$50 Billion Divestiture From Fossil Fuel

[seannx]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

At 590 miles across , I could easily cross France in no less than 8-10 hours .
That is a few hours to me . Not even double digits .
Maybe they lack the infrastructure to do this . Guess you really do need the train .
Japan is a great example . An overcrowded island occupied by people that have thousands of years of history based on a very disciplined lifestyle .
Only 300 miles across . Maybe you would like to use a few Pacific atolls as prime examples or even Tasmania .
Consider the public transportation issues in the Galapagos .
Like I said , design and build it here . Can't wait to see how you service the Great Basin area and Montana .

Thanks for sharing your personal definition of driving a few hours. Now I understand why you think you could drive across France in a few hours. For most people, 8-10 hours is a full work day. Do you consider that a few hours of work, too?

How does introducing absurd examples support your beliefs about mass transit in any meaningful way?

Here's some info for you from galapaguide.com:
"Getting around the Galapagos Islands is easy to do -- bicycles, cargo boats, airplanes, buses, taxis, and other public transportation is available."

I don't think the goal of mass transit should be to connect all parts of the US equally, especially remote places like the Great Basin area, or sparsely populated states like Montana. I think an example of a good start would be high speed rail service from San Francisco to LA (that's Northern to Southern California.) It could take less total travel time than flying (considering traveling to SFO by shuttle, waiting for the flight, flying, landing, and waiting for luggage), and have more comfortable seating and leg room. I've driven on I-5 enough times to know I would really appreciate having an alternative, mass transit option. But for you, it would be even less than a few hours drive, so why bother.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by duff beer

As to the "political" sites...what do you think the IPCC is? Do you really think they are unbiased?

I wouldn't know because I don't visit it. Nothing I have posted here is a lift from IPCC. Your just dropping talking points.

max

[mjz]

Originally Posted by duff beer

This physical limitation explains how Earth could have entered an ice age when CO2 levels were several thousand parts per million. Note that CO2's warming effect is strong only at low levels of atmospheric CO2, predominantly at less than 100 ppm."

So would the energy output of the sun which you have still not addressed.
max

[duff beer]

Originally Posted by mjz

So would the energy output of the sun which you have still not addressed.
max

And you didn't address my point that the experiment was not valid because the planet is not covered by a sheet of glass.

You also failed to address how how increased CO is beneficial to mammals and plants, and that increased CO2 has a small and diminishing effect on climate.

You (or someone) also stated that when the IPCC said climate change was about money that it was taken out of context. That was a direct quote copied word for word.

The reason I brought up the IPCC is that governments around the world base policies on information from them. So, it doesn't matter that you don't care what the IPCC says or claim that they don't speak for you, it matters because your government listens to the IPCC.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by duff beer

And you didn't address my point that the experiment was not valid because the planet is not covered by a sheet of glass.

You didn't specifically ask. I did.

You have agreed the CO2 traps heat.
What is it you want me to address? That because we're not covered by a container the heat will dissipate quicker? How much quicker? Got a source?

What I read is agreement with a but that is opinion.

Originally Posted by duff beer

You also failed to address how how increased CO is beneficial to mammals and plants, and that increased CO2 has a small and diminishing effect on climate.

Good for humans on one hand but not so good on another. Perhaps good for plants, perhaps not.

Everything I have learned about an ecosystem suggests balance is key. Some plants will certainly grow better with more CO2, assuming they have the other nutrients and water to sustain the growth. Plants, as you know, need more than CO2.

So I'm not quite sure why you keep talking about CO2 being so good for plants. Water is good for plants, too -- floods aren't.

Originally Posted by duff beer

You (or someone) also stated that when the IPCC said climate change was about money that it was taken out of context. That was a direct quote copied word for word.

Not me that I am aware of. If I quote I source it.

Originally Posted by duff beer

The reason I brought up the IPCC is that governments around the world base policies on information from them. So, it doesn't matter that you don't care what the IPCC says or claim that they don't speak for you, it matters because your government listens to the IPCC.

So what? I hope my government listens to lots of sources.

Listen, what I read from you is that this whole thing is poltical and simply meant to tax. You haven't read from me that man is responsible or not. I admit that I have a hard time looking at the crap coming our of trucks and cars tailpipes (yes, I know CO2 in invisible) and not thinking it can't be the best thing to do to our planet. And I think things would change real quick if charged the true cost of oil at the pump rather than as a tax. And I find it fascinating (no actually hypocritical) that so many people against taxes and big government and for free markets -- just accept the condition.

I think, as demonstrated by some of the awkward comebacks of what is or isn't progress, some people have a massive aversion to change. And their political stances is simply cover for that.

If you can live with the crap we put into our air.... fine. But reducing other's concerns as just a reason to tax is overly broad and nothing but ideology.

And you STILL haven't addressed the temp of the sun.

max

[mjz]

Originally Posted by mjz

And you STILL haven't addressed the temp of the sun.
max

And since you have not, I will.

Some studies indicate the output of the sun *could* have been as much as 30% less during the Late Ordovician Period. Others say as little as 4.5% less luminosity. The point is, our information of the Late Ordovician Period comes from modeling. And when modeling one needs ti consider lots of data points.

One particular model (the Pilmer model -- which is the basis for your claim of such high CO2 during a Glacial Period) suffers from another major flaw.

The Late Ordovician period lasted one million years. The data slices that Ian Pilmer uses to extrapolate CO2 levels for the time period are taken at 10 million year intervals.

This interpretation presents as an example of the statistics of small numbers. The record Pilmer cites of carbon dioxide levels so high around 400 million years ago is only accurate in ten million year intervals. It, therefore, is incapable of predicting fluctuations in such small intervals. The actual carbon dioxide level during The Late Ordovician Period could have been well, well below 4400 ppm.

Pilmer comes under lots of criticism from the scientific community. And his contentions do not appear to be peer reviewed.

I can see why his conclusion is appealing. If, indeed, there was that much CO2 in the air and temperatures supported glacial development it may mean all of this worry about heightened levels of CO2 are much about nothing. I would welcome this to be realized with peer review and true scientific studies.

The problem right now is, Pilmer's conclusions suffer from major flaws -- He does not reference energy levels from the sun and relies on a 10 million year slice to construct a model for a 1 million year period.

I beleive his conclusions are interesting and worth actual study, but I don't find them either conclusive or scientific. Relying on them to counter modern correlation seems less than prudent to someone concerned for the future for my children and grandchildren.

max