Thread: Are we all looking forward to the Carbon Tax?

I don't have time, and definitely lack the inclination anyway, to either find the info for you or do a proper analysis (of your argument) suffice to say water vapour is a gas. You should get the fundamentals right before launching into a pseudo-scientific analysis of enormously complicated theories (both for and against). It's not a good look.

Cheers
Michael

I think Damien may be referring to clouds, which are formed from small droplets of liquid water, not from water vapour.

According to Wikipedia (it's convenient but there are references), water vapour (the gas) alone contributes between 36-70% of the greenhouse effect. Including clouds, the figure is given as 66-85%. CO2 is given as 9-26% of the total effect. So it is 7% of 9-26%, not 7% of 30% of 5%. Still a relatively small number, but then in these types of non-linear systems, I guess there is a threshold value beyond which changes occur exponentially. So maybe 7% of 9% is enough to push it over the edge.

BTW referring to proponents as evangelists is a bit perjorative isn't it?

Originally Posted by silentC

I think Damien may be referring to clouds, which are formed from small droplets of liquid water, not from water vapour.

So you can read between the lines

Cheers
Michael

Did you mean pejorative ? Only if you regard the word evangelist as derogatory.

Evangelist: a person marked by evangelical enthusiasm for or support of any cause.

There are obviously other definitions specific to religeon but that's the context of my use.

mic-d:

gas: Physics. a substance possessing perfect molecular mobility and the property of indefinite expansion, as opposed to a solid or liquid.

So when does a suspended areosol become a true gas ? because the CCE's just love to ignore water vapour and clouds in their figures.

It's a rhetorical question by the way.

Also from wikipedia. I had read this some time ago, from a reliable source, but had forgotten about it:

Water vapor is also a potent greenhouse gas. Because the water vapor content of the atmosphere is expected to greatly increase in response to warmer temperatures, there is the potential for a water vapor feedback that could amplify the expected climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide alone. However, it is less clear how cloudiness would respond to a warming climate; depending on the nature of the response, clouds could either further amplify or partly mitigate the water vapor feedback.

So there is a possible secondary effect. Odd you don't hear much about it but I suppose the CCE's are now so convinced they have everyone scared they have moved beyond justifying their religeon and are onto the confession and pennance phase.

the insulating quality of teh artmosphere is dues to water vapour ... enviroment ... pollitical ... religeon ... pennance

Damien I wouldn't get too smart about correct spelling mate

they have moved beyond justifying their religeon [sic] and are onto the confession and pennance [sic] phase

You know very well that 'evangelism' in this context carries, and is intended to carry, a derogatory connotation. Don't play coy with me. You are attempting to frame the pro climate change viewpoint as a religious one and therefore not able to bear up to scientific analysis. Now whilst I agree that there is a lot we don't understand about the whole process, attempting to squash the pro debate by characterising it this way is not helpful to anyone.

This topic gets sticky easily doesn't it.

All I was after was to be pointed to reputable sources of information bagging hybrid cars and specifically the Prius. Being a driver of one for five years I am pretty comfortable about owning one compared to many other vehicles I could have purchased at the time. But if someone has some information that makes it clear they are worse off for the environment than the alternative people usually buy, please point it out.

No no no, absolutely not. I was just clarifying if that's the word you meant.

I guess the religeous connotations are somewhat derogatory, and I failed to specifically clarify that I acknowledge that the anti CCEs are also not always objective, and I include myself in that statment.

I suppose my primary objection to this is not the competing interpretations of the data, but the politicising (in the broader sense) of the issue.

I don't dispute that pollution is a bad thing, and I expect few would defend it. Whether the CCE's are right or not reducing our pollution load would deliver the desired result. Instead of concentrating on that end we are distracted by photo ops, so called enviromental groups with their hands out for our money either directly or via our taxes, beaurocrats building empires and a load of media frenzy.

Really CC is irrelevant. Unless someone is proposing a major world wide intervention to our atmosphere and enviroment basically all we can do, whether it's real or not, whether it's big or small, is to reduce our pollution load. All I've seen so far is a lot of talkfests and ranting rent a crowd protesters.

