Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 Next
Comments 61351 to 61400:
-
jzk at 00:26 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Daniel@39, That is an excellent point that I often wonder about. Why is it that those that believe that AGW will cause significant harm to the planet are still "on the grid" washing their clothes and drying them with powered machines, watching cable TV, driving automobiles, using computers, and all the other "excesses" that are leading to destruction of our planet? Personally, I am undecided about what will be the effects of our fossil fuel use, but I would be much more likely to "believe" if the believers were taking the action that they advocate. If I found out that something I was doing was releasing a poison gas that would harm my children, I would never do another thing to release that gas ever again. And if the answer is that it won't have any effect without everyone doing it, then there you have it. -
jzk at 00:19 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Sphaerica@40, Much of what you say may be true, but the issue I am trying to present is the reality that we do not have control over what the entire world does. Without developing world participation/solutions, the effects of the measures you suggest will be hard to measure. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:10 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
39, DB,A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step...
But you see, that right there is the problem. People don't want to walk. They want to drive there. They don't even want to walk too far to get to the car. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:53 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
38, jzk, Except you offer yet another false dichotomy. The choice isn't "burn every ounce of fossil fuel and destroy the planet" versus "force most of the human race to live in abject, stone-age poverty." First, the problem is not that we use energy for our lifestyle, it's that we foolishly waste it. The amount of needlessly flippant waste in our economy is absurd. You don't need to be eating fresh fruit shipped in from 1,000 miles away. You don't need to drive daily to the store in a 4 ton SUV to buy bread. You don't need to live in a 70 degree, humidity controlled environment everywhere you go, at home, the office, stores, everywhere. It's nice, but you don't need it. Every other society before ours (say, circa 1970 on) has lived with a balance of pleasure and sacrifice. No one got to have everything. Their lifestyles were fine. Sure, everyone wants more, but that doesn't mean they should or could have it. Today's conservatives seem to think that this brief period of excess has become an entitlement. They love to cry about entitlements, but really the problem is that they will not give or sacrifice or moderate their behavior in any way now... they are entitled to rape the planet of natural resources for their own, short-lived lives and lifestyle. Huge advances could be made in reducing emissions simply by adjusting behaviors and living within our means (something that hasn't been done, either with energy or budgets, in the past forty years), not to mention making some sacrifices to use new technologies instead of just saying "it's too hard, it's not mature, nothing could truly replace fossil fuels." In every generation before ours, people have made huge, huge sacrifices to deal with the challenges and problems of their age. What we need to do is absolutely nothing like that, yet today's blind-folded conservatives find pathetic excuses like the welfare of the distant poor to do nothing at all, changing neither our destructive use of fossil fuels nor our social intransigence in addressing the plight of others that becomes their excuse for inaction. It's such a convenient, and empty, and incongruous line of reasoning. Secondly... how in the world can one justify damaging the habitability of the planet and the future of multitudes by putting forth the argument that today's poor must be given what you have? Burning fossil fuels at this (or an accelerated) rate is going to severely handicap civilization and that very ability to improve on the status of others. We will instead actually backslide from the gains we've already made, so that all of our efforts must go into simply finding a way to keep what we have, to feed more with less because agriculture will have to change and the bounty of the seas will diminish, and to build and rebuild as the oceans creep in and the land erodes. How can you justify a short-term, one-time advance for today's poor, in exchange for destroying that future for everyone, across the globe, for far too many generations? -
Daniel Bailey at 23:23 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step... Someone must be first, just as someone must be last. Lead or follow, but get out of the way. -
jzk at 22:35 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Bernard J@36, If there are people that prefer living without electricity, clean water and television, I have no interest in forcing them to do so. But it ought to be their choice. I have a feeling that people living with out refrigerators, automobiles, wash machines and gas stoves aren't living that way as a matter of choice. Further if one wants to promote that lifestyle and disconnect their electricity, etc., I wouldn't stand in their way. But China is building coal power plants as fast as they can because their people want out of that lifestyle. That is the reality that someone needs to deal with. "Leading the way" is a meaningless, damaging, unmeasurable exercise without global participation. -
Sceptical Wombat at 22:01 PM on 15 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Steve Case But 0.10°C isn't going to warm anything anywhere anymore than something less than 0.10°C. That would only be true if the warming was uniform. -
