Wow. If the climate wasn't warming before, I'll bet all
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2012 4:09 PM EDT |
that processing power nudges it along. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 17, 2012 4:17 PM EDT |
Ya know, I was going to type something to the same effect, but didn't for the usual reason. And Dino, you got the title wrong. It's not "warming" any more, it's "climate change". But I'm sorry I can't discuss why. |
| tracyanne Oct 17, 2012 4:37 PM EDT |
It's because it's changing. |
| jdixon Oct 17, 2012 5:04 PM EDT |
> It's because it's changing. Yep. Just as it's always done. |
| caitlyn Oct 17, 2012 5:25 PM EDT |
You're right, jdixon, but people change it now a whole lot more than before. I'll stop there. This thread is mostly a TOS violation anyway.. |
| dinotrac Oct 17, 2012 8:35 PM EDT |
So long as we're squarely in TOS land, I agree that it was better before when we called it Global Warming, because that IS the climate change everybody's talking about. This "climate change" crap not only muddies the water (before it gets all dried up, that is), it creates a near-hopeless situation: if you can't identify a problem (ie, things are getting warmer), you can't identify a solution, either. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 17, 2012 9:22 PM EDT |
> if you can't identify a problem (ie, things are getting warmer), you can't identify a solution, either. That way there is no test, no metric, by which to judge whether anything is working. "Change" is not a metric, it's a given. By making the "ends" infinitely important (and yet vague), any "means" can be justified. |
| number6x Oct 18, 2012 11:06 AM EDT |
I think I can keep politics out of this (until the last line!)
I know more about lightning than climate, but my masters thesis was on the onset of turbulence in non-compressible fluids and I did learn a lot about the weather from Dave Raymond and Charles Moore when I was at New Mexico Tech. Rate of change of climate would be more accurate. An over-simplified example would be a very large pot of boiling water on medium heat. It is at an equilibrium point due to a phase change. The water is happy boiling away. Stick a thermometer in it and see that it is at 100° C. Turn up the heat and the thermometer stays at 100° C. The water boils much more violently, but stays 100° C. Turn down the heat so the water goes down to a simmer, it is still at 100° C. More heat energy does not always mean more temperature. It could just mean more 'boiling'. The climate is more complex, but trapping more heat may not mean higher temperatures as much as it would mean more extremes in weather. Higher highs, and cooler cools. However, weather extremes are not climate. They are important to our infrastructure, to our biggest industry (agriculture), to our defense infrastructure, and to everyones well being, but they are not climate. The climate is not at a phase change but there are forces that keep things at or near equilibrium. Produce more CO2 and there will probably be more algae to use it up. The effects on the fishing industry would probably be devastating, but you might or might not get 'global warming'. The problem with equilibrium in nature is that you are usually not at a true equilibrium, but at some kind of plateau. a little too far one way or another and there will be the onset of turbulence until a new plateau is reached. We know that the output of the sun is relatively constant on geo-climactic timescales. For example, the ice ages were not caused by less solar output. We know that there are at least three rough stable places in our Planet's climate. The moderate we have now, the global jungles of the past and the global ice ages of the past. Since the sun is not variable on these timescales, we know that it is conditions on earth that cause the climate to change and settle in one or another of these stable temporary equilibriums places. So global warming is not a good name, because it may not get warmer. Climate change is more accurate, but there is always climate change. Rate of climate change is what should really be studied. And now for the politics: To study this we should use supercomputers running Linux! PS: By the way, My undergraduate advisor, Charles Moore, worked on Project Mogul after WWII. Yes, he was one of the people who built the 'craft' that crashed in Roswell in 1947. So I learned physics from someone who built the infamous Roswell 'UFO'. The guy new more about lightning than anyone in the world. He designed the first improvement to lightning rod technology since Ben Franklin. He was a truly remarkable man and held the record for a human being reaching the greatest height in a weather balloon for a while back in the early 1950's. They would ride the balloons ups while gathering data, then ride down and parachute the rest of the way. Something that's still going on in Roswell today! |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 18, 2012 11:38 AM EDT |
Very interesting. If I may ask, how has it been determined that solar output variations is not what causes ice ages? We're coming due for another one. It's been 12K years. |
| dinotrac Oct 18, 2012 11:46 AM EDT |
@n6x - Global warming is a great name, because it is the root problem. At least, I suppose, until the oceans start to boil. You're right about the many regulatory mechanisms (not to mention assorted cycles -- including solar cycles) that can muddy the apparent effect, but warming is the problem. BTW, I'm not aware that anybody has ruled out solar variation (either from actual variation in output or changes in the earth's orbit, or the sun's travels through the galaxies) as a contributor to the ice ages, just that it's extremely unlikely that solar variation was sufficient to cause them alone. |
| number6x Oct 18, 2012 2:12 PM EDT |
There are variations in the sun's output, but they don't directly correlate with the climate temperature on earth. Consider that the earth is at perihelion in winter. The earth is closer to the sun in December. This probably feels correct to @TA, but not to @dino. More or less heating does not always correlate to more or less warming: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101006141558.ht... The sun is a pretty average star and we have lots of examples to study. The short term(11-12 yr) solar cycle does seem to affect the oceans most. It doesn't exactly fit to el nino / la nina , nor to hurricane patterns, but there does seem to be a strong component. The known cycles of ~11, ~22, ~90, ~200, ~2300 and ~6,000 from the sun and cosmic radiation from galactic arms are even taken into account in many climate models. I guess 'global heating' might be better, but it may or may not result in overall warming. I guess it depends on the time scale you want to consider. Or on the plateau we end up on after a shift. More heat could produce more clouds in the atmosphere and we could end up in an ice age. We don't know enough to know. We do know we are trying an experiment on ourselves that has never been done before. Its not really a subject people should get alarmed about, considering the time scales involved. It is something we should study. Outside the scientific community, I would think that the fishing, agricultural based and tourist industries would care the most about the subject. The only problem would be triggering a fall from stability into turbulence. That could be seen over a few dozen human life times, maybe as long as 10,000 years. The only time something like that ever happened was the comet or asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. I don't know if we could achieve that with just burning fossil fuels. We could change the temp enough to ruin valuable crops and real estate. |