Conversely, we have been progressively, demonstratively and intelligently reducing our pollution load for decades. In fact if you study old court records as far back as the industrial revolution there have been signifigant wins for the community and enviroment over industry. If we were still creating as much pollution per head as we were in the 70's we'd all be choked to death. Remember acid rain ? those rank brown cloudes that hung all the time over our cities ?

My point is we should be vigilant about pollution. We should all examine our lifestyles and endeavour to reduce our individual contribution, and we should make our representatives aware we care about this stuff, but we shouldn't be distracted by chicken little grandstanding. The people who promote that stuff are evil amoral liars. They don't care about you, and they don't care about the enviroment. They do what they do to stroke their egos and line their pockets. They are responsible for money wasted and money not spent of research and action and legislation that might really do some good. I find that annoying.

Perhaps that makes my position a little clearer. I don't always express myself well.

I suppose my primary objection to this is not the competing interpretations of the data, but the politicising (in the broader sense) of the issue.

I think it's the way the world works though. A scientist on his own will have bugger all chance of convincing people to change their behaviour. Politics and public relations are everything in this world.

Do you ever watch The Gruen Transfer on the ABC? There was an interesting spot on bottled water last week. It is one of the greatest coups of the advertising world that not only are they able to sell something that people could get more or less for free at home, but they also have people being loyal to a brand of bottled water. I mean come on, how stupid are we?

In light of that, the only way anyone is going to convince people of the importance of the issue (assuming there is one) is by approaching the problem on that level. So you can't blame them.

Originally Posted by nt900

This topic gets sticky easily doesn't it.

All I was after was to be pointed to reputable sources of information bagging hybrid cars and specifically the Prius. Being a driver of one for five years I am pretty comfortable about owning one compared to many other vehicles I could have purchased at the time. But if someone has some information that makes it clear they are worse off for the environment than the alternative people usually buy, please point it out.

Don't sweat it There are a few of us here to like to vent, usually at each other...

I am sure if you do a search someone somewhere will have a web page with a proper analysis of the total pollution load of the prius compared to some similar conventional cars. My suggestion would be a similar size diesel, like the golf 1.9. There was some work done in Japan, oh probably about 10 years ago, that claimed diesel produces traces of super toxic chemicals. I can't refute it with certainty but I am suspicious of the paper. My basis is I know we did a lot of work on diesel emmissions back in the 70's and 80's with none of this showing up. I acknowledge that diesel formulations may have changed, but I am still suspicious. Most of the soot etc produced by diesels is biodegradable and of course it can be produced economically from truely renewable sources, so it's a pretty good choice. The total cost of ownership is also solid. I can personally vouch that the golf 2.0 TDi is a wicked drive, absolutely spectacular car. Only thing I don't like is the biwire loom.

Perception is a funny thing. I've got a 95 fairlane. Most people would say it's a fuel guzzler, yet it gets about the same fuel economy as a impreza base model and slightly better than a lexus is200. Be aware that for most cars fuel consumption is driven greatly by the way you drive, and below 80 km/hr (around town) by the weight of the car. Over 80 (highway) aerodynamicas overtakes weight because of wind resistance and the lesser braking and accelerating. My car is 1700 kg and returns similar fuel economy to other rwd petrol cars 1.5-2 tonne. Other important factors are whether the drive is turned 90 degrees (which is why front transverse engined cars get better economy) and of course factors like fuel type and unusual driveline losses (4wd).

2c..

People ahve been recognising problems and rallying support for solutions for, well for as long as recorded history. My objection is:

1. They lie.

2. They aren't pursuing a real solution.

3. They are trying to make money or promote themselves instead of pursuing a real solution.

The world isn't perfect, in so many ways, doesn't mean I have to like it.