chriskoz at 21:30 PM on 15 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Hi Glenn, I looked at other graphs from NOAA data centre where you courced your OHC. When you switch to "figures with error bars" and look at figure no 6 (Pentadal Global OHC (0-2000 meters)", you notice thet the error bars are quite small (rougly +-2E22J in 1960s and less than 1E22J in XXI century). +-2E22J is very accurate, considering the anomally of 2E23J from 1960 until today... I wonder how did they obtain such accurate estimate of OHC down to 2000m as far back in time while there is no direct temp data available. I understand they've been measuring temp only in 700m range. They've started measuring down to 2000m sometimes in 2005: that's why some short term average graphs of 2000m are shown for 2003-2011 only. -
Dave123 at 20:35 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Curiously, this has evolved into a political discussion about left vs right takes on things. What fascinates me is the faith vs evidence bit. One of the claims (or rather diversions) made by deniers is that AGW is like a religion. But as noted so many of the deniers are advocates of an Americanized version of the Austrian School of economics....something that lacks empirical evidence and is instead a series of rhetorical postures. Thus there are (at least) three articles of faith that they wish to hide from discussion: 1) Because pure central management of the economy (coupled with totalitarian governments) have failed, the opposite extreme of pure free market economics must be right. 2) Everything will be cheaper in the future. (and we'll have flying cars, moon and mars colonies etc.) 3) Since Erhlich and the Club of Rome didn't get the timing right for the population bomb, there will never be any limits to growth. And let us not forget in the context of Spencer, that not only does he run a website dedicated to 'conservative' economics, but he is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance declaration on God's beneficent managment of the environment and the impossibility of man mucking it up. -
JMurphy at 20:35 PM on 15 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 wrote : "As far as I can tell, Barnett was not talking about some peak melting time where glacier and snowpack melt contribute more to the river than usual, he was talking about their total contribution to river flow; therefore, an average yearly figure is what would be required as evidence, not a figure about a period of peak contribution. Maybe this is where our misunderstanding lies?" The misunderstanding would be dependent on whether you were referring to this statement in Barnett et al : The hydrological cycle of the region is complicated by the Asian monsoon, but there is little doubt that melting glaciers provide a key source of water for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60% of the flow in other major rivers 40,41,42. (40. Singh, P. & Bengtsson, L. Hydrological sensitivity of a large Himalayan basin to climate change. Hydrol. Process. 18, 2363–-2385 (2004). 41. Singh, P., Jain, S. K. & Kumar, N. Estimation of snow and glacier-melt contribution to the Chenab River, Western Himalaya. Mount. Res. Develop. 17(1), 49–-56 (1997). 42. Singh, P. & Jain, S. K. Snow and glacier melt in the Satluj River at Bhakdra Dam in the western Himalayan region. Hydrol. Sci. J. 47, 93–-106 (2002).) If so, he mentions "summer months" and "summer flow" (peak melting time, perhaps ?); references the Chenab river, and writes "as much as...50-60%...". Which part of Barnett, specifically, were you referring to - particularly with regard to those particular references ? -
Steve Case at 20:31 PM on 15 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
From the article:- "The total heat accumulation in the environment from 1961 to 2003 is estimated as 15.9 x 10²² Joules. ..."
"So heat that boils the harbour would only warm the entire ocean by a fraction of a degree."
Yes, and the IPCC tells us right off the bat in Chapter 5 of their AR4 report:
- "The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m."
Executive Summary
Not 0.09 or 0.11 but 0.10°C spread over 42 years, and expressed as 14.2 x 10²² Joules, it is very impressive. But 0.10°C isn't going to warm anything anywhere anymore than something less than 0.10°C.
-
Dave123 at 20:16 PM on 15 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
I think the position of the deniers is understandable in terms of the focus on surface temperatures. As far as they are concerned, soaking up heat in the ocean is part of the magical meechanism that holds the earth in a comfort zone. In parallel to their attitude towards extractive industries (coal, oil, fossil water), that these are "given" to us to exploit, the ocean and deep ocean's heat capacity is also a resource to be mined to compensate for increased energy being trapped on the earth. -
John Mason at 20:02 PM on 15 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
garethman, yes it will strongly increase albedo - but on a very short-term basis. -
garethman at 18:54 PM on 15 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Interesting programme on Channel 4 regarding climate change and early Homo Sapiens. Tony Robinson relates how the last great warming cycle 130,000 years ago saved early humans from extinction. The population at that time was about 10,000 and falling and clustered around water holes. But the end of that particular cold spell ended the drought in East Africa and allowed the population to expand across, and out of Africa. He discusses how major climate change have effected humans in the past, how we have adapted, and how the current climate change will have unknown impacts on us as a species. Uncomfortable viewing for some, but fascinating all the same. -
garethman at 18:43 PM on 15 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
Is greater snow cover in the Northern hemisphere during winter likely to have any effect on the albido of the Eurasian landmass? -
Bernard J. at 18:17 PM on 15 March 2012It's not bad
Mohyla103 at #181:"Glaciers act as natural dams..." which can burst causing massive flooding events downstream. A retreating glacier would eliminate this possible threat, so it's not all bad news.