| jdixon Oct 18, 2012 2:25 PM EDT |
> We don't know enough to know. Exactly. And there's a fair amount of debate about what we think we do know. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 18, 2012 3:53 PM EDT |
> We do know we are trying an experiment on ourselves that has never been done before. I disagree. Atmospheric CO2 levels have varied greatly in the past. I find the attachment that "anything that isn't exactly as it is within my own memory is wrong" to be a terrible hubris. |
| caitlyn Oct 18, 2012 5:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:And there's a fair amount of debate about what we think we do know.Actually, in the scientific community there really isn't much debate. It's those who have a political agenda who create the debate. |
| dinotrac Oct 18, 2012 5:41 PM EDT |
@Bob -- Levels have varied greatly throughout Earth history, for sure, but... I suspect that we would prefer those levels that are consistent with human survival. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 18, 2012 7:42 PM EDT |
Dino, there isn't one electron worth of caring about human survival outside of humans. As much as I might prefer to survive, the Earth is going to do whatever it will do regardless of human input. I am not looking forward to the next Ice Age, humans might very well find themselves burning everything they can get their hands on to make CO2 once the glaciers start marching south. Have you seen Burt Rutan's (of Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic fame) "Engineering Analysis of Climate Data"? It's fascinating reading, let me see if I can find it... http://burtrutan.com/burtrutan/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4... Caitlyn, > Actually, in the scientific community there really isn't much debate. It's those who have a political agenda who create the debate. I've seen lots of debate. It's those who have a political agenda who suppress the debate. See? Perfect disagreement, we can now get past this tired old saw and on to the technical discussion. ...unless by having the technical discussion -at-all-, you are going to declare it political and fulfill my sentense above. If you cannot stand it, please just press "Unwatch Thread". |
| BernardSwiss Oct 18, 2012 10:00 PM EDT |
Climate change/global warming as a predictable consequence of re-releasing previously sequestered (ie. "fossil" carbon) back into the atmosphere was first posited in the 1800s, roughly approximated in the later 1890s and those calculations refined with rough corrections for the main complicating factor (water vapour) within a decade (early 1900s) -- way back In those days they actually still called CO2 "carbonic acid" rather than carbon dioxide). Though necessarily crude, these calculations did not cause much fuss. For one thing it was not appreciated how quickly CO2 production would increase. More significantly it was seen as a protection against new ice ages. Most importantly of all it was assumed to be a net benefit to global agriculture. The rest has been a long process of developing a better understanding, more sophisticated models, and nailing down details (and of course developing a more sophisticated understanding of the consequences). |
| dinotrac Oct 18, 2012 11:46 PM EDT |
@Bob -- I happen to be human, so I do care about the world my kids live in, and their kids as well. That the planet itself doesn't care makes no difference to me. |
| jdixon Oct 19, 2012 5:14 AM EDT |
> Most importantly of all it was assumed to be a net benefit to global agriculture. Most indications I've seen to date are that this has in fact been the case. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 19, 2012 10:22 AM EDT |
> Most importantly of all it was assumed to be a net benefit to global agriculture. Indeed, that is my impression as well. Farming Siberia would increase food production dramatically. Dino, I agree with you, I am concerned as well. My concerns are generally less "environmental" and more "ecological". I strive to bring awareness about the subsidies that make polluting industries more profitable than they would otherwise be, that protect polluters from prosecution, that punish smaller self-sustaining agriculture in favor of industrial agri-corps, things like that. A "take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves" attitude. If the Medieval Warm Period is any indication, several degrees of change in the "up" direction is not going to hurt. |
| dinotrac Oct 19, 2012 5:47 PM EDT |
@Bob -- Can't argue with you even a smidge about subsidizing polluters. Re Medieval Warm Period: It doesn't much bother me that we're warmer now than we were then. I'm actually most concerned that temperatures have stopped climbing. That's in keeping with the pattern for the last 130 years or so -- a couple of 40 year flat spots between periods of rapid increase, but... we (humanity as a whole) are dumping so much more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before, that I worry about what happens when this plateau passes. My real nightmare scenario: Most of the current CO2 growth comes courtesy of China's continuing rapid construction of coal-fired power plants. You may or may not be aware of a phenomemon called global dimming: essentially, assorted particles, etc in the air reflect sunlight back into space, resulting in a slight dimming and, consquently, cooling. So -- after years of belching more and more CO2 (which doesn't leave the atmosphere in any kind of hurry, btw), the Chinese stop burning coal, all that sunlight makes it down into the atmosphere, and the planet goes all sauna. Yeah, yeah -- check the tinfoil hat at the door. Still... |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 19, 2012 7:01 PM EDT |
Dino, Really? Warmer now than during the M.W.P.? I was not aware of that. Personally I like nuclear. Soot sucks. |
| montezuma Oct 19, 2012 8:00 PM EDT |
