Re: AMD's well may be running dry

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:52:59 -0800, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dr. Dweeb wrote:
What is needed is real science instead of "climatologists" postulating cause-effect and then trying to prove it, and having failed, using the political process to sell the idea anyway.


Are you able to disprove the fact that when water goes from -0 to +0, it melts ?

but it takes 80 calories/cm**3 whereas only on calorie to go from +1 to +2,
which is why glaciers hang around so long. You really shouls stick to
programming.


Are you able to diprove the number on the amount of ice on land in both the arctic/greenland as well as antarctica ?

Are you able to disprove the fact that more and more of the arctic ocean becomes open water in the summer and that the summer (in terms of navication) is longer now than it was before ? Are you able to disprove that this ice is currently melting and are you able to provide that satellite imaging showing ice covered surfaces schrinking ?

Are you able to disprove the fact that darker substances aborb more heat than white snow ? (aka: open ocean water versus ice/snow covered ocean) ?

Are you aware of El Ninio and the destructuve nature of the weather that accompanies it ? It is caused by minute temperature changes in ocean water.
Imagine how much a more significant change in ocean temperature and water levels would do.

How much in terms of assets and infrastructure in the USA are near sea level ? How much or that would be destroyed by rising sea levels which would bring more destruction/flooding/erosion during storms ?


Can you really afford to ignore the scientific facts ?

Again, forget the USA's weather. You need to consider the border zones where the average temperature is near the freezing point. Raise the average temperature by a couple of degrees and all of a sudden, you have a lot of ice melting into the ocean.

Your reaction is akin to homeonewrs near a river being warned of possible flooding in the spring and refuse to sand bag their property because they see no scientific evidence that this will happen since those are just predictions.


You are correct. This isn't hard evidence like the knowkedge that mixing glycerine with nitro something creates a mighty explosive.

But the humanity has moved beyond just empirical evidence a LONG LONG time ago. We have the power of reason and deduction. And we can predict certain things. Eisntein was pretty good and coming up with theories that have been accepted.

Based on what we are seeing happen today (weather data, and those are factual), we can reson/deduct that we are headed towards something really really bad if nothing is done with it.

We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (as well as others). Humans have that uncanny hability to test CO2 in a lab and find that it lets light though, but reflects infrared, AND they are able to deduct what happens on a planerary scale.


We also know that humans have recently begun to introduce large quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere (previously sequestered for millions of years underground), and that the weather DATA starts to match CO2 emissions starting at a certain point. (aka: when CO2 production exceeded plant consumption of CO2.

Consider also that airlines dump CO2 in upper atmoshere where plants can't get to it. The minute it goes out the jet engines, it is contributing to rising temperatures. At least the gas that comes out of the SUV/Hummers people drive takes a number of years before it reaches the upper atmosphere, and at least while still near the ground, those gases have a chance to be captured by plants.

Sorry, but people who refuse to accept the fact that CO2 is harming the planet are like ultra religious people who refused to accept the fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe.







When you drill for oil, you sell the oil with a fossil fuel tax on it.
The refiner buys oil to be refined and buys oil to fuel the refining
process. The refined product is sold with a tax that combines both.

The steel maker buys refined oil and pays that fossil fuel tax. When
it sells the steel to the car manufacturer, it includes that fossil fuel tax.
The car manufacturer then also buys oil to fuel its car assembly
plants and the fossil fuel taxes from all the products that go into the car are combined.

When the car is sold, the owner ends up paying for the total carbon
footprint that was used to manufacture the car. The beauty of this is that if
that car is exported to another country, it is the person in the
other country that inherits the responsability for the car's carbon
footprint and it affects that country's per capita carbon footprint. (just discussing manufacture it, not
use).
Similarly, when someone buys fuel at a petrol station to power
his/her car, they pay the end carbon tax on the refined fuel (just
like the steel maker did). But being the end user, they can't deduct
it and it goes against that country's per capita CO2 consumption.

Lets assume for a minute that the USA had a positive trade balance,
and generated 25% of the world's pollution. Americans citizens should
not be penalised for the carbon emissions generated when producing widgets
that are exported to canada, mexico or anywhere else. It is the
importers that should be penalised.

But a company that is highly inefficient and which consumes a lot of
oil to produce a widget will not be as competitive as one which is far more
efficient since the more efficient one will have a smaller carbon tax
attached to the product.
There would have to be some exceptions such as companies that
sequester oil products (plastics, vaseline, lubricants etc). Those do
not get burned so they should get a refund on the carbon tax for the
amount of fuel they sequester (but still pay the carbon tax generated
when the raw oil was refined before being delivered to them).




--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. ... The refiner buys oil to be refined and buys oil to fuel the ... The car manufacturer then also buys oil to fuel its car assembly ... the owner ends up paying for the total carbon ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... Humans have that uncanny hability to test CO2 in a lab and find that it lets light though, but reflects infrared, AND they are able to deduct what happens on a planerary scale. ... The steel maker buys refined oil and pays that fossil fuel tax. ... it sells the steel to the car manufacturer, it includes that fossil fuel tax. ... efficient since the more efficient one will have a smaller carbon tax ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... The refiner buys oil to be refined and buys oil to fuel the refining ... The car manufacturer then also buys oil to fuel its car assembly ... efficient since the more efficient one will have a smaller carbon tax ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: LibDem proposed new VED rates
    ... if you use more fuel for a tax that costs more even though you could well be ... I dare say that you genuinely believe that a car that produces 200g/km of CO2 ... One I have, effectively, as a weekend vehicle - I do a few trials and a bit ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Sustainable UK population
    ... So do you have faith that the CO2 from coal burning will somehow be kept ... though used in fuel cells it might make a big contribution ... economy include oil bearing shales and heavy oil/bitumen. ... and car and computer hobbyists in the past. ...
    (uk.environment)