While House Transportation Committee Chair James Oberstar talks about spending a lot of money, the Senate transportation chair, John D. Rockefeller IV, has a different agenda: he wants to reduce people’s driving. He thinks the next transportation reauthorization bill should include goals of reducing per-capita driving, reducing transportation-related greenhouse emissions by 40 percent, and reduce the amount of freight carried on highways by 20 percent. (His actual goal is to increase non-highway freight by 10 percent, but since slightly less than a third of freight goes by highway, that works out to a 20 percent reduction in highway shipping.)
The Antiplanner has a few problems with these goals. First, several states, including Oregon and Washington, have set goals of reducing per-capita driving, but none have succeeded. Per-capita driving has declined only when gas prices dramatically increased (a 40-cent-per-gallon increase in gas taxes wouldn’t be enough) or incomes dramatically fell due to a recession.
Second, if the real goal is to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, there are much better ways of reaching that goal than to try to reduce driving. When there are cars on the road now that get 50 miles per gallon, a dollar spent increasing fuel economy will go much further than a dollar spent trying to get people out of their car.
Any of online ordering viagra the symptoms of toxicity may appear, however usually they don’t. purchase cheap cialis The mystery of this marvelous herb is still studied by scientists however everybody agrees that epimedium has no harmful influence only positive impact on the bond, but they get distance in their communication. This FDA approved product is supposed online viagra mastercard to be used only by men who are above 18 years and suffer from premature ejaculation. prescription free cialis In as fast as fifteen (15) minutes before your sexual activity.
Third, as the Antiplanner has noted before, Europe has long had a goal of reducing highway freight, but highway shipping there has increased. Highway’s share of shipping has dramatically decreased in the U.S., not because of some government policy but because the government deregulated the railroads. The lesson is that government should keep its hands off the freight business or it is likely to produce the opposite of the result Rockefeller wants.
Fourth, like the urban planners who try to stop sprawl and end up making housing unaffordable, the real problem with Rockefeller’s proposal will be the unintended consequences. The automobile produces enormous benefits, such as giving people access to better jobs, better housing, and lower-cost consumer goods. Any policies that successfully curb its use will also reduce those benefits.
Finally, no doubt many people will note the irony of the namesake of the founder of Standard Oil Company trying to reduce people’s petroleum consumption. But the real irony is that the namesake of someone who earned over a billion dollars in a relatively unregulated, free-market place wants to impose all sorts of government regulations that will effectively prevent others from achieving their own versions of the American dream.
It is interesting to compare Portland driving per person with the driving per person just across the river in Vancouver.
Portland driving per person IS NOT LESS than Vancouver and may be more depending on how you count. In the last five years Portlanders drove more!
If Portland cannot reduce driving per person, the only way to do it is truly draconian and will be the downfall of the Democrats and their green fools.
Thanks
JK
Question for the Antiplanner: Why should Mr. Karlock (or anyone else) care about greenhouse gas emissions?
No worries. Oberstar promises to be soon sharing with us a plan to energize projects to fight congestion. Hopefully for our sake it will be better than other brilliant ideas of his like forking over a few hundred million to the old Northwest Airlines to build a maintainence facility in his back yard or forgoing spending money on bridge repairs in favor of paving bike trails. Then again, we probably shouldn’t have too much hope for anything good to come from someone who’s not only been involved in congress longer than most of us have been alive but also defended pork projects like the bridge to nowhere.
Shorter Randal:
If I hyperbolize enough, people might get scared and believe my BS.
DS
“Second, if the real goal is to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, there are much better ways of reaching that goal than to try to reduce driving. When there are cars on the road now that get 50 miles per gallon…”
I heard on NPR today that there is a bill being introduced in the house that will will give drivers of vehicles that get 18mpg or less money to but a vehicle that gets better than 18mpg. Way to set the bar high!
I heard on NPR today that there is a bill being introduced in the house that will will give drivers of vehicles that get 18mpg or less money to but a vehicle that gets better than 18mpg. Way to set the bar high!