There is very little doubt among qualified scientists that the climate is warming and that this is being driven by increasing levels of CO2 which are produced by humans. Furthermore there is little doubt that past variations in CO2 drove large climate excursions many millions of years ago as well . What is different about the present climate change is its rapidity. Typically the kinds of global increases we have seen since the industrial revolution occur on time scales of thousands of years in the distant past rather than hundreds of years which we are presently seeing. This rapidity is also accelerating since CO2 increases are also accelerating. The Earth's ecosystems have to adapt to changes in climate and the faster the change the harder time they have. As far as solar radiation variations and ice ages go this connection is called a Milankovic cycle It is generally believed (this is less certain than what I said above) that variations in the axis tilt of the Earth are the main driver rather than actual solar output variations which are really very small as stellar evolution science tells us they should be. The reason the axis tilt is important is because a greater tilt leads to more severe winters which enable an ice pack to run away via the albedo positive feedback mechanism (Ice is more reflective than land and ocean so it reduces radiation absorption). It is interesting to perform a simple calculation of what the temperature on Earth would be without the dominant greenhouse gases (H2O and CO2). That hypothetical temperature is roughly 30-40 degrees Kelvin less than the observed temperature which shows what those gases effect is on global temperature. Incidentally H2O is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 but it just goes up and down with temperature (humidity varies directly with temperature). Thus H2O acts as a positive feedback mechanism in the system in magnifying forcing from other sources such as CO2. Discussing science doesn't violate the TOS I hope. You can read a lot more on this in documents produced by the US National Academy of Science. |
| BernardSwiss Oct 19, 2012 11:59 PM EDT |
If the astronomers say that the current warming can't be ascribed to the Sun or to the Earth's orbit (and that is what they say) I'm inclined to accept that as settled. And no discussion of whether the Earth's climate is/isn't warming can be considered complete, without reference to this graph. http://www.skepticalscience.net/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif ;-) |
| dinotrac Oct 20, 2012 5:16 AM EDT |
@BernardSwiss -- Kind of a cr@p graph, actually, with 2 problems: 1. There is the ever-present starting-point bias. It would be much more interesting to see the same graph starting in 1880. 2. Linear regression will always force a straight line. It's why you should always calculated a confidence interval. At any rate the "realists" happily ignore the deteriorating post-1998 fit. Handy for a propagandist's approach to science, crappy for real science and trying to understand why the recent trend has been so flat in spite of ever increasing CO2 loads. It's why my paranoia leaves me fearful that the Chinese will "get religioin" so to speak, stop burning coal, as we all fry to a crisp as the moderating effect of atmospheric aerosols fades into the past. |
| Fettoosh Oct 22, 2012 11:05 AM EDT |
The rapidly increasing rate of human population poses the major risk to Earth and its own survival, invading outer space is the only salvation for humanity. All other factors, for millions of years, have never been an issue. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2012 11:28 AM EDT |
> The rapidly increasing rate of human population... Is only a factor in the developing world. Most of the developed countries have a birth rate below replacement level. As the developing countries work their way into the industrial and information ages, the real danger may in fact be extinction because we stopped reproducing. |
| dinotrac Oct 22, 2012 11:43 AM EDT |
Rapidlly increasing rate of human population? No. If this were 1960, I might be right there with you, but it's not. The real problem is the rapid movement of people from what we used to call "third world economies" towards "first world". The industrialized world used to be, even fairly recently, reasonably well defined as Europe, the US, and Japan. Maybe 1/6 of the world's population. Now, people everywhere are getting a little money and buying cars. China will soon double up US CO2 emissions, and, not too long after that, triple them. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2012 12:43 PM EDT |
> The rapidly increasing rate of human population Incorrect. Human population growth rates have been decreasing for many years now. The population is still increasing, yes, but the -rate- of increase is decreasing. There will come a flattening out. As regions develop, their population rates decrease. Highly developed countries like the US, western Europe, Japan, actually have negative growth rates. China is nearly there as well, much more the result of economic development than their "one child" policy. |
| Fettoosh Oct 22, 2012 12:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is only a factor in the developing world. Quoting:The real problem is the rapid movement of people from what we used to call "third world economies" towards "first world". Both of your arguments ignore the fact that the US, Europe, Japan, China and the rest all live on one planet called Earth and what happens in one area impacts the whole planet. The world is much smaller than what it used to be. And Dino, the main reason for the influx is the over population in some areas on the planet causing misery that drives people to look for better opportunities. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2012 1:00 PM EDT |
Fettoosh, I think you mistake the second comment above, "movement of people". Dino is not talking about migration. He means economic change from undeveloped to developed industrial environments. Smaller farming areas, larger manufacturing areas. A "movement" only in terms of change, not in terms of place. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2012 1:53 PM EDT |
> Both of your arguments ignore the fact that the US, Europe, Japan, China and the rest all live on one planet called Earth and what happens in one area impacts the whole planet. I don't see how. > The world is much smaller than what it used to be. Well, obviously it isn't. Travel has gotten faster and easier, but that's not the same thing. And that only if you can afford it, which the majority of the world's population can't. Communications have improved significantly, but again that's not the same thing. If you really think the world is running out of room, here's some simple math. The world population is less than 7 billion. The population density of Hong Kong is greater than16 thousand per square kilometer (that's the island, not the city. The city is doubles that. New York City by comparison is just over 10,500 per square kilometer). If we took that density and put the entire population in a single square, it would be 7B/16K or 437500 square kilometers. The square root of 437500 is 661.4378 to four decimal places. So that square would be less than 662 kilometers per side. Feel free to repeat with the population density of your choice if you desire. |