Erm, no. No, no, and NO. Glaciers do not impound water, they hold it as frozen mass, so there is no equivalency with "bursting" dams. However... If precipitation falls as water when it would previously have fallen as snow, then there will be greater downstream flows during precipitation seasons. This may indeed cause flooding, but not of the instantaneous sort that follows a dam bursting. Therefore a "retreating" glacier will more likely cause flooding events, but not in a manner akin to a bursting dam. It also means that there will be reduced (or no) flow during non-precipitation seasons. This is bad news on both counts. -
From Peru at 18:01 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
Tom Curtis: "there will be no economic signal directing people to those tasks which while necessary, are not good at satisfying emotional, familiar or spiritual needs, like collecting garbage, or treating sewage"· I am not sure how general this is, but garbage and sewage are waste, and waste often actually has value (for example, organic waste is an intermediate good to produce biofuel like methane and fertilizer like nitrate)so a motive for processing them exist, even if today that motive is almost not appreciated. And for sewage in particular,the work is almost completely done by machines operated by a few workers in a treatment plant. And remember that a lot of people work not only for personal benefit, but for the benefit of others (as an extreme example, firefighters in my country do that dangerous work for free, yes zero pay) In a society based on solidarity, people work for others because he or she knows that the well being of the community is necessary for the well being of oneself. "If a price signal for investment is to exist, and to not be a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation (as per your 17), then there needs to be a real growth in the economy from that investment" If there is no escape from that the outlook seems grim, because eternal growth would violate the laws of thermodynamics.Growth must stop at some point because of resource depletion. By the way, "robbing Peter to pay Paul" seems like a simple but true description of what human civilization has already done since it emerged in the Neolithic, despite the inmense economic growth achieved. We can do much better I think. N.B: My insistence is in no way because I want to prove that you are wrong. I found this discussion interesting, because we exchange ideas. -
R. Gates at 17:59 PM on 15 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Thank you for pointing this out. I really wish Dr. Judith Curry would read this and stop using the skeptical meme of "no significant warming since 1998". It really does her reputation as a climate scientist a great deal of harm. I know she thinks she is talking about the troposphere, but as you've correctly pointed out, it's a small fraction of the total warming of the Earth's system. She claims the evidence for warming in other areas, especially the ocean, is not supported by the evidence. I can only wonder how she reaches this conclusion when the evidence is quite overwhelming the other way. -
Bernard J. at 17:33 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
From Peru:I feel that something is completely wrong about how our society is described.I post this comment to see if others share the same feeling.
Another author you would find interesting if, as I said on Greg Laden's blog, you can bear a walk on the (supposedly) wild side, is 'The Wealth of Nature' by JM Greer. He's a proponent of the Schumaker take on economics, and I have yet to see a 'conventional' economist manage even a cursory rebuttal of the main arguments from this school - they all seem to be very quiet on the matter... -
Tom Curtis at 17:23 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
From Peru @24, I cannot give you a specific reference, but energy production is a good proxy for use of material resources, and CO2 emissions a good proxy for energy production. CO2 emissions have been approximately linear for the last three decades. Those three decades have also seen a significant shift to the "service sector" in many well established economies, not to mention the rapid growth of internet and telecommunications services which require a far lower material input for economic gain than do traditional goods. Therefore the linear growth in material resources is a good first approximation. With regard to regimentation for zero growth, you yourself underpin the issue, or at least part of it. You indicate that in a rich enough economy "personal (emotional, familiar, spiritual etc) matters would be more important for everyday life than an assured already assured income". In other words, there will be no economic signal directing people to those tasks which while necessary, are not good at satisfying emotional, familiar or spiritual needs, like collecting garbage, or treating sewage. The consequence will be a migration from these less satisfying but essential jobs to more personally satisfying jobs. We would have a world replete with philosophy lecturers set among piles of refuse. This outcome can be avoided either by economic scarcity together with wage differentials to drive a price signal, or by mandated employment. A similar problem arises with investment. With no economic growth to create a price signal on investment, there is no reason to invest. Hence people with large amounts of capital are likely to let their large amounts of capital be frittered away on non-essentials. Again, you can correct this either by allowing a price signal or by mandated investment. If a price signal for investment is to exist, and to not be a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation (as per your 17), then there needs to be a real growth in the economy from that investment. I dislike this turn of events which has me sounding like a convert of Hayek (which I most certainly am not). Never-the-less, there is some things that classical economics gets right, and that even Hayek gets right, and that is the importance of the price signal and the importance of economic liberty to personal liberty. There are of course some things that Marx got right as well, and in most conversations those are what I would need to expound on, but I get the impression I would be largely preaching to the choir in that regard with you. -
mohyla103 at 16:17 PM on 15 March 2012It's not bad
I'll answer your 1st and 3rd questions together: What is the maximum percentage possible ? How much of that maximum is contributed by glacier-melt? Admittedly more than 49% from glacier and snowpack melt is possible at a peak time of the year. Admittedly, the amount from glacier melt could at a peak time exceed 49% of the flow in the river. However, this is irrelevant as Barnett never made this claim. See below. Your 2nd question: When does that maximum occur ? I don't know. However, this is irrelevant as Barnett's original 50-60% did not refer to peak flow at a certain time of year but total flow. Were this the Ganges, I could understand your point as Barnett specifically referred to the summer period for the Ganges. However, for the Chenab river, he did not. As far as I can tell, Barnett was not talking about some peak melting time where glacier and snowpack melt contribute more to the river than usual, he was talking about their total contribution to river flow; therefore, an average yearly figure is what would be required as evidence, not a figure about a period of peak contribution. Maybe this is where our misunderstanding lies? -
Bernard J. at 16:07 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
John Brookes at #10:A particular annoying theme of climate "skeptics" is their faux concern for the poor. They argue that any attempts to limit CO2 emissions will condemn the poor of Africa and Asia to eternal poverty.
