Not E-Cig Related...but makes the same sort of points

Status
Not open for further replies.

Petrodus

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2010
7,702
8,132
Midwest
Unbelievable ...
Well, not really. Many years ago, I lived in Maryland
and bought a house with a Heat Pump. Two months after moving in
I got an electric bill with a "Heat Pump Surcharge".

I called the electric company inquiring about the "penalty".
Was told they were assessing "surcharges" to all those with
heat pumps to insure they were paying the same amount
as if they didn't have a heat pumps.

I yelled ... That doesn't make any sense !!
I spent money to buy a product to save on utilities and then
I get fined for doing it!! Was told ... If I didn't like it ... I could
choose not to pay the bill and they would turn off the electric.

A few months later ... They dropped the surcharge ...
Apparently, a Congressman's mother bought a heat pump and got
the same song and dance !!
:p
 

jkos

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 5, 2012
100
74
missouri
You are correct. When citizens try to find ways to save money by using fuel efficient vehichles the tax loss has to come from somewhere,another tax! In the smokers world more and more are turning to vaping. If 50% of smokers switch or quitThis will have a huge impact on state and local revenue. How about a tax on all people who have never smoked, its their turn to step up and pay.Ya right.
Smokers have been paying taxes to run governments for ever. It is obvious vaping is being singled out becuase of the threat to the revenue for the government, it is not about health concerns.
 

Petrodus

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2010
7,702
8,132
Midwest
You are correct. When citizens try to find ways to save money by using fuel efficient vehicles the tax loss has to come from somewhere,another tax! In the smokers world more and more are turning to vaping. If 50% of smokers switch or quit.This will have a huge impact on state and local revenue. How about a tax on all people who have never smoked, its their turn to step up and pay.Ya right.
Smokers have been paying taxes to run governments for ever. It is obvious vaping is being singled out because of the threat to the revenue for the government, it is not about health concerns.
We already got it ... Obama Care (aka: the Unaffordable Care Act)
:p
 

Stubby

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 22, 2009
2,104
1,992
Madison, WI USA
I would disagree in that this is not at all like taxing low risk tobacco/nicotine products. It's two very different situations. Vehicles, no matter if they are more efficient, cost the same as far as wear and tear on the infrastructure, building new roads, etc. Building transportation infrastructure is a huge expense and at least part of that expense comes from gas taxes. More efficient vehicles are paying less for infrastructure then others so are indeed paying less then their fair share.

When it comes to low risk tobacco/nicotine products it may get a bit more complicated in that smokers are already being unfairly taxed. Overall smokers cost society less then non-smokers as they tend to die earlier so save on many long term cost, but that's another issue.

A person using low risk tobacco/nicotine products have essentially the same cost to society as a non-smokers. There is no justification for taxes on low risk products as in smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes as they don't cost the government any more then non-users. On the other hand fuel efficient vehicles do cost the government just as much as less efficient vehicles as far as infrastructure goes. There is a justification for an increased tax on fuel efficient vehicles at least as far as building new infrastructure and maintenance.

You can get farther into the debate and start thinking about things like how we should be encouraging people to buy fuel efficient vehicles to push the idea of energy independence, and of course there is the climate change issue (I know there are many people who don't believe in climate change but the science is pretty clear at this point that it is man made). But those are other issues.
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
The climate change issue is so complex that despite what anyone says, it cannot be resolved at this time.

The earth is subject to a 100,000 year glacial cycle and we know the precise dates of the last seven. Every 100,000 years it gets very cold, then very hot. There is nothing people can do about this because planetary engineering is not within our capabilities at this time. There is a valid argument that man's activities are increasing the current rise in temperature, but since the previous graphs show very large upward and downward variations within the overall temperature rise when heading upward to the interglacial peak, which can comprise several degrees rise or fall and last for 500 or 5,000 years, there is no way to state conclusively that man's activities are entirely responsible for any trend over and above the gradual rise in temperature that will inevitably occur.