| Fettoosh Oct 22, 2012 2:19 PM EDT |
You are right about the rate but the population growth is still alarming. About Dino's comment, I should have finished reading it. Blame it on needing another vacation after a well deserved long vacation. :-) Still, it is hard to argue against the fact that human population growth is still the major risk for humans & other living things unless diseases and wars control the explosion without destroying the planet. |
| Fettoosh Oct 22, 2012 2:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:If you really think the world is running out of room, here's some simple math. No, I was referring to what is needed in resources to support and sustain reasonable life style. The Planet is limited and can only be sufficient for a certain number of people. |
| dinotrac Oct 22, 2012 2:52 PM EDT |
@Fettoosh, @Bob, et al... There is actual population shrinkage in some places, like Japan, Russia, Germany, S. Korea, and most of Eastern Europe. Add in a long-recognized trend to smaller families in wealthier countries, and you have reason to be optimistic about population growth. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2012 3:46 PM EDT |
> I was referring to what is needed in resources to support and sustain reasonable life style. "Reasonable" is subjective. There are a lot of folks who think "people" should be living in high-density planned urban areas rather than being allowed to "spread out". Dino, Oh yes, I know it well. I lived in Japan, where they openly discussed the fact that the lack of "replacement children" was going to create a crisis where there would not be enough tax-payers to afford their tax funded old age pension system. It was refreshing, because that is how they talked about it. No hidden agendas, no false concerns, just plain facts. |
| caitlyn Oct 22, 2012 4:45 PM EDT |
The areas with the fastest population growth are the areas of the world which can least support the increased population (i.e.: Bangladesh, Gaza). Are there enough resources in the world for the current population? Yes. Do they get to the people that need them? No. I won't go any further because that would be purely political in nature. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 22, 2012 4:53 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, you and I are in complete agreement on your last sentence. It would be wonderful if it was only an engineering problem. |
| dinotrac Oct 22, 2012 5:52 PM EDT |
Is it just me, or have we had a recurrence of the infamous cut-off-the-right-side-of-comments problem? Hmm. Must have just been me -- or just me and chromium. Opened page in Firefox and all is well. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2012 11:46 PM EDT |
> ...unless diseases and wars control the explosion without destroying the planet. Given human history and the generally increasing drug immunity of various bacteria and viruses, I"m afraid both of those are a given. It's possible that nanotech could help with the latter, but will probably only make the former worse. > The Planet is limited and can only be sufficient for a certain number of people. Of course. But, we're nowhere near those limits yet. And Caitlyn, I have to agree on all of your points. Even about the political nature of the distribution problems. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 23, 2012 8:51 AM EDT |
Group Hug! |
| Fettoosh Oct 23, 2012 9:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:Of course. But, we're nowhere near those limits yet. Of course we are not, but my point is, on the long run, changes in the climate (weather pattern) is not as dangerous and destructive as the growing population is polluting and poisoning the planet without recourse. Changes in weather is part of the feedback process that keeps the planet alive and well and not a killer like pollution. Unless they are drastically severe, changes in climate are things we can adopt to, pollution is pretty hard to adopt to or recover from after it becomes world wide. |
| dinotrac Oct 23, 2012 12:24 PM EDT |
@Fettoosh -- The fun part is that they're inter-related. As people become more prosperous, they tend to have fewer children, which helps. But, as they become more prosperous, then tend to cause more CO2 emissions, which doesn't. Fun thought for all you proud Prius warriors, doing your bit to save the planet: About 35% of any car's lifetime CO2 emissions have already taken place by the time it appears at the car dealership. Building and shipping those suckers ain't free, boys and girls. |
| gus3 Oct 23, 2012 2:15 PM EDT |
TANSTAAFL. |
| Fettoosh Oct 23, 2012 2:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:As people become more prosperous, they tend to have fewer children Where I come from, a common saying goes "The only fun poor people can have is when in bed". :-) |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 23, 2012 2:27 PM EDT |
> Fun thought for all you proud Prius warriors... One reason I really like motorcycles, they use less resources of all kinds. Now if only I could get something as "frugal" as the Super Beetle for those winter months. |
| gus3 Oct 23, 2012 2:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:One reason I really like motorcycles, they use less resources of all kinds.Until one has a collision. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 23, 2012 2:58 PM EDT |
Gus, that's why I avoid collisions. Especially when they're with things larger and more consumptive of resources than my bike. :^) |
| dinotrac Oct 23, 2012 3:28 PM EDT |
@Bob -- I avoid collisions on my bike, too, but have still managed to hit the ground a few times. Fortunately for me, my bike doesn't have a motor and rarely tops 30mph. ** And I always wear a helmet, except, of course, for the last time I fell off except that doesn't count because it was my daughter's bike and I was only riding it around the block to check out the shifters and my gosh! the disk brakes engaged quickly and I did my wrists no good at all in the fall which had everybody convinced that I was near death just because head wounds really really bleed but I was all right except for my pride and, well, my palms and my wrists and assort places that got really nasty scrapes but her poor bike needed a trip to the bike mechanic and it's a good thing she had a service plan for the fool thing. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 24, 2012 8:51 AM EDT |