I haven't been watching this series, I keep meaning to tape it, maybe this week. Regarding bottled water, well it doesn't have the amount of flouride and chlorine that tap water has, and if I'm somewhere where there is no available tap/bubbler but I can get a bottle of water for $1 or $2 I'm buying convenience. Afterall I have feet if I want transport. Why board a bus ?

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Nah the first Prius went when I got made redundant, the second one is almost 4 years old. No battery issues yet but I figure that five years is a long time in battery technology (think Moore's Law) and I thought it was eight years, btw heard of Toyota motors lasting 350,000 km so Im not that worried,

Originally Posted by nt900

My Prius more than 5 years old and battery likely to last another 5 years I guess.

I have been following this discussion and find it interesting to see what drives people to make certain, fairly major, decisions as to what they purchase.

The above 2 statements absolutely floored me, here are 2 people that decided that a Toyota Prius was the right car for them.

Neither of them took in to account the cost and life cycle of the battery bank in this car.

So, I am interested to know, what did ypou base your decision on?

I am not being critical of your decision, I am just curious what parameters you used to arrive at that decision.

Anthony, you keep asking other people to point you in the direction of a "good" analysis of the fors and againsts of the Toyota Prius, surely you did all that analysis before you made the decision to purchase one?

I have spent a lot of my working life in getting big manufacturing projects up and running and if I had gone to my fellow directors with statements such as "I guess they will last another 5 years" I don't think I would have lasted very long.

My objection is

Your 3 points sum up all politics and advertising in a nutshell.

it doesn't have the amount of flouride and chlorine that tap water has

The water in bottled water is, generally speaking, straight out of the tap. We're talking water like Pump etc. Mineral water is a different beast.

if I'm somewhere where there is no available tap/bubbler but I can get a bottle of water for $1 or $2 I'm buying convenience

Why not take a water bottle with you?

Did you know that it takes more water to make a bottle of water than you get in the bottle?

The real point here is not about the water - it's a convenience item as you say. The point being made was that they have been able to create brand-loyalty based on the shape of the bottle, colour of the label, and the advertising campaign. They can't differentiate the product, so they differentiate the container. And we fall for it.

Originally Posted by silentC

Your 3 points sum up all politics and advertising in a nutshell.

Maybe i don't like all politics and advertising ?

The water in bottled water is, generally speaking, straight out of the tap. We're talking water like Pump etc. Mineral water is a different beast.

Why not take a water bottle with you?

Did you know that it takes more water to make a bottle of water than you get in the bottle?

The real point here is not about the water - it's a convenience item as you say. The point being made was that they have been able to create brand-loyalty based on the shape of the bottle, colour of the label, and the advertising campaign. They can't differentiate the product, so they differentiate the container. And we fall for it.

I don't know what "pump" is. I can taste a difference in what comes out of my tap and what I taste in coles bottled water, which I very occasionally buy. I haven't done the tests myself but I have seen claims that there are less contaminents. I filter my water at home.

Occasionally I forget, or run out of what I have, so I spend.

I accept people pay for superficial and irrelevant things. Cosmetics spring to mind. In fact you can make the argument about the prius. It remains to be seen if anyone can find a proper analysis of it's pollution load, but I very much expect the total cost of ownership isn't better than contemporary cars. People buy it because of the perception it's a good thing. I would be surprised if most of it's customers really understood what they have bought. That doesn't make the decision bad, but it doesn't make it informed either. As has been said here before, it is unreasonable for every consumer to become an authority on every product prior to purchase. We place our trust in advice and information form various sources, and advertisers exploit that trust, in this case quite effectively.

The emperors new clothes ?

Edit: quick search

http://reliableanswers.com/general/prius_v_hummer.asp

mildly amusing but nothing concret (which is also a maor polluter )

Well as a guy pointed out on the radio the other day, when you buy an electric car, you aren't carbon neutral - all you are doing is transferring your carbon footprint from your car to the power station. As long as power is being generated by burning coal, you haven't really done anything.

Pump is a brand of bottled water. It has a 'sports' type nozzle so that you can drink it while you are jogging I presume. But it is just filtered tap water bottled in factory somewhere.