This is a point that I have intended to highlight myself in the past, but which has usually ended up slipping under my radar. I'm pleased that you make the point here. The "faux concern for the poor" that you mention is exactly that - false - because none of the self-professed proponents is ever actually involved in humanitarian work, or even in the active promotion of such beyond their righteous umbrage, in letters to the editor or on blogs, against reducing carbon emissions. In all real Western concerns/efforts that I've come across to reduce Third World poverty, I've never once seen anyone oppose immediate and decisive action to curtail carbon emissions. Further, I've had visitors from developing countries come to experience ecological fieldwork here (one was from a a very remote jungle village, in fact), and they were all adamant that the developed world should pull their collective fingers out and change the way they do business, especially with respect to fossil fuel use. Really, anyone who is truly concerned about Third World poverty should be focussing their efforts on addressing matters of political and economic inequity, and especially where Western influences are involved up to the elbows in such... At #11 jzk says:For anyone really interested in reductions of global CO2 emissions, solving the poverty issue is your main, and most problematic hurdle.
Sadly, this is a gross over-simplification of the issue. Of multiple issues, in fact. There are many factors involved in poverty. These include (for example): 1. limitations of resources other than fuel/energy resources 2. political interference in equitable use of a community's/region's/nation's available resources 3. logistical ability to distribute resources 4. population size (the problem that dare not speak its name...) 5. a society's efficiency (or otherwise...) in using available resources 6. the very definition of 'poverty' in the first place. On the latter point, some of my friends are an example worth considering. They have no town water (instead collect rain water), no sewerage (have a composting toilet), and no reticulated power (have solar hot water and photovoltaics). They have no refrigerator, no television, and a pedal-operated washing machine. They are largely self-sufficient (= 'subsistent', apparently) for food. One of them spins her own wool and knits clothing. They live within 50 km of an Australian state capital, and with the limited income from their primary production business, they would be considered by many to be living in poverty. And yet they have a wonderful quality of life, are very fit and healthy, and live a life with more meaning and purpose than most who are glued to the tube watching fake reality programs, or who think that the local strip mall is the height of human achievement. And yet it is this latter to which most of the world seems to aspire... One thing both the 'developed' and the developing nations need to acknowledge is that no amount of fossil energy replacement is going to solve the fundamental problem. The simple fact is that humanity is demanding too much from the planet. Yes, there is a great deal that can be ameliorated by weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, but the underlying imbalance of resource requirement is more pervasive than even this issue. It would not be possible to discuss this without going wildly off-topic, but anyone interested will find some good analyses by the likes of Heinburg, Gilding, Kunstler, and Greer. Heinburg's and Lerch's Post Carbon Reader, as a compendium of dozens of essays by renowned thinkers, is especially worth a read. And a general comment directed at those who say that reorganising the global economy so that we can cut emissions is not democratic... If generations yet unborn were given a vote about how we handle current economic decisions, and if non-human species were also given a vote, then I suspect that we'd already have priced fossil fuels from out of the economy. I note on refreshing the page that the conversation has moved on somewhat, and that jzk asks:What are your thoughts about the "agrarian lifestyle?"
This is a curious question, as it is culturally loaded. There is no inherently greater or lesser value of an "agrarian lifestyle", except where such provides more secure long-term protection for the biosphere that sustains all life on Earth. Of course, many would argue that a consumerist lifestyle in inherently "better" (or worse), but again this is a cultural perception - except where matters of sustainability are again relevant to the question. -
From Peru at 15:59 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
Tom Curtis: "Currently exponential economic growth is being sustained with a linear growth in resources" I know little of economics, could you give me a reference to a book, article or paper that show that? In any case, even a linear growth in resources is not sustainable in the long term (we are talking about centuries if not millenia) "a genuine zero growth economy is of necessity only possible in a static society and hence a highly regimented and non-democratic society. This follows from the requirement that investment be made with no net rate of return" Why? Once the economy is rich enough, everyone could have a high standard of living. At this point, personal(emotional, familiar, spiritual,etc) matters would be more important for everyday life than an already assured income. I don't think that people would want always be richer once already is rich, unless one is dominated by greed. This would be automatic if people are educated to work for the common good, and not for irrational accumulation of wealth (why struggle to accumulate millions in the bank?) No need for a rigidly controlled regime, just solidarity and common sense. With respect with investmnent and return, there should be a point where the return obtained is enough. When talking of growth, we are not talking about return of the investment, but the rate of change of that return. Even if that is zero, there should be still a lot of wealth as return if the economy is already rich enough. What would be a problem is a negative growth. Or I am missing something? -
RobbieS2 at 15:51 PM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Dana two specific issues with your analysis (though i agree with the overall rebuttal you have presented of Spencer. 1) in relation to Co2 emissions it is important to understand the relationship between Co2 and factor production. Just looking at emission to population is an incorrect use of this ratio. For example US emits the same amount (almost) of Co2 as does china BUT china produces only 40% of US GDP with this level of emissions (India is similar although a little better than China). Thus problem in India and China is manifold not just simple emission reduction. 2) This takes us to Nordhaus analysis. Th economic discounts rates he has used are based on all things being equal. In relation to Co2 emission and its relationship with factor production they are not equal and thus Nordhaus actually overstates the costs and overstates the impacts in $$ terms. I can address this in detail with a submission if you allow me. thanks -
Tom Curtis at 15:24 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