I’m guessing the typical SUV/Hummer-driver out there doesn’t really need to be given more money to buy a different car, especially the SUVs that are getting under 18 MPH.
But we still don’t know why the Antiplanner is concerned about greenhouse gas emissions.
The history of efforts to reduce driving in democratic nations
suggests that efforts by Sen. Rockefeller to reduce driving will
end in failure.
I also find it interesting that he represents the State of West Virginia, which is not exactly famous for having a lot of transit patronage. I pulled up the journey-to-work data from Census 2000
for West Virginia, and it showed the following modal shares:
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over 718,106 100.0
Car, truck, or van — drove alone 576,360 80.3
Car, truck, or van — carpooled 91,133 12.7
Public transportation (including taxicab) 5,714 0.8
Walked 21,059 2.9
Other means 6,417 0.9
Worked at home 17,423 2.4
Some formatting suggestions:
1. Don’t allow the cute little date clouds to cover the post title
2. Bring back the preview comment feature
3. Widen the comment boxes
Dan said:
Shorter Randal:
If I hyperbolize enough, people might get scared and believe my BS.
THWM: True, then there’s Volkswagen that uses streetcars to move autoparts in Dresden.
CPZ: The history of efforts to reduce driving in democratic nations
THWM: Ironically this is the tragedy of the commons.
CPZ:suggests that efforts by Sen. Rockefeller to reduce driving will
end in failure.
THWM: Well in the past gas rationing has worked, though today congestion charges would be better.
THWM: Well in the past gas rationing has worked, though today congestion charges would be better.
JK: Yep. And so does the ballot box to replace fools that try things like that.
Thanks
JK
D4P said: Question for the Antiplanner: Why should Mr. Karlock (or anyone else) care about greenhouse gas emissions?
JK: Who said we do?
See http://www.SustainableOregon.com
Thanks
JK
JK: Yep. And so does the ballot box to replace fools that try things like that.
THWM: You’re right, it’s political suicide.
That’s why covert socialism is good and overt socialism is bad.
CPZ wrote:
“The history of efforts to reduce driving in democratic nations suggests that efforts by Sen. Rockefeller to reduce driving will end in failure.”
Holland and Denmark have both markedly reduced their dependence on cars. Both countries have done so without using draconian laws.
It’s simply that if cars are the only realistic alternative, then a lot of effort must be expended to force car drivers out of their cars.
On the other hand, if there are realistic alternatives, then car drivers will drive a lot less, of their own volition.
JK: See http://www.SustainableOregon.com
THWM: A.K.A. fund waste, tax conservation.
the highwayman said:
JK: See http://www.SustainableOregon.com
THWM: A.K.A. fund waste, tax conservation.
JK: Looks like you didn’t bother to look at the site.
Thanks
JK
I’m fully aware that Mr. Karlock doesn’t care about greenhouse gas emissions, but the Antiplanner talks about them a lot and in a way that gives the reader the impression that he cares about them.
However, he has never explained why he cares about them, or stated explicitly that he doesn’t.
JK: Looks like you didn’t bother to look at the site.
THWM: I did look at it, yes Al Gore is trying to make money, though so are you.
I use petroleum products, though there is more to petroleum then just having it go up in smoke.
D4P said: I’m fully aware that Mr. Karlock doesn’t care about greenhouse gas emissions, but the Antiplanner talks about them a lot and in a way that gives the reader the impression that he cares about them.
THWM: Maybe it’s all that libertarian magic dust?
Antiplanner,
Senator Rockefeller’s daydreams of mandating that more freight is to be carried by railroad verses trucks reminds me of former President Bush’s shout at the future, decreeing that America was to generate 36 billion gallons of fuel via ethanol by 2022, or whatever year it was that his commands were to magically come true.
It seems to me that the Senator does not understand what drives people in private decision making (do we even have private decision making anymore?), to make the kinds of decisions they do when it comes to deciding which mode they will ship their goods by. Yes, fuel costs do factor into the decision as that is a factor in shipping costs, but so does considering such issues such as having a substantial amount in value of your goods or inventory tied up in transit. In other words, it is far more likely that a seller will decide to ship via slower methods like freight rail or by water (yes, Virginia water!) if they are shipping cargoes that are not particularly time sensitive, or if the goods in question are huge, or heavy in weight with relation to their price. Goods like coal, grains, chemicals are likely to fall into this category.