Dino, Ugh. Hitting the ground at any speed sucks. Glad it was "just a flesh wound", and yes head cuts bleed like crazy. |
| caitlyn Oct 24, 2012 3:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Fun thought for all you proud Prius warriors, doing your bit to save the planet: About 35% of any car's lifetime CO2 emissions have already taken place by the time it appears at the car dealership. Building and shipping those suckers ain't free, boys and girls.That's another great argument for keeping my old '95 Miata going. That, and the fact that the little beastie refuses to die no matter how much I run it :) A friend of mine who knows cars was amazed at how much of my car was still factory original (as in never needed replacing) under the hood. It does need (and is about to get) a new top, though. Oh, and yeah, I looked into trading it in on a new one. I got a much better quote on the trade in than I expected but the new ones are over US$30,000 and I am unwilling to take on debt at this point. {edited to remove interesting typos} |
| dinotrac Oct 24, 2012 8:45 PM EDT |
@caitlyn -- That is exactly the right takeaway. We can do more to help the environment by keeping semi-decent cars a few years longer than by picking up a Prius/etc. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 25, 2012 8:59 AM EDT |
"Semi-decent" is a good description of my vehicles. |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2012 2:22 PM EDT |
@BR: ;0) |
| gus3 Oct 25, 2012 6:35 PM EDT |
Does "semi-decent" imply "semi-indecent"? |
| dinotrac Oct 25, 2012 9:49 PM EDT |
Only if you're talking big rigs and booty calls. |
| cr Oct 26, 2012 12:23 PM EDT |
Quoting: Hitting the ground at any speed sucks.Anytime I consider riding less than fully clad, I have only to look at all the road rash on my older leather jacket, from my first six months in the wind. And remember the 5mph spill in a perfect turn just because some fool up the hill was washing his car with a lot of suds and it puddled at the intersection. |
| dinotrac Oct 26, 2012 10:30 PM EDT |
@cr -- When riding bicycles (as opposed to motorcycles), one does not tend to wear leather. Too hot and too heavy, and, honestly, most of the time we're not going even 20mph. Yeah -- scrapes are a bear, but...sigh. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 29, 2012 12:42 PM EDT |
I wanted to put my motorcycle in storage this morning, but it had already started raining. Have to wait until after this storm passes. Awww. |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 1:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:That is exactly the right takeaway. We can do more to help the environment by keeping semi-decent cars a few years longer than by picking up a Prius/etc.OTOH, if you have to buy a new car, buying a hybrid, an electric vehicle, or just something that is very fuel efficient is better for the environment and for keeping greenhouse gas levels down as much as possible. |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2012 1:57 PM EDT |
@caitlyn --- Though I'm not completely sold on hybrids, I completely agree with you on new-vehicle purchases. Fuel economy needs to be a paramount concern, especially considering that CO2 emissions are the result of fuel combustion. Hybrids still make me scratch my head -- a bit of the worst of both worlds. You still have an internal combustion engine PLUS and electric and a big old stack of batteries. Extra complexity always makes me uneasy. AND -- hybrids tend to excel at around-town driving. That makes sense, as the biggest benefit to a hybrid is running on the electric motor. BUT -- if you can justify more than one car, a pure electric really excels at around town driving. |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 2:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:BUT -- if you can justify more than one car, a pure electric really excels at around town driving.I'm just waiting for the ~250 mile range Tesla is getting on their new sedan to become standard for electric vehicles that are more affordable. I live 70 miles from the nearest real city and 84 miles from one of the two airports there. I need to be able to at least make that sort of round trip on one charge. Living in a very small city makes the range offered by something like a Nissan Leaf just too short to be practical. |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2012 3:34 PM EDT |
They'll have to go a loooong way south of the current $105k+ to be viable for me.
Sigh. And that is one of the questions with electric cars: range tends to mean more batteries, more engineering, etc. Is that compatible with cars that mere mortals can afford to buy? Time will tell, I suppose, but I am reminded that 20 years have passed since the EV-1, whose last incarnation cost about $35,000 in the dollars of the day, and got got up tot 140 miles on a NiMH batter pack. Doesn't seem like we've progressed a whole lot in 20 years. |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 3:54 PM EDT |
That is, in part, because big oil companies bought patents they found threatening and squashed the technology. MIT Techology Review had a very good in depth article about the technologies and what happened to them a few years back. (Excellent magazine -- well worth the cost of a subscription.) If I were still in/near a larger city center the Nissan Leaf would be a tempting next car. So would the new Fiat 500EV due out soon. Out where I am a plug-in bybrid could work since I wouldn't need to run the engine to charge the batteries. I do see quite a few Priuses on the road here and the plug in version would make sense, as would the Chevy Volt if I wanted that sort of car. Right now I'm more likely to go with a new or newer Miata when the time comes. I love my little convertable, especially this time of year. When it becomes too expensive to maintain is when I'll look elsewhere. Repairs in the last year have been under $500 so right now it's definitelty cheaper to keep her going than to replace it with something new. |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2012 4:48 PM EDT |
So -- Are you saying that we'll see a boatload of nifty new technology dumping into the public domain now, and manufacturers will be able to use all of that patented technology? PS -- Miatas rock, and you can spend well north of $500 a year in maintenance and still save serious money over buying new. |
| number6x Oct 29, 2012 5:15 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, A few years ago we bought a volkswagen eos convertable. Seats 4, front wheel drive (important for snowy winters), hard top convertable (with full sunroof). The thing is like a transformer. Beautiful car, great mileage. Check out the light blue. You have to see it in person. It was a gift for my wife's birthday. She was 29 again! |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 5:35 PM EDT |
