific methods" available to mankind.Mike, do you have brown eyes? I suspect so, because you are full of fecal matter. Get over Al Gore and address the science; and let go of the carbon lag BS. Scientists have known about this for decades and explained it long ago.
You can pat yourself on the back, and hide under the skirts of misdirection. But until you try using what you claim to know as “scientific method". Then Al’s charts, which really got the whole Global Warming program up and going on the world stage. Should be understood in the very best of the “scientific methods" available to mankind.Mike, do you have brown eyes? I suspect so, because you are full of fecal matter. Get over Al Gore and address the science; and let go of the carbon lag BS. Scientists have known about this for decades and explained it long ago. Can’t change your spots can you!
Add this to your timeline
1978 - I took a Freshmen physics class on energy at University and learned about the affect of increased carbon in the atmosphere.
Al was busy inventing the internet
Add this to your timeline 1978 - I took a Freshmen physics class on energy at University and learned about the affect of increased carbon in the atmosphere. Al was busy inventing the internetI will, Al should have been in class with you. :lol: You know they claim that the increase in Carbon over the last 50 years has increased crop production by over 3T. Do you think that could be correct?
You know they claim that the increase in Carbon over the last 50 years has increased crop production by over 3T. Do you think that could be correct?I would imagine that would be quite incorrect. Your number to begin with sounds incredibly high, you sure it wasn't 3.7% ? 2nd) I don't hunk you can consider the Kudzu and other invasive vines (that are the big winners re increased CO2) as "crops" ? Also please notice once again,you share hearsay, no source info, no studies - just your imagination egged on by the bubble.
You know they claim that the increase in Carbon over the last 50 years has increased crop production by over 3T. Do you think that could be correct?I would imagine that would be quite incorrect. Your number to begin with sounds incredibly high, you sure it wasn't 3.7% ? 2nd) I don't hunk you can consider the Kudzu and other invasive vines (that are the big winners re increased CO2) as "crops" ? Also please notice once again,you share hearsay, no source info, no studies - just your imagination egged on by the bubble. CC, not everything has to be discussed like we are compiling a bomb. The new generation might operate that way because they are being raise in a world that has data at their fingertips around the clock. Many of us old timers use to get a mailbox full of science magazines. Today’s methods are a hundred times better. But what do we do with all the knowledge we got from the magazines before computers were even heard of? And to set down and have to back up every detail and thought with websites is not discussing the subject. That is what you would do if you are writing a book or paper on a subject. If I am wrong about an idea then say so. I am of old school thinking. That if you are not making mistakes then you are probably not doing anything. When you find a mistake fix it and get on to the next mistake. There is a whole world around you that was built that way, from cars to planes, you name it. I messed up on my last post. The 3T was 3 Trillion dollars’ worth of crop that has been produced in the same fields around the world just by the extra carbon in the air. Not tons, but trillion dollars. How they came up with that figure, who knows. One of the things I have been doing lately is gathering information about the marijuana growers. I have been helping them understand and comply with the laws. That is because there is so much misinformation floating around. And many growers are outside of the law because they don’t understand a few simple steps that can make their growing operations legal in California. This is in my mind what the government is supposes to be doing. Helping the people operate in a manner that is good for everyone. I have visited a lot of growing operations. And no two operate the same. Outdoor growing is becoming more popular. But there is still a lot of indoor and greenhouse growing. The top indoor growers fill the rooms with high levels of CO2 when the plants are in the flowering stage. They claim they get a bigger flowers by doing this. The thinking is that the plant does respond to the extra high levels of CO2 in the air.
If I am wrong about an idea then say so. I am of old school thinking. That if you are not making mistakes then you are probably not doing anything. When you find a mistake fix it and get on to the next mistake. There is a whole world around you that was built that way, from cars to planes, you name it.Not sure why you point this out, since that's what we've been doing. So here's me saying, you're wrong.
I messed up on my last post. The 3T was 3 Trillion dollars’ worth of crop that has been produced in the same fields around the world just by the extra carbon in the air. Not tons, but trillion dollars. How they came up with that figure, who knows.Somebody knows. Probably the people who came up with the figure. That's kinda important don't ya think? If you ask them and they say they dreamed it and now believe it's true, would you continue to accept it?