On the flip side, if the goods in question are pricey or costly in relation to their weight, or if they are time sensitive, then the seller will more likely decide to ship the goods via the fastest way possible and charge the cost to the buyer accordingly. That tips the scales in favor of shipping by truck or jet aircraft. For example, I sorely doubt that if you order some of your favorite movies or TV shows from Netflix or Amazon.com, that items like that are going to get shipped by freight rail.
Hence, if Senator Rockefeller daydreams are to come true, he is going to probably have to warp quite a bit of decision making in the freight sector of our economy.
Since the subject of CO2 has come up, lets take a little quiz:
1. What gas is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect?
2. Of the total greenhouse effect, what percentage can be attributed to CO2.
3. As you know, there are natural sources of CO2 emissions. Of the world total CO2 emissions, what percentage is due to man’s activities?
4. As you know, Al Gore showed the temperature and CO2 analysis from Antarctica ice cores in his film. Which came first in the ice cores – temperature increase or CO2 increase?
5. Since the goal of climate legislation is to reduce global warming, lets suppose that man quit ALL CO2 emissions. How much would the projected temperature in the year 2100 be reduced?
You know, even the scientists the denial organizations hired to help them obfuscate the issue told the corporations 15 years ago that the science was undeniable.
How clown-like that makes some clownishdenialist commenters look is an exercise left to the reader.
DS
Dan said: You know, even the scientists the denial organizations hired to help them obfuscate the issue told the corporations 15 years ago that the science was undeniable.
How clown-like that makes some clownishdenialist commenters look is an exercise left to the reader.
JK: Then you must each those answers at you fingertips.
Conversely, if you don’t know such basic facts and refuse to learn, that tells volumes about you and your side of the debate.
Thanks
JK
Mr. Karlock might want to check out “The Rough Guide to Climate Change” by Robert Henson, which (IIRC) addresses many/most/all of his questions.
In the meantime, I would hope that the Antiplanner would join the discussion, though I suspect he chooses to stay silent so as to avoid conflict with his antiplanning cohorts who disagree with him on the significance of greenhouse gas emissions.
D4P said: Mr. Karlock might want to check out “The Rough Guide to Climate Change†by Robert Henson, which (IIRC) addresses many/most/all of his questions.
JK: OK, I understand that you don’t know the answers. I hope you have no strongly held opinion in the absence of knowing the most basic CO2 facts. You should take a look at http://www.sustainableOregon.com
D4P said: In the meantime, I would hope that the Antiplanner would join the discussion, though I suspect he chooses to stay silent so as to avoid conflict with his antiplanning cohorts who disagree with him on the significance of greenhouse gas emissions.
JK: Wrong again. As he explained at the last American Dream Conference, he is not an expert in this field and thus refrains from comments.
Thanks
JK
he is not an expert in this field and thus refrains from comments
He doesn’t refrain from comments, only from explaining why he cares about greenhouse gas emissions. In this very post he claims to know better ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
Second, if the real goal is to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, there are much better ways of reaching that goal than to try to reduce driving. When there are cars on the road now that get 50 miles per gallon, a dollar spent increasing fuel economy will go much further than a dollar spent trying to get people out of their car.
If he’s “not an expert in this field”, why is he proclaiming a better way to reduce emissions?
Sorry, Jim, but you’re pretty much in the minority here. Even the Antiplanner disagrees with you.
I hope you have no strongly held opinion in the absence of knowing the most basic CO2 facts
And since the Antiplanner is not an expert in the field, I assume you hope he has no strongly held opinion.
JK: 1. What gas is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect?
ws:As far as total percentage, water vapor.
However, water vapor is water vapor, it does not linger in the atmosphere as long as methane and co2 does. You can shoot it all day into the air, it just comes out in the form of precipitation. Water vapor lasts about 10 days. Precipitation regulates this GHG – other GHGs do not have this readily available regulation.