It may help to try and reduce the human factor, but when you consider what that challenge entails, it is absolutely inconceivable that efforts in the 1st world will negate the huge rises in CO2 production and so on in the developing world. China, India and South America cannot reduce their massive growth in emissions and all it does is handicap our own economies (and provide a good living for the 'warmists', who would otherwise be unemployed).

These are the raw facts, make of them what you will:

- The glacial cycle is almost as regular as clockwork, the average period is 100,000 years - but it can vary between 80,000 and 120,000 years. It never fails - at least while we remain in the 'icehouse world' state.

- The last glacial temperature trough or lowest point was just 20,000 years ago. These cold stages are commonly called 'ice ages'.

- The glaciers only retreated from London 10,000 years ago.

- So, in the current glacial cycle, from the lowest temperature point 20,000 years ago, it will get steadily hotter for about another 30,000 years, up until the inter-glacial temperature peak (when the world will be considerably hotter than now), at the halfway point in the cycle - the 50,000 year mark. We're just 2/5ths up the graph, with another 3/5ths of the graph to go, with considerable temperature and sea level rises to come. Then from the halfway point, the interglacial temperature peak, the temperature will descend for 50,000 years until the next glacial trough (in 80,000 year's time).

- The sea level rises and falls 195 metres each time. So far, it has risen 125 metres this cycle, so is due to rise another 70 metres (and this is just as inevitable as the sun coming up every day - you have as much chance stopping one as the other). The sea level rise and fall is caused by the loss of or gain of ice at the poles. In order to create such dramatic height variations, virtually all of the ice must disappear and then reform in each cycle.

- In each cycle, the glaciers extend southward from the North Pole (and northward from the South Pole), and then retreat. In Britain we know that, every time, they come south as far as a point between Oxford and the Thames (London), which are only a few tens of miles apart. This appears to indicate that the temperature reaches a very similar low point each time. We might make the same assumption about the high point although there is less hard evidence for this.

- In Britain, the glaciers are at their thickest in Scotland, where they are 3 kilometers thick. The weight of the ice is so vast that it actually sinks the country in the north and raises the south-east in a see-saw effect.

- The global rise in ocean levels has been 2mm per year for the last 200 years and has been absolutely stable even through the industrial period. This is according to the world's leading expert on sea level change, the Head of Climatology at MIT.

- However, recent satellite radar data seems to show that the current increase is 3mm, but this has yet to be confirmed by MIT.

- The sea level rise is different in different areas. For example in south-east England the sea level rise is now 5mm annually, due to the annual 2mm rise plus another 3mm due to this area sinking, caused by the post glacial spring-back in Scotland. However this rise may currently need re-evaluating as there is some data that shows it may be more than this.

- From local archaeology we know that the sea level was 16 feet lower in south-east England in Roman times about 1,700 years ago (for example the Chatham Docks excavations, the Maplin Broomway inundation, the lost Roman fort at the current location of the Whittaker sandbank in the Thames Estuary). This gives a reasonable guide to local sea level rise that can be expected - plus a little more for what appears to be an increase in the rate of post-glacial springback, and in man's activity, or for the completely erratic nature of the temperature rise and fall during the upward trend.

- No short-term forecasts for local temperatures can be made because although the overall trend is very strongly upward toward the inter-glacial peak, there are huge variations in the short-term rise or fall of temperature. As an example, we know that 5,000 years ago the climate in the western Scottish islands was far warmer than today. It was probably warmer than in south-east England today, and may have had a climate approaching a Mediterranean one. Agriculture was widespread and profitable for the peoples living there. Today these island are cold, inhospitable, and agriculture is virtually impossible. The temperature has fallen significantly.

- From these (undisputed) facts we see that the sea will rise inexorably; there is little or no ice at the poles at the temperature peak and it has always been that way (there is nothing new about the polar icecaps melting, they disappear and reform in every cycle, have always done so, and presumably always will); the temperature can rise or fall dramatically for thousands of years at a time, even though the overall trend for the next 30,000 years is going to be very strongly upward; that by 30,000 years time (at the latest) the sea will have risen another 70 metres (but cannot rise more since there will be no ice left to melt).