@dino: No, I don't think the oil companies have any interest in releasing those patents. The status quo suits them. I'm also well aware that a car costs an average of $3000 a year to maintain including both service and insurance. As you say, my car, even with routine maintenance (tires a year ago, oil changes, etc...) is nowhere near that. The only thing that would hold me back in terms of buying a new Miata is the $30,000+ price tag on the 2013 model and my desire to avoid taking on any debt at all. The cars are incredibly well built and they really do last. I wish I could say the same for a friend's Mazda 3. @number6x: My brother has an Eos. Nice car. I'm single and I like my cars tiny like me :) My first new car was a 1980 Triumph Spitfire if you remember those. That car was fun to drive too. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 29, 2012 5:42 PM EDT |
Dino, you might find it interesting that around the turn of the 20th century, electric cars were just as viable, visible, and available, as gasoline cars. It's not like development of the electric car started with the EV-1. There are many reasons why electric cars are not both wide-spread and inexpensive, but those go into TOS land. My opinion as to the why behind Caitlyn's comments on the abuse of "electric car patents" would be surprisingly in line with what seems to be Caitlyn's own, although our answers would be completely opposite. Peace. |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2012 6:03 PM EDT |
caitlyn -- there is no "releasing the patents". Patents expire. If there's great technology being held back by patents, it will become available. That, btw, is how we get all those generic drugs: their patents expire. |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2012 6:07 PM EDT |
@Bob -- Which century? Electric cars were very popular at the turn of the 20th century, especially with women who couldn't or wouldn't crank up an engine in the days before the electric self-starter. But viable? Only for so long as gasoline cars were more or less short-haul devices. |
| caitlyn Oct 29, 2012 6:08 PM EDT |
What I should have said was they won't release anything before the patents expire. Better? |
| dinotrac Oct 29, 2012 8:38 PM EDT |
@caitlyn - Better. OTOH, if there's anything good in there, I would bet people are already working on it for the day the patents do expire, or inventing around them. Of course, it raises the question of why they would bother to quash them. If there's great stuff in there, the smart thing to do is to exploit the technology and be the ones who make a fortune from it. |
| caitlyn Oct 30, 2012 11:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:Of course, it raises the question of why they would bother to quash them. If there's great stuff in there, the smart thing to do is to exploit the technology and be the ones who make a fortune from it.That requires long term thinking. Sadly too many companies are almost entirely focused on short term profits. Also, I do believe a move away from using fossil fuels almost exclusively for transportation is seen as a threat by the big oil companies. That shift is inevitable but they are forestalling it as long as possible. |
| dinotrac Oct 30, 2012 11:52 AM EDT |
@caitlyn -- The oil business is full of long-term thinkers. Think about the business they're in: 1. Exploration requires investing in activities that may or may not generate a return years down the line. 2. It takes, if I recall correctly, a minimum of 7 years to bring an off-shore well online. 3. Things like refineries, storage facilities, etc are major investments that require significant planning and work before they return a time. 4. Even relatively short-term actions require significant advance work -- securing rights to land, marshalling people and equipment, etc. Last I looked, most major oil companies had branched out into other forms of energy. Not a bad plan when your industry is built on a non-renewable resource |
| caitlyn Oct 30, 2012 12:01 PM EDT |
Find and read the MIT Technology Review article and judge for yourself, OK? |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 30, 2012 12:08 PM EDT |
Oil company profits are also not all they're cracked up to be. The raw numbers look huge, but compared to the capital investment they're quite small. |
| caitlyn Oct 30, 2012 12:17 PM EDT |
Bob, sometimes I think we live on entirely different planets. I'd explain but it would definitely be a TOS violation. |
| dinotrac Oct 30, 2012 12:38 PM EDT |
@caitlyn -- Bob is more or less right. Margins on oil operations are not that high -- and they are variable. Some of the big companies are reporting record profits for the third quarter after losses in the second. Exxon reported record profits in the second quarter, for a 12% margin, but nearly half those profits came from the sale of refineries and the like. Exclude those, and the margin is closter to 6%. Not that we should shed any tears. It's a little like grocery stores, which tend to make very slim profits in terms of percentage of revenue, but turn their stock so quickly that a slim margin does quite nicely for them. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 30, 2012 1:09 PM EDT |
> and they are variable. Oh boy, are they ever. I spent an oh-so-very-short time on a drilling rig in Kansas. Amazingly risky business. |
| Fettoosh Oct 30, 2012 1:49 PM EDT |
@Bob & Dino, With such reported profits, big-oil-profits and most profitable quarter ever etc... It is hard to believe what you are saying. Some numbers and sources from reliable analysts might be very helpful if you have them! Otherwise, no one would believe what you are saying. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 30, 2012 2:06 PM EDT |
> from reliable analysts My sources are the same as yours, let your fingers do the clicking. |
| Fettoosh Oct 30, 2012 2:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:let your fingers do the clicking. @Bob, Those were a sample of what I found and I didn't see ones that support your findings, I will try more. The thing is, most people will find what I found. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 30, 2012 2:29 PM EDT |
Indeed, Fettoosh, I agree. So much of what passes for news is actually opinion. I will see if I can find an article or two, and send them to you privately, since my economics sources have been declared "political". |
| dinotrac Oct 30, 2012 2:45 PM EDT |
@fettoosh -- Try this one on for size: http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/26/news/companies/exxon-profit/... Unfortunately, the vast majority of links report things like "record profits" and $137 billion profits, etc. The problem is that you need to assess it in context. There is a huge amount of money going through the big multi-nationals. Even small margins equal huge absolute amounts, but may or may not represent decent returns. |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2012 3:23 PM EDT |