JK: 2. Of the total greenhouse effect, what percentage can be attributed to CO2.
ws:The low ball is about 2% for co2. This is just a percentage, GHGs act wildly different from one another and it tells us nothing about what the effects of 1% more of its concentration would mean for our climate.
JK: 3. As you know, there are natural sources of CO2 emissions. Of the world total CO2 emissions, what percentage is due to man’s activities?
ws:Before the industrial revolution, co2 concentrations were at about 280 ppm. They’re getting up into almost 400 ppm in a relatively short time span. Yeah, that’s drastic change.
JK: 4. As you know, Al Gore showed the temperature and CO2 analysis from Antarctica ice cores in his film. Which came first in the ice cores – temperature increase or CO2 increase?
ws:I never watched the move, nor do I care for Al Gore. co2 and temperature rises have a lag period. This does not mean that one does not cause the other – there is a latent effect on co2 concentrations and subsequent temperature rises.
JK: 5. Since the goal of climate legislation is to reduce global warming, lets suppose that man quit ALL CO2 emissions. How much would the projected temperature in the year 2100 be reduced?
ws:It’s a tough guess, co2 can last for many years in the atmosphere, and as mentioned above have a latent effect regarding its emissions.
Anymore wacko, Steven Milloy talking points? Science is science, and you are taking these “facts” out of context (i.e. water vapor being the largest GHG, but having the least negative effect in regards to its concentration levels and ability to regulate its concentration levels and time it lasts).
Let’s see…. Tens of millions of people chose to move to the suburbs in the last decade. Now the Congress wants to make that choice uneconimical. Let’s see how that turns out.
Borealis said: Let’s see…. Tens of millions of people chose to move to the suburbs in the last decade. Now the Congress wants to make that choice econimical. Let’s see how that turns out.
THWM: That’s ironic.
Hey Highwayman, get your quotes correct:
Borealis………..Congress wants to make that choice uneconimical.
highwayman:Congress wants to make that choice econimical.
Thanks
JK
JK asked: “3. As you know, there are natural sources of CO2 emissions. Of the world total CO2 emissions, what percentage is due to man’s activities?”
Humans produce about 3% of the total emissions. However, the background carbon is part of an exchange cycle between plants, rocks, and the oceans, and CO2 is absorbed at pretty much the same rate that it is released. The human component is a steady increase in the amount of CO2 out there.
CO2 works as it does because it fills in gaps in the absorption profiles of the other atmospheric gasses. There doesn’t have to be much out there to push the temperature up.
JK asked: “4. As you know, Al Gore showed the temperature and CO2 analysis from Antarctica ice cores in his film. Which came first in the ice cores – temperature increase or CO2 increase?”
Historically, temperature increases occurred first, leading to increased CO2 emissions, which then fed back into increased temperatures. Guess what – we’re doing it the other way round now, CO2 first, then temperature rises. Natural – no.
JK seems to have mistaken a conspiracy web-site for a science web-site.
JK:Hey Highwayman, get your quotes correct:
THWM: That’s why I made the correction.
http://www.electkarlock.com/
Also thanks for the politricking!
[/ignore]
Conversely, if you don’t know such basic facts and refuse to learn, that tells volumes about you and your side of the debate.
I’ve already addressed your faulty arguments long ago. You slunk away.
Now you’re back with the same faulty arguments. Like I said and you distracted away from, even the scientists the denial organizations hired to help them obfuscate the issue told the corporations 15 years ago that the science was undeniable.
I guess the corporations obfuscating the scientific findings are in on the conspiracy too!!!!!!!!!!
snork
DS
[ignore]
I talk about crack whores a lot.
I don’t really care much about them, though.
Dan said: I’ve already addressed your faulty arguments long ago. You slunk away.
JK: It does get tiring arguing with people who refuse to open their eyes and look at the facts, instead of relying feelings and crappy sources.
Dan said: Like I said and you distracted away from, even the scientists the denial organizations hired to help them obfuscate the issue told the corporations 15 years ago that the science was undeniable.