The thinking is that the plant does respond to the extra high levels of CO2 in the air.Using this thinking, if my recipe for ratatouille says "cook over a medium heat for 30 minutes", then I should just turn the heat up and it will done in 10. Of course, my eggplant will be black in some spots and raw in others, but hey, it "responded".
The thinking is that the plant does respond to the extra high levels of CO2 in the air.Using this thinking, if my recipe for ratatouille says "cook over a medium heat for 30 minutes", then I should just turn the heat up and it will done in 10. Of course, my eggplant will be black in some spots and raw in others, but hey, it "responded". Yea, most of these guys, excluding the growers form Laos of course. Couldn’t grow a tomato if their next meal depended on it. Mostly city kids who have no idea of outdoor field farming or the worth of money. What gets me the most is that they all seem to have two or more college degrees. They talk like the whole growing operation is some type of laboratory project. They will spend $300 bucks on a two gallon jug of fertilizer because it has honey or fish parts. And buy hundreds of the jugs. Then order semi-trailer loads of bagged potting soil from almost a thousand miles away because it is the best. Then the guys from Laos who have no money and live under a tree. Will end up growing a better product. The Laos guys will have a new truck the first crop and then buy a small farm by the end of the second crop while the city kids are trying to raise money to grow their next crop. About half the city kids will break even, the others will lose money trying to grow. This is not an isolated situation, we are talking hundreds if not thousands of growers just in the Southern California area. Now there are a lot of indoor city growers that are doing quite well. But the crop prices are dropping and cost of growing in high rent buildings under lights is not cheap by any means. Point being, I never bought into the whole CO2 at flowering routine. But I see a lot of money being spent doing just that. Myself, I couldn't tell a good flower from a bad flower by the stuff these guys are talking about in the CO2 process.
I will, Al should have been in class with you. :lol: You know they claim that the increase in Carbon over the last 50 years has increased crop production by over 3T. Do you think that could be correct?That ranks among the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever read. How much has the technology of crop production changed in the last 50 years. From genetically engineered crops, to fertilizer to computer analysis of everything. People are supposed to believe CO2 made that much change? Tests in green houses under controlled conditions didn't do that. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm Tell the stupid any idiotic trash they prefer to believe. psik
I will, Al should have been in class with you. :lol: You know they claim that the increase in Carbon over the last 50 years has increased crop production by over 3T. Do you think that could be correct?That ranks among the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever read. How much has the technology of crop production changed in the last 50 years. From genetically engineered crops, to fertilizer to computer analysis of everything. People are supposed to believe CO2 made that much change? Tests in green houses under controlled conditions didn't do that. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm Tell the stupid any idiotic trash they prefer to believe. psik I said I did not know, Lausten has studied the subject, which would have given Lausten some insight on the subject. Three trillion over fifty years is 60 billion a year increase in world crop production per year. To me that number seems high. And the reason I wanted to know was so I could better understand the methods used by the hemp growers. Writ4U in post #54 said that hemp is a voracious CO2 scrubber and can remove four time the amount of CO2 that trees can covering the same area. The website you posted shows the greenhouse industry using CO2, so maybe that is the way to go for greenhouse growing. Good site. My data shows that right now the outdoor growers are still developing the system for growing hemp outdoors in Southern California. The text books shows that indoor plants can get up to five pounds where the same plant outdoors will get seven pounds. I have seen the indoor plants that can get five pounds on television programs about the Canada indoor growing. But have never seen anything close in this part of the country. Most outdoor grower are lucky to average one pound per plant, the same for indoor growers.
I will, Al should have been in class with you. :lol: You know they claim that the increase in Carbon over the last 50 years has increased crop production by over 3T. Do you think that could be correct?That ranks among the most hilariously stupid thing I have ever read. I disagree. Stupid? Yes. Hilarious? No. Once again Mike is showing his deliberate ignorance. A simple search using "global warming crop yields" returned many credible articles explaining how global warming is potentially reducing crop yields, yet Mike jumped on an unknown claim that ignores all the advances in technology and attributes increase crop yields to increased carbon emissions. But why should Mike bother educating himself when he can glom onto an anonymous assertion that supports his preconceived ideas?