From the rapid sea level rise in the last 20,000 years (and perhaps even mostly in the last 10,000) it does look as if most of the change in level occurs close to the glacial freeze, the trough, and the re-melt. Therefore it may well be the case that the sea level will rise quite substantially (and the polar icecaps melt, in order to provide the water), in the next 10,000 years as opposed to at the end of the cycle. In practical terms you might even expect a rise of more than a metre within current lifespans, especially in some areas. This seems to be a possibility in south-east England, where the Thames flood barrier at Woolwich is being talked of as possibly being overwhelmed far sooner than planned for.

The right thing to do would be to try to reduce the human effect on this, if possible, which unfortunately seems an impossible task; and plan for future planetary engineering work such as perhaps an attempt to adjust the planet's albedo or even shield it from the sun. Otherwise, much of it will be uninhabitable at each end of the cycle:
a. Approaching and at the interglacial temperature peak in 30,000 years, because it will be far too hot for agriculture except near the poles;
b. And adjacent to and within the the glacial trough, in 80,000 years, because much of the northern and southern hemispheres will be under glaciers.

Because our history is essentially very short - basically just 10,000 years old or less in the developed countries, because before that the land we occupy was beneath glaciers - we don't appreciate the fact we've only been here a short time and that the planet is a rather inhospitable place. Right now - and only right now - is its optimum period for our occupation. It certainly can't support our huge population at other periods during the cycle.

The land we occupy was previously below glaciers, and before that it was a desert or a swamp - rinse and repeat. People seem to forget these things and think they are in control of the planet - what supreme arrogance. Luckily our timeframes are extremely short otherwise we might worry about the serious issues in our species' future.


The future
So now, on to future predictions:

- 2.7 million years ago the earth entered an 'icehouse world' state. (Before that it was in a 'greenhouse world' state.) About 800,000 years ago the modern 100,000-year glacial cycle started, as the earth cooled more.

- The CO2 content of the atmosphere is within an envelope of 284ppm during the glacial cycles. Right now it is about 100 points above that, probably caused by human activity.

- During the 'greenhouse world' phases of the geological history, the CO2 levels were 8 to 12 times higher than today.

- If CO2 levels continue to rise, perhaps we will return to the greenhouse state instead of the icehouse state. This would mean the end of the glacial cycles, gradually rising heat, followed by a reversal of the transition from greenhouse to icehouse that occurred 2.7m years ago.

- Either way we are in trouble because extreme heat or sea level rises or widespread glaciation makes the world essentially uninhabitable for the current population levels. We are in a 'perfect world' situation just now and it cannot continue even for another 10,000 years, never mind a million or two.

- The sea level must rise another 70 metres in the short term whatever happens (in terms of geological time), and that might take place sooner rather than later given the increased CO2 atmospheric load (and therefore heat) increase; in other words, instead of during the next 30,000 years as it should, but instead within the next few thousand years.

- Whatever happens, planetary engineering is our only way out. Trying to adjust the planetary state by telling 33% of the people what to do or not do is not going to have any effect.
 
Last edited:

sonicdsl

Wandering life's highway
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 11, 2011
17,744
19,244
The climate change issue is so complex that despite what anyone says, it cannot be resolved at this time.

The earth is subject to a 100,000 year glacial cycle and we know the precise dates of the last seven. Every 100,000 years it gets very cold, then very hot. There is nothing people can do about this because planetary engineering is not within our capabilities at this time. There is a valid argument that man's activities are increasing the current rise in temperature, but since the previous graphs show very large upward and downward variations within the overall temperature rise when heading upward to the interglacial peak, which can comprise several degrees rise or fall and last for 500 or 5,000 years, there is no way to state conclusively that man's activities are entirely responsible for any trend over and above the gradual rise in temperature that will inevitably occur.

It may help to try and reduce the human factor, but when you consider what that challenge entails, it is absolutely inconceivable that efforts in the 1st world will negate the huge rises in CO2 production and so on in the developing world. China, India and South America cannot reduce their massive growth in emissions and all it does is handicap our own economies (and provide a good living for the 'warmists', who would otherwise be unemployed).