From Peru @20, 1) It does not require exponential growth in perpetuity for the the discount rate to be justified, only for the duration of the calculation, ie, the next 100 years. You can, of course, point out that the cost benefit analyses by economists ignore harms beyond the current century in their calculations. That is correct, and another reason why I dislike them as tools of analysis for global warming. That is not, however, a problem with the discount rate but one of short term thinking. 2) Even if the 3% growth rate is not sustainable over the course of this century, that would be true (or not) regardless of global warming, and hence is a separate issue. Therefore economists are justified in treating it as a separate issue and using the current pure rate of investment as a discount rate until it is established that the rate of return on investments must decline. 3) Arguments that the economic growth rate must be limited in the long term are premised on several key assumptions, the most important of which is that economic growth must be matched with a similar growth in the use of physical resources. That premise is false. Currently exponential economic growth is being sustained with a linear growth in resources. 4) Although the inability of our economy to handle periods of low or negative grow does reveal a real flaw in the structure of our economies, a genuine zero growth economy is of necessity only possible in a static society and hence a highly regimented and non-democratic society. This follows from the requirement that investment be made with no net rate of return. Such a society is in no way desirable, and we should devote all our energies to ensuring it is not necessary if we have regard for more than mere survival as the sole good of future generations. -
John Hartz at 15:10 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
@ From Peru: Suggested reading: “Pricing climate change” by John Hassler, Professor of Economics at the Institute for International Economic Studies, Stckholm University -
Bob Lacatena at 13:44 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
20, From Peru, A hockey stick! I see a hockey stick!!!! And yes, there is something seriously wrong with a society that requires constant growth to simply maintain the status quo. History is full of "corrections." I really don't want to see the one that's coming (except that history says that we'll see a series of small, but still painful, corrections instead of one large one). Love the graphic, BTW. -
From Peru at 13:18 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
Tom Curtis: You said: "So, in your example, the bank can invest the money and get a return of, on average 3% per annum without anybody loosing. Indeed, some others will gain from positive externalities." For how much time? Environmental climate damage can last tens-hundreds of thounsands of years (like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event). Do you think you can have a 3% of sustainable growth for 100 000 years? This image comes to my mind:
Assuming eternal growth is one of the reasons of the current mess, as was discussed here.
Alexandre:
You said " It's saying the goods this generation will enjoy have to be considered as more important than the goods the next generations will do "
And you are totally right.I do not know much about economics, so I was asking a bold question to see if someone else with more knowledge on the topic has arrived at the same thought than me, or if instead I had missed something.
I could not know much about economics, but I feel that something is completely wrong about how our society is described.I post this comment to see if others share the same feeling.
-
jzk at 12:47 PM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Well Sphaerica@83, (-snip-)Response:[DB] Your comments were moderated due to a failure on your part to establish relevancy to the OP of this post. If you wish to continue your line of reasoning, replete with sources, far more relevant threads exist here at SkS than this one (use the Search function in the upper left of every page here).
Before commenting again, please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy & ensure future comments comply with it. Thank you.
Moderation complaints and off-topic comments snipped.
-
muoncounter at 12:47 PM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
jzk#82: There's a bit of truth to that. A better way to put it is Arctic ice is way more variable - in the down direction - than it used to be. -
Alexandre at 12:33 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
From Peru Like Tom said above, the concept of the discount rate is better understood (IMO) if you are comparing different investment possibilities. If you invest $100 to earn $100 back in 2 years, you'd probably be better off if you just keep the money safely in your pocket. Your project may not work. You could die in the meantime. The risk of the return not effectively occurring would make the investment unattractive. Ok, that's the finacial principle. There are a few serious issues with applying the same idea to environmental problems, however. The most serious one (again, IMO) is the intergeneration ethics. It's not comparing something with a quick return to a slower one anymore: it's saying that the apple you eat today is (sgnificantly) more worth than the apple your great grandson will eat. It's saying the goods this generation will enjoy have to be considered as more important than the goods the next generations will do. It takes a lot of academic funnel view to apply the financial principle at face value to AGW. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:31 PM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
82, jzk,Arctic Ice is very variable.
An unsupported and vacuous interpretation of the science. Go back and read the link you provided, understand it and apply it coherently (with logic) to the problem at hand. BTW, this is yet another cherry pick... very Lindzenesque of you. Find something that when viewed uncritically would seem to support your position and distract from the truth, and then stick with that and ignore all of the other evidence. Hint: consider the information provided for you (and also included in the article to which you linked) concerning what was different about the environment then (the HTM) versus now. You might also stop to think how quickly the environment you describe came to pass. Do you think it happened in 30 to 50 years, like we're doing now? You throw out statements like "Arctic Ice is very variable" as if this is just an ongoing condition, and any day the Arctic ice could start to melt away, just on a whim, because it's, you know, variable. Let's go, jzk, get up to speed. Your nonsense fools no one, and neither does Lindzen's. -
Tom Curtis at 12:13 PM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
From Peru @17, suppose (implausibly) that I was a low tech farmer with a horse. I want to use the horse to plow the fields because it will be much more efficient than using a hoe, and I will be able to plant a larger crop. So, I go to the bank and get a loan to buy a horse collar, harness and plow. With that investment, I double my income, but need to give half of the extra back to the bank in repayment for the loan over a period of 5 years. For that five years, I am better of, and the bank is better of. This is an investment which has generated wealth. As it turns out, the average rate of return on investments is about 3% per annum. So, in your example, the bank can invest the money and get a return of, on average 3% per annum without anybody loosing. Indeed, some others will gain from positive externalities. I think there is a serious problem with a purely economic analysis of the cost of global warming. Such an analysis is simply incapable of totalizing the costs of (for example) the complete loss of the Great Barrier Reef. But the employment of a low discount rate is not one of them. -
jzk at 12:03 PM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Citation@79, http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/arctique-banquise-10.000-ans.pdf Arctic Ice is very variable.Response: [DB] You have failed to show how Funder et al is on-topic and germane to the OP. -
Tom Curtis at 12:02 PM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
jzk @79 the summer insolation in the Arctic was much greater (up to 8%) 11 to 6 thousand years ago than it is now. That would have resulted in a much greater retreat in summer sea ice, only partly compensated by the greater winter sea ice extent due to the lower insolation during the Arctic winter at the same time. Now, if you want to explain the current sea ice melt in the same terms, you only need to find a forcing that increases arctic summer forcing by 20 plus W/m^2 but without effecting global forcing.