> Even small margins equal huge absolute amounts, but may or may not represent decent returns. Exactly. But that's completely beyond some people I've met (no, no one here). |
| Fettoosh Oct 30, 2012 5:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:Even small margins equal huge absolute amounts, but may or may not represent decent returns. Consumers don't care what it takes to make all the Billions in profits, they care about how much more they pay for a gallon of gas compared to a year or so ago. We are addicted to oil and as long as oil companies, producers, and brokers can set whatever price they want, there is no change in sight unless a competing energy is made available. Electric power produced by nuclear energy is the only competitive source. Making nuclear energy safer is the best course. |
| dinotrac Oct 30, 2012 5:14 PM EDT |
@fettoosh -- That doesn't seem to be the case, though, does it? You're making noise about profits and so are lots of others. Those profits, however, amount to maybe 15-20 cents per gallon. Eliminate all of the profits and that's what you'd pay -- if somebody were selling the gasoline. |
| gus3 Oct 30, 2012 5:27 PM EDT |
Wait... if the oil companies own the patents but don't use them, would that make them patent trolls? |
| Fettoosh Oct 30, 2012 5:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Those profits, however, amount to maybe 15-20 cents per gallon. whose profits? Oil companies, Oil producers, Brokers, banks? They all joined in the same cartel. what needs to be considered is how much it costs to produce a barrel of oil and how much is cost to produce its products and consider the profit from that point on. I am sure you will find out who is gauging the consumers. We all know that the cost of barrel of oil is way too inflated just because they can. I am going to stop here before the friendly TOS police loses patience. :-) |
| caitlyn Oct 30, 2012 5:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:I am going to stop here before the friendly TOS police loses patience. :-)At least this thread has remained civil. Some of the ones I've complained about in the past were anything but. |
| dinotrac Oct 30, 2012 5:52 PM EDT |
@fettosh : Ummm...Oil company profits were the topic. It's fine to ask about everybody else's profits as well, but the vitriol was directed at oil companies and that is what I addressed. I certainly agree that the cost of a barrel of oil is high. Too high? Well...OPEC seems to believe that they can sell oil at that price, so it might not be too high. Talk about a great argument for doing all we can to be free of jackals!! I'd rather never burn another drop of oil for as long as I live as make more money for Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, the Saudi royal family, Hugo Chavez, or the Iranian authorities. Where the heck are all of our great free-market minds? If somebody cracks this nut, there has got to be a filthy fortune to be made in clean, renewable, non-OPEC energy |
| caitlyn Oct 30, 2012 6:12 PM EDT |
@dino: Those folks you don't want to support probably have more financial resources put together than any government on the planet. That force fighting change is not inconsiderable. There are some, mainly on the left and among environmentalists, who would claim that high gas and oil prices are a good thing because they make alternatives more competitive economically. One U.S. presidential candidate (John Anderson, in 1980) actually ran with that as one of his main platform points. He advocated an additional 50 cent federal gas tax, which, if you consider what gas prices were then, was really a big number. Needless to say the idea wasn't terribly popular. [Disclaimer: I did work in Anderson's campaign for the Republican nomination and then in the early part of his run as an independent.] |
| dinotrac Oct 30, 2012 6:30 PM EDT |
@caitlyn -- I worked on Ross Perot's campaign in 1992, and he made the same proposal. Gas ain't all that cheap these days, so I don't know that we need another $.50 or more tacked on top of it, but... it roller coasters like a mother! Between normal market forces and the speculators who amplify them, oil can go through the roof then crash through the floor. That makes a real toxic environment for folks trying to entice serious investment in the infrastructure to compete with oil companies. |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2012 7:34 PM EDT |
> ...they care about how much more they pay for a gallon of gas compared to a year or so ago. Something which bears little relationship to an oil company's profit margin. :( > ...what needs to be considered is how much it costs to produce a barrel of oil and how much is cost to produce its products and consider the profit from that point on. Well, you're ignoring transportation, just for starters. But as you said, further discussion would rapidly involve TOS concerns. |
| dinotrac Oct 30, 2012 8:47 PM EDT |
@jdixon -- Not to mention the single biggest impediment of all: How much can the owner of the oil rights hold you up for? And then, how much will future traders (ie --- speculators) drive up the price? All great fun. |
| jdixon Oct 30, 2012 10:29 PM EDT |
> Not to mention... As I said, Dino: Just for starters. But that way lie TOS violations, both real and imagined. |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2012 7:25 AM EDT |
@jdixon -- Imaginary TOS violations are the best kind. Is it wrong to mention that the Roswell aliens control the entire fossil fuel industry on the planet? They come from a much warmer planet and see it as the easiest way to adjust earth's thermostat. Just sayin'. |
| Fettoosh Oct 31, 2012 7:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:Something which bears little relationship to an oil company's profit margin. :( Of course it does. Unless you have real numbers that show the profit margins the oil companies attaining are the same or lower than they used to be, the huge profits they have been reaping over the last few years compared to previous ones are the best indication of price gauging by oil companies and other business entities. Unless the oil companies and other business entities for that matter, disclose the real profit margins, which they won't do, we will never know for sure. But, in the absence of such numbers, the huge profits are the best indication of outrageous profits. |
| number6x Oct 31, 2012 8:28 AM EDT |
@dino, Go back to my first comment for a Roswell connection. My mention was about one of the guys who worked on project Mogul. The top secret project for weather balloon spying platforms that crashed in Roswell in 1947. Sorry, no conspiracy theory though. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 31, 2012 8:39 AM EDT |