JK: You have to learn that most USA media has science writers who have never studied science. Probably like you. Instead they rely on interviews to get to the truth. Unfortunately that does not work in a field where millions are being spent by Al Gore and his wall street hucksters to exaggerate, hide and outright lie.
What is truly amazing is that they have already told you that they are lying and you still believe their crap. If you want to learn something take a look at:
sustainableoregon.com/oktolie.html
Sustainableoregon.com/bigmoneyscaring.html
sustainableoregon.com/dissenters.html
Then browse around there a bit and pay attention to the data sources which are mostly better than anything your probably even appreciate.
Thanks
JK
Francis King: Historically, temperature increases occurred first, leading to increased CO2 emissions, which then fed back into increased temperatures.
JK: Err, what caused the initial temperature increase?
Why isn’t it just a logical to assume that the initial cause just continued and that the CO2 is irrelevant?
If CO2 did cause temperature to increase, how come it did not run away? And how come the temperature started to drop before the CO2 started to drop?
Thanks
JK
I talk about crack whores a lot. I don’t really care much about them, though.
You’ll notice that the Antiplanner does not engage in discussions about how to (for example) reduce sprawl or foster walkable communities. Why? Presumably because he doesn’t consider these issues to constitute “problems to be solved.”
Conversely, the Antiplanner routinely talks about how best to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Presumably because he does consider this issue to consistute a problem to be solved.
However: he has never explained why he thinks greenhouse gas emissions are an issue worthy of his attention, for reasons that are unclear. I speculate (based on my own observations) that he doesn’t want to look foolish in front of his supporters (especially Mr. Karlock) by doing something that would feel like an admission that “planners” are right about something.
In essence, he tries to be on both sides of the fence by simultaneously discussing strategies for reducing greenhouse gas in a manner that would allow him to demonstrate to planners (if eventually necessary) that he “always cared about this issue” while also being able to deny really caring about it (if necessary) to people like Mr. Karlock.
It’s a form of passive aggressive behavior that ultimately reflects cowardice, in that the antiplanners who disagree with the Antiplanner on this issue (especially Mr. Karlock) routinely berate and demean this blog’s loyal opponents for holding a viewpoint that is actually shared by the Antiplanner, while he stands idly by holding his tongue doing nothing about it for fear of subjecting himself to the same criticism.
JK:“Sustainableoregon.com/bigmoneyscaring.html”
ws:Actually, the bigger money is on the side of corporate interest, not on the side of independent researchers. Yeah, Exxon has neeevvvveeeeer injected money into researchers or institutions, a la Richard Lindzen.
I find it funny that whenever climate science is brought up, Al Gore’s name is mentioned. I personally do not care what Al Gore has to say about climate science, I go to the source directly.
JK:“If CO2 did cause temperature to increase, how come it did not run away? And how come the temperature started to drop before the CO2 started to drop?”
ws: There are many forces that make climates change, not just co2.
At any rate, this article discusses your global warming denial stance regarding lag period of co2/temperature, specifically about Al Gore:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw
Once again, stop spitting out talking points. Maybe address the issue from a scientific stance.
Denialists crack me up.
DS
jk: ws, thanks for the link to more hand waving and deception by the web site set up to defend Mann’s hockey stick fraud.
Here is one key admission from those people:
we do know that explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2
Got that: they cannot explain the temperature without adding in CO2!
That presumes knowledge of ALL factors that influence temperature, yet many factors are either unknown or poorly understood.
All they do is tune their models to match history then hope it will predict the future. It won’t and her’s why:
If they leave out a single factor, all others have to be misweighted to match the past, which screws up the whole model.
Their history of successful prediction is simply non existent.
1. they mis predicted stratospheric temperature.
2, They missed the current earth cooling.
3. They missed the recent arctic ice thickening.
Heck, It was cooler twenty years after Hansen predicted unstoppable warming if we did nothing. We did nothing and it got cooler .
You are following admitted liars, fools and con arists.
Thanks
JK
JK:ws, thanks for the link to more hand waving and deception by the web site set up to defend Mann’s hockey stick fraud.
ws:I know, it’s tough to admit that the site is actually run by people in the field of climate science. Maybe I should read Exxon Inst…I mean Heartland Institute articles (from non-science based authors) instead.
The only thing I agree with you on is that climate models are difficult to predict (or even reconstruct) accurately. We will certainly know more in 20 years, I can bet you that. The issue I have in regards to your ideology is even though there’s more to know about climate science, you’re a denialist. You admit that so much of climate science cannot be predicted or is not even known – but you simply don’t want to know more.
You’re not inquisitive to know more, you’re more interested in trying to disprove it at any cost.
I also don’t disagree that a lot of environmental good gets muddle up in “climate action plans”, etc. I am certainly skeptical as to how much anthropogenic climate change can impact the planet, but I’m not going to shut off and say that a 6 degree C warming of polar areas isn’t possible.
JK:1. they mis predicted stratospheric temperature. 2. They missed the current earth cooling.3. They missed the recent arctic ice thickening.
ws:Science is not perfect and “global cooling” was a conjecture, by some scientist, that the earth had been in a long interglacial period and that future warming was possible. And we have been – we’re due for another ice age in a few thousand years.
Arctic ice thickening is another spin fact. In certain areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, thickening of ice has occurred, but also parts of those areas have also shrunk. Total net size, they have shrunk.
Also, polar ice expansion in sections is also predicted as warming of the temperature in those regions allows for precipitation to fall and add mass – however we are seeing rapid melting in their respective warmer seasons.
JK:Heck, It was cooler twenty years after Hansen predicted unstoppable warming if we did nothing. We did nothing and it got cooler .
ws:Climate change does not necessarily mean higher temperatures everywhere. Applying regional examples of warming and cooling over a short time span is neither climactic nor global.
Over the last 200 years, there has been a drastic change. Who cares that 1934 was as hot as 1998 – what’s the global trend?
Well Mr.Karlock is just a grizzled ol’crotchety grouch, fantasing about Al Gore & teabagging.
ws: I know, it’s tough to admit that the site is actually run by people in the field of climate science. Maybe I should read Exxon Inst…I mean Heartland Institute articles (from non-science based authors) instead.
JK: Golly, gee, you are such an expert on climate, perhaps you could point me to THE paper (or two) that PROVES that CO2 can actually cause dangerous global warming.
ws: I know, it’s tough to admit that the site is actually run by people in the field of climate science. Maybe I should read Exxon Inst…I mean Heartland Institute articles (from non-science based authors) instead.
JK: Maybe you should try some of the PhDs at the petetionProject.org. Or the former IPCC people who thing it is all a big hype job. Or the Nobel winners. Its all on SustainableOregon.com
Thanks
JK
Hey, ws, when to you think that the Greenland ice will uncover those buried Viking settlements and the permafrost melts enough to uncover the graves the Vikings dug (in dirt, not ice) a few hundred years ago?
Oh, and when will the Alps AGAIN become ice free enough for elephants to cross them?
Thanks
JK
Hey, ws, (#2) How many of these papers have you read:
a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview†George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link.
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays†N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?†Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 100 ppmv less than at present.
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations†D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677 Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999†Kunihiko Kodera Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as identified through sunspot cycles.
f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?†Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208
Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate.
g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?†N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13 (2003) p.4-10
Documents, using a “sea-shell thermometerâ€Â, how the earth’s temperature over last 500 million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels, while showing strong correlation with variations in the cosmic ray flux.
h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years†Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 (2005) L16712
Demonstrates a strong link between total solar irradiance and Arctic-wide surface temperature over a long period from 1875-2000.
i. “Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere†P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154
Analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several Antarctic ice cores, which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the last 600 years.
j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability†Hengyi Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805
Re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot numbers in conjunction with global and regional sea surface temperatures.
k. “Living with a variable sun†Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst. Of Physics USA
Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and makes a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate.
l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming†N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708
Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.
m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature record†N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718
Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.
n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds†R G Harrison & D B Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
See SustainableOregon226/peer-reviewed_papers.html for more
Thanks
JK
The Antiplanner has previously referred to CO2 as a “greenhouse gas”.
Why?
Francis King wrote:
> Holland and Denmark have both markedly reduced their
> dependence on cars. Both countries have done so without
> using draconian laws.
Have they?
A quick look at Eurostat would seem to indicate otherwise.
Eurostat publishes an index:
<a href=”http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsdpc340″ title=”Motorisation rate – cars per 1 000 inhabitants”)
For Denmark in 1995 it was 321. In 2004 it was 354.
For the Netherlands in 1995 it was 366. In 2004 it was 429.
And Eurostat generates national modal split data for its member nations.
For Denmark in 1996 auto use was 79.6%; in 2007 it was 80.2%.
For the Netherlands in 1996 it was 86.6%; in 2007 it was 86.7%.
“Markedly reduced their dependence on cars?” I think not.
“Conversely, the Antiplanner routinely talks about how best to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Presumably because he does consider this issue to consistute a problem to be solved.”
That’s only one of many possibilities. It could also be that the subject is raised because there are many policy proposals out there of which one of their justifications of being carried out is to lower greenhouse gas emissions. If they’re using it as a reason to do something, it’s going to come up.
I’ve never seen anything posted by the antiplanner specifically saying that CO2 is a problem and saying it needs to be addressed. It’s been in the context of addressing of issues where others have claimed it is a problem and used it as a reason that their proposal is not only legit but needs to be carried out.
But in the grand scheme of things I don’t get the point of consistently bringing up this issue and claiming that somehow the antiplanner is for/against something that they’ve never explicitly stated. Exactly what does it prove? To me it only proves that you hold on overly simplistic view of the situation. There are no fences. There are no sides. There is no black, white, right, wrong, et al. There are 6+ billion people in the world and just as many variations on their takes on issues and possible solutions.
There are a wide variety of reasons why Antiplanner would bring up greenhouse gases. You seem to have narrowed it down to 1 without any proof. And it seems to be for the reason that the 1 reason is to be able to come to a very specific conclusion. It’s too bad.
———
“I heard on NPR today that there is a bill being introduced in the house that will will give drivers of vehicles that get 18mpg or less money to but a vehicle that gets better than 18mpg. Way to set the bar high!”
This is a classic case what really occurs when you get politicians involved in trying to “steer” peoples decisions. The costs of this are huge and the marginal returns are tiny. And they’re all based on EPA ratings, not how people drive. They don’t take into account the energy required to build some of these vehicles, either. So even simply math that shows a marginal improvement of savings of maybe 100-200 gallons a years of fuel consumption doesn’t include converting that into BTUs and measuring it against the BTUs required to produce the vehicles. There are all sorts of simple things that can be done to get these sort of “savings”. But when you’ve got the politicians involved with marketing their plan to the masses, it’s going to include ways of pandering to key constituencies. So how much, if any, “good” it actually does let along at what price isn’t important as how it comes across in a sound bite. So it gos.
There are a wide variety of reasons why Antiplanner would bring up greenhouse gases. You seem to have narrowed it down to 1 without any proof.
So, the right thing to do would be to actually ask the Antiplanner to explain his perspective on the issue, right?
Well, as it turns, I’ve asked him to do so, multiple times, in this very forum. And he has always ignored my request. So point your fingers in his direction, not mine.
To JK: CRT theory needs much more work. If you think AGW induced from GHGs needs more evidence, look no further than some of those papers and their respective theories. They’re not bunk by any means, they may be valid, but clearly they need more evidence.
It is also shown that the sun’s 11 year cycle plays a role on surface temperatures, but it cannot account for all of our current warming, only a percentage of. Absolutely global climate change is “natural”, but through many studies it has shown to be exacerbated by anthropogenic forces as well.
PS: I don’t understand those papers, and neither do you. You can copy and paste pedantic scientific journals all you want, but until you truly can articulate them, then I’d argue you do not understand the situation anymore than Al Gore. I can be the first to admit that I know very little about climate change – and there’s more to know by everyone – but you simply will buy into any climate change article if it questions AGW in any way.
You have a deep agenda that is not based off of mainstream science.