-
From Peru at 11:57 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Moderator, I have posted a question about how are calculated the costs of externalities here wondering if the discount rate is just a way to hide costs. -
scaddenp at 11:55 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
6500BP is within Holecene Climatic Optimum, 4deg warmer in Arctic than today. This is consistent with (Milankovich) solar forcing. As DB asks, this is relevant to OP in what way? -
From Peru at 11:55 AM on 15 March 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
I have a question: Let's suppose I (and my sons, grandsons,etc)have a future cost of 10 000 $ a year due to pollution. This means that an income of 10000 $/year in necessary just to compensate my losses . To do this, the polluting company put 1000 000 $/person affected in the bank as a deposit, at an interest rate of 1%/year.So every year the bank gives each affected person 10 000$.This 1% is then assumed to be the "discount rate" of future pollution costs. The cost of the pollution is then estimated at 10000*N (N =number of people affected, assumed constant in time). However, this is just the cost paid by the polluting company. Now most of the burden is on the bank, because those 10000$/person paid every year do not grow magically inside the bank. And the bank must receive at least 10 000$/person every year to do this.This is obtained from the people that borrow money and then return it with an interest, with the detail that interest rate that the bank take from the borrowers is always bigger than the interest rate of deposits. So if the bank gives me 10 000$ every year, it takes 10 000$ plus some interest from others. Here is unmasked the financial lie that "infinite future losses equal finite present losses, with: present cost =future annual cost *interest annual rate Actually that costs are paid by bank borrowers, and even worse, is all that plus the interests needed for the bank to have a profit. And in our finance-dependent society, this means that that costs that the polluting company still do not pay (equal to the total accumulated cost minus the amount given by the above formula) is paid by all us plus an amount needed by the banks to have profits. Final result: the finacial trick actually increased the social costs of pollution, now mainly paid by bank borrowers. So we have changed one externality with another! This means that to estimate the true cost too society, me must sum the future cost without discounting them. Actally we should do the opposite if the clean-up is paid via the financial system, with the obvious result that actual total damage done by pollution is much bigger than the common estimations. So , this does not mean that the "discount rate" relevant for estimating the present costs of future pollution is actually zero or even negative? -
DMarshall at 11:40 AM on 15 March 2012Peter Sinclair interview with Michael Mann
There's a radio program on the CBC site (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) called "Demon Coal" but it quickly shifts to criticizing AGW and trots out the premier Canuck contrarians, including Ross McKittrick - and an extensive interview with Judith Curry. I must say, she's moving ever more towards denialism. Part 2 will available Mar 19 -
jzk at 11:32 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Sphaerica@78, I said it was subject to debate. The point is that Arctic ice has experienced great variability including having about half of today's ice 6500 years ago. What caused it then?Response:[DB] "including having about half of today's ice 6500 years ago"
Unsupported assertion; citation needed. Also needed: context as to why this is pertinent to the OP.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:22 AM on 15 March 2012Glaciers are growing
Sorry, I forgot to properly explain the map in my previous post. It is the map of the geothermal energy (including from volcanoes) of various part of the Earth. The units are mW/m^2, so need to be divided by a thousand to show values of Watts per meter squared. Source -
Tom Curtis at 11:18 AM on 15 March 2012Glaciers are growing
Henry Justice @26, you continue to make a string of claims with no attempt to either justify, reference or defend them. That is called trolling. Forum rules forbid me from saying what I think of trolls. Take your claim about about Arctic volcanoes. A troll says "arctic volcanoes" ergo heat from volcanoes is melting the ice. Somebody with intellectual integrity, in contrast, would seek to answer several questions. a) The volcanoes are newly discovered, but are they newly existing? If they are not new volcanoes, then their presence is not a change to the Arctic heat budget and therefore cannot explain changes in Arctic ice extent. b) Can the heat from the volcanoes reach the surface? The answer here is not obvious. The Arctic is the location of a strong down welling current as part of the thermo-haline circulation. Therefore heat from subsurface volcanoes in that region are likely to be carried in the subsurface current into the depths of the Atlantic, and hence to the Antarctic rather than to simply be carried to the surface. c) Can the volcanoes significantly effect the surface temperature? There is a lot of water between the volcanoes and the surface, and water can absorb a lot of heat. To raise the temperature of surface water significantly, the volcanoes must raise the temperature of the entire water column. It is very unlikely that they have enough heat to do so. d) Do the volcanoes have enough heat to melt the ice? As it happens, summer Arctic sea ice reduces in volume by about 100 km^3 every year. That would require 3.34 x 10^19 Joules to melt. The heat from those undersea volcanoes comes to about 0.45 W/m^2 or less:
That means there would need to be 2.35 million square kilometers of these under sea volcanoes to melt the ice.