These are the raw facts, make of them what you will:

- The glacial cycle is almost as regular as clockwork, the average period is 100,000 years - but it can vary between 80,000 and 120,000 years. It never fails, and as far as we can tell, it never will.

- The last glacial temperature trough or lowest point was just 20,000 years ago. These cold stages are commonly called 'ice ages'.

- The glaciers only retreated from London 10,000 years ago.

- Perhaps you can see by now that it will get steadily hotter for about another 30,000 years, up until the inter-glacial temperature peak (when the world is considerably hotter than now). We're just 2/5ths up the graph, with another 3/5ths of temperature and sea level rise to go.

- The sea level rises and falls 195 metres each time. So far, it has risen 125 metres this cycle, so is due to rise another 75 metres (and this is just as inevitable as the sun coming up every day - you have as much chance stopping one as the other). The sea level rise is caused by the loss of or gain of ice at the poles. In order to create such dramatic height variations, virtually all of the ice must disappear and then reform in each cycle.

- Each cycle, the glaciers extend south from the North Pole as far as a point between Oxford and the Thames (London), which are only a few tens of miles apart. This appears to indicate that the temperature reaches a very similar low point each time. We might make the same assumption about the high point although there is less hard evidence for this.

- In Britain, the glaciers are at their thickest in Scotland, where they are 3 kilometers thick. The weight of the ice is so vast that it actually sinks the country in the north, and raises the south-east in a see-saw effect.

- The global rise in ocean levels has been 2mm per year for the last 200 years and has been absolutely stable even through the industrial period. This is according to the world's leading expert on sea level change, the Head of Climatology at MIT.

- However, recent satellite data seems to show that the current increase is 3mm, but has yet to be confirmed by MIT.

- The sea level rise is different in different areas. For example in south-east England the sea level rise is 5mm annually, due to the annual 2mm rise plus another 3mm due to this area sinking, caused by the post glacial spring-back in Scotland.

- From local archaeology we know that the sea level was 16 feet lower in south-east England in Roman times, 2,000 years ago. This gives a reasonable guide to local sea level rise that can be expected - plus a little more for man's activity, or for the completely erratic nature of the temperature rise and fall during the upward trend, as you prefer.

- No short-term forecasts for local temperatures can be made since although the overall trend is very strongly upward toward the inter-glacial peak, there are huge variations in the short-term rise or fall of temperature. As an example, we know that 5,000 years ago the climate in the western Scottish islands was far warmer than today. It was probably warmer than in south-east England today, and may have had a climate approaching a Mediterranean one. Agriculture was widespread and profitable for the peoples living there. Today these island are cold, inhospitable, and agriculture is virtually impossible. The temperature has fallen significantly.

- From these (undisputed) facts we see that the sea will rise inexorably; there is little or no ice at the poles at the temperature peak and it has always been that way; the temperature can rise or fall dramatically for thousands of years at a time, even though the overall trend for the next 30,000 years is going to be very strongly upward; that in 30,000 years the sea will have risen another 75 metres (but cannot rise more since there will be no ice left to melt).

From the rapid sea level rise in the last 20,000 years it does look as if most of the change in level occurs close to the glacial freeze, the trough, and the re-melt. Therefore it may well be the case that the sea level will rise quite substantially (and the polar icecaps melt, in order to provide the water), in the next 10,000 years as opposed to at the end of the cycle. In practical terms you can perhaps expect a rise of several metres within current lifespans, especially in some areas.

The right thing to do would be to try to reduce the human effect on this, if possible (which seems rather unlikely), and plan for future planetary engineering work such as perhaps an attempt to reduce the planet's albedo or even shield it from the sun. Otherwise, much of it will be uninhabitable at each end of the cycle - at the peak because it will be far too hot for agriculture, and near the trough - in 80,000 years :) - because much of the northern and southern hemispheres will be under glaciers.