The price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold is actually on the low side of the average over the last 40 years. In terms of gold, it's been right around .06 oz/barrel. Oh well. Gold is used as electrical contacts in computers, right? So that's on topic? |
| jdixon Oct 31, 2012 8:43 AM EDT |
> Of course it does. See Dino's comments above. The oil company profit margin accounts for less than 10% of the cost of a gallon of gas. Federal and state taxes are a far higher percentage. |
| Fettoosh Oct 31, 2012 9:01 AM EDT |
Quoting:The price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold is actually on the low side of the average ... Yet nothing else rose as at the same or even close to the rate of oil. People measure things relative to their income, which didn't rise proportionally. Quoting:The oil company profit margin accounts for less than 10% of the cost of a gallon of gas. Federal and state taxes are a far higher percentage. How reliable is that? Is it an official number released by any oil company? From the beginning, if you noticed, I didn't put all the blame on the oil companies. but still, that does answer the huge increase in profits over the years. |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2012 9:04 AM EDT |
@Bob, bob, bob... I admire your loyalty to gold. Personally, I prefer to let gold be what it is: a commodity with numerous uses. That reflects no judgment on you or anybody else who prefers to view gold as a magic metal. |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2012 9:06 AM EDT |
>Yet nothing else rose as at the same or even close to the rate of oil. Don't know. In the US, health care and college tuition are giving it a good run for the money. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 31, 2012 9:53 AM EDT |
Fetoosh, yes, oil has gone up in terms of USD, but I will give you an alternative that you might consider. Maybe it's the USD that's gone -down- compared to oil. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 31, 2012 9:58 AM EDT |
Dino, magic metal? Where did I say that? Please don't jump to conclusions, it's easy to over-state someone's position, something I have made the mistake of doing myself. More than once. I'm learning. Really. It's a commodity that just happens to be the commodity against which all national currency units are routinely measured. That's just another one of its uses. For that matter, a silver dime still buys a gallon of gas, although the price I remember from around 1971 was 32c per gallon. |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2012 10:13 AM EDT |
@Maybe it's the USD that's gone -down- compared to oil. That's part of it, for sure, but not all of it. To cite your example of 32¢ per gallon gas in 1971, the declining dollar would put that gallon at about $1.85. The rest? Well... |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 31, 2012 10:31 AM EDT |
Dino, only if you use the official inflation figures. :^) |
| jdixon Oct 31, 2012 10:31 AM EDT |
> How reliable is that? Is it an official number released by any oil company? That's a swag based on industry information I've seen over the past decade or so, but I can find more detailed information if you want. Google awaits.... OK. Here we go: http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/northwest/news/article... says the following: ExxonMobil for example, made only 7 cents per gallon of gasoline in 2011. Since I found that figure repeated in a number of places, I'm pretty sure it's from an official release by Exxon. However, mediamatters.org is hardly an oil company friendly site and at http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/03/wsj-op-ed-uses-debun... they say the following: But FactCheck.org examined these claims and concluded that "the 7-cents-per-gallon figure grossly underestimates the industry's earnings. It includes only earnings from the sale of gasoline and not earnings on producing and selling crude oil. In other words, they didn't argue with the 7 cents figure, only argued that gasoline isn't Exxon's only source of income. So I think we can assume the 7 cents is pretty close to right. Now, that's undoubtedly profits after taxes, so the amount you would pay would probably be closer to 10-12 cents. But that's still far less than 10% of the price of a gallon of gas. |
| number6x Oct 31, 2012 10:34 AM EDT |
Since we import most oil, how much does the rise in oil prices have to do with the fall of the value of the dollar? I would think that that would be especially true for imported commodities like oil where exchange rates come into play. A quick google search leads to a lot of information... http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040512-606962-defen... We've been singlemindedly following a policy of the cheap dollar to drive exports, but that increases the number of dollars we need to pay for everything we import. The biggest import is oil. |
| dinotrac Oct 31, 2012 10:56 AM EDT |
@6x - tis a tricky tricky thing. For many years, oil prices were stated in dollars. Now they aren't. Great fun for all. |
| Fettoosh Oct 31, 2012 12:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:But FactCheck.org examined these claims and concluded that "the 7-cents-per-gallon figure grossly underestimates the industry's earnings. I believe that because I worked for an oil company that owned 6 refineries at the time. They are all sold now to concentrate on retail (service gas stations) because the new CEO believes that is where the money is. The reason she made this move is because the super-mega refineries being built in India and China where gasoline and other products will be sold all over the world much cheaper even after include transportation costs. Besides, India will be buying their crude from Iran via a pipeline just like they are planing one for gas. But, like the factcheck indicates, it does not include all other revenues from crude, investments, & other products. I could be wrong, but I believe the other investments includes market manipulation in coordination with banks and speculators. In my opinion, the only way to break the cartel is to create competition. But it seems to be impossible at this point because the big players are benefiting tremendously from the status quo. The only chance is to push electric energy using nuclear power ( I also worked with a major engineering and construction company specialized in nuclear power plants), or for a powerful entity, and I know many disagree about gov. involvement in such a endeavors, to break the stronghold of the cartel. China is doing just that. Their government formed their own company by buying oil companies and securing oil field in Africa. If we don't do the same, national security is in jeopardy. That is all I am going to say. Over and out. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!