So are there? Have they found 2.35 million square kilometers of previously non-existing under sea volcanoes in the Arctic? Or is this just another trolling drive by.
Trolling only works because the troll needs make no intellectual effort, while the rebuttal of the trolling does! I don't like that ratio, so if you are not a troll, you need to answer all four of my questions above, with linked or properly cited sources, and with the steps of your arguments clearly laid out. If you are not prepared to do so, then you clearly are a troll, which is sufficient rebuttal of any point you pretend to make. Trolls have no intellectual integrity - they have put no effort into forming their "opinions". Therefore they need be given no intellectual credence. Over to you.
Moderator Response: I've deleted Henry Justice's comment you are responding to, because not only was it trolling, it was not really on topic. -
Paul D at 10:50 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Actually another bad socialist example in the UK is the '1 million climate jobs' campaign. It is run by the Campaign Against Climate Change (CACC) group, which is frankly a group of union members. Hence the emphasis on creating jobs in the campaign title, rather than finding realistic solutions that would cut carbon emissions but maybe not produce 1 million jobs. The problem with this approach is that they often want technology solutions that may be inappropriate or not even available yet. OK they aren't skeptics, but their approach starts with socialism, then tacks on climate change policy on the side. -
scaddenp at 10:27 AM on 15 March 2012Glaciers are growing
"Sublimation may indicate a change in atmospheric air streams to a drier air. Glacier melting from increased warming via conduction is certainly a factor, not necessarily air temps increases." And the evidence for this what? And where is the extra heat from conduction coming from? Almost of all of glacier melt is in the ablation zone, and in many cases, ice loss is accelerated by calving. As to the sudden appearance of volcanoes causing melting where it wasnt before, leaving aside the question that heat flow from volcanoes is very localised, in what ways would such melting be different than that caused by warming? And how does that compare with observation? -
Bob Lacatena at 10:17 AM on 15 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
75, jzk, "His conclusion that because summer radiative forcing doesn't seem to be changing CO2 must not be a factor is.." ... utterly ridiculous, and you've bought it hook, line and sinker. What do you think is melting Arctic ice, and extending the melt season, if not increased temperatures? What is it, ice gremlins? That's the cherry pick... choose the statistic that appears, on the surface, to support the position you want people to select, and ignore the obvious, which is that it can't possibly be true. First... CO2 / GHG can be a factor if part of that influence is to raise spring, fall and winter temperatures and limit ice recovery as far as depth, not extent. This actually makes a lot of sense, because the thing about the Arctic in the summer is the length of the day and therefore the amount of direct solar radiation. In that situation, the importance of the GHG effect is diminished. Switch that to the long winter, and low incidence spring and fall, and suddenly GHGs become important. Of course, Lindzen knows that, even if you don't. Second... as explained, summer temperatures can appear more normal than otherwise because a whole lot of that energy is going into melting ice instead of raising surface temperatures. It takes 80 times as much energy to melt one gram of ice as it takes to raise 1 gram of water 1˚C. Third... as Albatross pointed out, what temperatures are really being measured and considered? We don't have good coverage of the Arctic, so you can't even really say that what he's saying is true. The bottom line... Arctic ice is melting in an alarming fashion, so I don't need a thermometer to tell me that the Arctic is warming, and anyone like Lindzen who is sticking a thermometer in your face and crowing "see, see, ignore that CO2 stuff, it's nonsense" is obscenely manipulating you. -
Flakmeister at 10:02 AM on 15 March 2012New research from last week 10/2012
JE Solheim as in http://junkscience.com/2012/03/14/solheim-the-long-sunspot-cycle-23-predicts-a-significant-temperature-decrease-in-cycle-24/ and yes that Humlum... Ole! Ole! Seems I just got my self banned from junkscience for having the temerity to rip apart (using facts nicely, I might add!) every posting on oil/energy over the past few days... I guess you are not allowed to respond to Milloy calling Obama a Marxist... And saying Inhofe is a hypocrite for not adhering to Isiah might not of helped... ;-) -
adelady at 09:37 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
"Now we are at a point where we are trying to persuade people that radical changes need to be made to our energy infrastructure--in effect, our fundamental way of life." I disagree strongly with that. People don't see the infrastructure at all when considering their "way of life". All they want is for the power to come on when they hit the switch. And if building or retrofitting housing with higher standards of insulation and other energy saving measures results in more comfortable lives with lower power bills, that's a win. In rural areas, communities often favour wind and similar renewable power generation because it keeps jobs and livelihoods in areas which would otherwise lose population. -
adelady at 09:17 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
"The alternative, more half-measures and a general paralysis, will otherwise likely persist until the 2016 election cycle." I have no idea how your political scenario might pan out this year and the next. But there will certainly be at least one El Nino year between now and 2016 and there will probably be a near-as-dammit-is-to-swearing ice-free summer period in the Arctic by then. A hot period will have horrible fodder from some places for TV news - a re-run of Russia or Europe's worst summer, Australia and/or the Mediterranean and/or California burning or poor old Pakistan getting drowned out again - will have an effect. And if there are any repeats of hurricanes dumping unprecedented rainfall in those unexpected more northerly regions of the East Coast of the USA, the power of those messages will be mutually reinforcing. In my jaundiced view, getting the message in the second decade of this century will be on the too little, too late spectrum. But I suppose it's not as bad as the next decades. -
Trent1492 at 09:09 AM on 15 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #10
@DB, Just want to give you a heads up that the Talk Origins people who combat creationism in the U.S have a wonderful index of debunking articles. I have found it a joy a to navigate. An index like that would be a real help. -
Don9000 at 08:51 AM on 15 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Why Roy Spencer holds his position is not clear to me, but the appeal of his argument to many working and middle class Republican (and I'm sure many similarly situated Democratic voters) in the US is readily understandable: They already have suffered serious drops in their living standards from changes that have impacted American society over the last thirty or forty years. Some of these changes, such as free trade, were claimed by the government to be good for working class people, but that has not turned out to be true for many people, including many middle class voters. Now we are at a point where we are trying to persuade people that radical changes need to be made to our energy infrastructure--in effect, our fundamental way of life. And the plain truth is that the changes that are necessary will result in economic pain. Arguing that suffering the pain now, rather than experience much more pain some nebulous number of years or decades down the road is a very hard sell. Remember, the same part of the political spectrum that is in denial about the threat posed by climate change is also opposed to big government in a general sense. Many of the people in this segment of society have bought into the fantasy that if only big government can be dismantled, they will suddenly be free to become fabulously wealthy. With thoughts like these dancing in your head, I suspect it is much easier to listen to people like Spencer (including Rush Limbaugh, and the various other voices on that side of the debate) who, claiming to speak from positions of impeccable authority, argue we should not change rather than go down a path whose advocates admit has costs associated with it that are measured in the trillions of dollars. Many of the things that scare me about global warming are also less likely to scare people focused on narrow self-interests, like the rising cost of gasoline, which somehow Obama is being held responsible for. For example, only about 1% of Americans make their living as farmers, so those who don't have intimate connections to farming are not likely to worry about the predicted future the US faces of a much higher frequency of agricultural droughts for almost the entire lower 48 states if things keep moving along on the present course. Similarly, few residents of interior states have immediate reasons to worry about the potential for a future global sea-level rise of a meter or so by 2100, and some of them probably think that many residents of cities like New York, Boston, Washington, DC, New Orleans, and Miami may well deserve to be deluged. Also, when politicians like Obama advocate investing in alternate energy sources, few Americans can see a direct benefit to having wind turbines installed in areas they consider scenic when they know that the installation will also directly result in a higher cost at their electric meters, and even fewer like the idea of having a nuclear power plant built in their proverbial back yard. Finally, when anyone tries to argue that the best way forward is to impose a carbon tax, most of these Americans hear that dirty three letter word and know they don't agree with anything that a person advocating such a step may say. Many people in the US, from all points in the political spectrum, including, I suspect, many politicians, are quite simply woefully lacking in the knowledge or interest necessary to assess the merits of the debating points in this particular argument, and thus the person who offers up a rosy scenario where radical change is unnecessary has a huge advantage. For these reasons, I feel Spencer's message has a deep appeal. This situation points to the profound dangers present in a democracy where the voters are poorly informed. Since the US is a giant in this quagmire, I believe a necessary step is for President Obama, either with the cooperation of the Congress, or without it, to begin an official and extensive formal review of the science and economics, bringing in experts from all different fields to testify about the science and the consequences of action and inaction, etc., and he should by all means include accredited dissenters since we want and in fact need their bad arguments to be exposed, but the initial goal of this lengthy course of public hearings would be to get on the record the best arguments from both sides in a public forum that the deniers cannot simply dismiss as the workings of the UN. In short, I think we should want our scientists to debate the other side's scientists quite visibly and loudly. Over the course of 6 months or so of hearings and testimony that explores all the details we are familiar with on this site, with interim reports being released on a steady basis, and as much televised coverage as possible via C-SPAN and various news outlets, Obama could do a lot to get the debate moving. I even think this kind of bold action may be necessary if he hopes to win a second term, since the half-measures he's adopted or advocated to date have of course made it look like he wants to do more if given the chance, so the opposition uses that suspicion to gin up its base, even while he holds back the really weighty other shoe. I'd rather have Obama damned for something he did than condemned to failure because he's afraid to even open up the debate. For that matter, if he barely wins a second term without bringing this debate into the open before that victory, I suspect he will not be able to do much at all given the gridlock in Congress. For these reasons, I feel the debate in the US desperately needs to come out into the full glare of political daylight, since even if it costs the Democrats the Senate and the White House this fall, the seeds of change it will plant will be increasingly hard to ignore as climate change proceeds apace. The alternative, more half-measures and a general paralysis, will otherwise likely persist until the 2016 election cycle.
Prev 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 Next