Our history is basically just 10,000 years old or less in the developed countries, because before that the land we occupy was beneath glaciers; and before that it was a desert - rinse and repeat. People seem to forget these things and think they are in control of the planet - what supreme arrogance.

Roly you are my hero! I always learn from your postings (regardless of the topic, it seems), and I love that. :D
 

Stubby

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 22, 2009
2,104
1,992
Madison, WI USA
Okay, I really didn't want to get into a discussion on climate change as it was just an offhand statement, but you have really gone over the top a bit in a few areas (but certainly not all).

There is no question there has been long term cycles in climate. That is not the issue. But to say human activity is not having an effect on climate (and I'm not sure your are saying that) is stretching it.

You have to look at Carbon dioxide.... which you conveniently failed to mention. Pre-industrial amounts where 280 ppm. During glacial periods it is a good deal less. As of today it is 391 ppm. This is clearly man made and clearly having a heat trapping effect. The heat trapping is actually neutralized a bit by global dimming. The irony of that is cleaning up the atmosphere can increase heat trapping. A real catch 22.

Much of the local climate change you mentioned in interglacial periods in the UK is likely due to changes in the jet stream more then anything else. This can have a significant effect on local climate. The UK is a good deal farther north then the northeastern US yet has a more moderate climate. The only reason you are not buried under 10 feet of snow in the winter is entirely due to a favorable jet stream. A slight change in that can have a significant change in local climate, including warming.

If you are trying to say that because the planet has gone through large scale climate changes on a regular bases means that human activity has no effect on climate..... that's a rather weak argument. Especially when there is a good deal of pretty solid science telling us that human activity is having a significant effect on CO2 levels.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Roly you are my hero! I always learn from your postings (regardless of the topic, it seems), and I love that. :D

Agreed! I learned a new word today, "Maven" from the book by Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point.

Gladwell argues that to bring about the tipping point to effect a large change in society (e.g. the start of the American Revolution, or acceptance of e-cigarettes as a wonderful alternative to smoking), it takes a lot of people, and three types of people are needed: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen.

Connectors are people who know lots and lots of other people and spread the word, like Paul Revere did on his midnight ride. I see Bill Godshall as a Connector. He has introduced me to an incredible number of people in the world of tobacco control, tobacco research, and tobacco harm reduction.

We need lots of Connectors out in the trenches that can rally folks to take action--show up at a public hearing, contact elected officials, write letters to the editor and letters to officials.

Mavens are people you go to for information. We all have lots of Mavens in our lives. Roly is one. Bill is another. So are Doctors Michael Siegel, Brad Rodu, and of course, CASAA's Carl V. Phillips.

Salesmen are people who come up with persuasive reasons for making a change. I see Greg Conley (Placebo Effect) as a guy like that, and with a law degree to boot!
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
Stubby, I agree that human influence cannot be good and is probably having a negative effect. Realistically, that would be difficult to measure precisely, since the short-term up/down variations in temperature during the general upward trend are impossible to assign to any particular cause. However it is true that we should try to minimise the human effect, although I cannot see any way of making an overall difference here when there are so many very large growing economies who will not only be completely outside of those efforts but welcome our work to handicap the Western economies.

In the long term the only hope is planetary engineering, since the combined effect of the certain 30,000 years of temperature rise we know will take place, plus human influence, means much of the globe will be uninhabitable (a lot will be under water as there is another 70 metres of sea level rise to go, and of what's left above water, much will probably be a desert).

Of course, you then have to look at current resource levels and consider Stephen Hawking's prediction that we only have about 200 years to get off this planet before all the resources are burned out. Once the metals and fuels have gone, we will sink back into the Stone Age and there will be no way out. For various reasons I think we have longer than this, but perhaps that's just optimism.

Of more concern to me is the current trend to turn the planet into a toxic waste dump. I think this has more real implications for us in the short term. The longer-term issues have no foreseeable resolution at this time as they depend on technology and resources, one of which is growing at an exponential rate, but the other is fast disappearing. When a billion people in China expect to own and run a car, and the same in India and then even South America, don't expect our natural resources to last long.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread